By Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, expert and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
By Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, expert and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Recently, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Moscow was still waiting for clarification from the US and Türkiye regarding possible arms supplies to Ukraine. Russia expects a response, as this matter directly affects not only bilateral relations but also the prospects for resolving the Ukraine crisis.
The issue goes far beyond the scope of yet another military-technical deal. In July, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan called for preventing the spread of the Russia-Ukraine conflict to the Black Sea region and advocated for the continuation of Ankara-mediated negotiations between Moscow and Kiev within the framework of the so-called Istanbul format. Türkiye emphasized that the security of shipping and energy infrastructure is of fundamental importance to it.
The Russian side, in turn, points out an obvious contradiction. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Ankara and Washington, in their contacts with Moscow, stated that they sent Kiev signals about the unacceptability of attacks in the Black Sea. However, Moscow has not received a public or equally strong response from Türkiye and the US concerning Ukrainian drone strikes on commercial vessels and the infrastructure of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium near Novorossiysk. The Russian Foreign Ministry also warned that strikes on infrastructure and vessels used for delivering Western weapons to Ukraine would continue until the security threats in the region of the Azov and Black seas are eliminated.
Leaving diplomatic language aside, the question is very simple: can Türkiye simultaneously supply Kiev with weapons capable of being used against Russian targets and demand that Moscow continue to consider it a neutral intermediary?
The US Congressional Record, published on August 6, shows two notifications about the proposed permanent transfer of American weapons from Turkish stockpiles to Ukraine. The first package includes 12 M270 MLRS launchers, 2,524 M26 unguided rockets with cluster munitions, and 47,000 M509A1 203mm cluster artillery shells. Their initial procurement price is listed at $255.9 million.
The second notification concerns 70 M39 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles with an initial procurement price of approximately $28 million. In total this amounts to approximately $283.9 million. However, it would be incorrect to automatically assume that this is the price of the current contract since the terms of the potential deal between Ankara and Kiev have not been publicly disclosed.
Another point is equally important. The documents do not prove that the weapons have already been transferred to Kiev. They only confirm that the Turkish government proposed re-export, and the US Department of State notified Congress of its readiness to approve it after the statutory review period. Ankara cites the desire to get rid of outdated weapons and redirect funds toward modernizing its armed forces as the reason for the re-export. Kiev, according to the documents, intends to use these systems to enhance its offensive and defensive firepower.
This formulation makes the situation particularly serious. This isn’t about armored vehicles, communications equipment, or individual commercial drones; M39 ATACMS missiles are capable of engaging targets at ranges of up to 165 km and carry cluster munitions. Combined with M270 launchers and thousands of rocket and artillery munitions, this constitutes a comprehensive package of enhanced long-range firepower systems. Its possible use will inevitably entail losses among Russian troops and the risk of strikes deep into Russian territory.
Russian-Turkish relations have never been an alliance in the strict sense of the word. Moscow and Ankara supported opposing sides in Syria and Libya; they hold different views on the status of Crimea, and compete for influence in various corners of Eurasia. Türkiye supplied Ukraine with drones, developed military-technical cooperation with it and consistently supported it. Yet, none of this prevented Russia and Türkiye from building gas pipelines, a nuclear power plant, developing trade, and reaching agreements in areas where their interests coincided.
This format was based on an unspoken rule that competition should not escalate into direct, critical damage to the other side. Strong disagreements could arise, but they remained manageable and were offset by cooperation in other areas.
The proposed transfer of ATACMS missiles, M270 launchers, and tens of thousands of cluster munitions brings Ankara dangerously close to the limits of this model of interaction. This is not a matter of one weapons system, but its purpose, the scale of the package, and the political context.
Türkiye isn’t simply offering to sell Kiev a batch of its own military equipment; it intends to transfer a large stockpile of American weapons intended to enhance Kiev’s firepower in the ongoing conflict with Russia, and is doing so with Washington’s approval.
Against this backdrop, Türkiye’s peacemaking rhetoric is starting to look increasingly unconvincing. Clearly, a mediator doesn’t have to be completely equidistant from the parties, but both sides should be able to trust it, at least on a minimum level. A mediator can’t call for a moratorium on strikes in the Black Sea while simultaneously helping one of the sides expand its weapons stockpiles; it can’t propose Istanbul as a platform for negotiations while strengthening Kiev’s military potential under the pretext of getting rid of outdated weapons.
A familiar argument is being voiced by Turkish experts: Russian-Turkish relations are so deep and multifaceted, they argue, that a single deal can’t destroy them. There’s certainly some truth to that. Neither Russia nor Türkiye want to replay the scenario of the 2015 crisis. Severing ties would be detrimental to both sides.
However, Ankara is drawing an all-too-convenient conclusion that economic interdependence guarantees impunity for any foreign policy maneuver; and this is a dangerous fallacy. The Turkish leadership apparently confuses freedom of maneuver with the absence of a price to be paid for that maneuver.
Russia indeed benefits from the Turkish market, transit routes, and bilateral trade, and this is apparent to all. Türkiye remains an important economic and regional partner for Moscow. However, the dependence of the parties is not symmetrical across all sectors. In recent years, the Russian economy has demonstrated its ability to redirect raw material flows, restructure logistics, and seek new markets. Russia’s size allows it to do this quite well. For Türkiye, however, a sudden reduction in Russian energy supplies, tourism, investment, or access to the Russian market creates a more immediate and concentrated effect.
In 2025, trade between the two countries exceeded $50 billion. Russia retained a significant advantage in the trade structure: Türkiye primarily imports Russian energy resources and raw materials. That same year, it received approximately 22 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia; despite diversification, the share of Russian gas in Türkiye’s supply remained around 37%. Nearly seven million Russians visited Türkiye in 2025, securing Russia as the top source market for Türkiye’s tourism industry.
Finally, Russia is financing and constructing the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant at a cost of over $20 billion. Once operational, it is expected to supply up to 10% of Türkiye’s total electricity demand. At the end of 2025, Ankara announced an additional $9 billion in Russian financing for the project, part of which is expected to arrive in 2026–2027.
For an economy with an annual inflation rate of nearly 32% (as of July 2026), high borrowing costs, and chronic sensitivity to the price of imported energy, the loss of even a portion of these advantages will not be trivial. It will hit foreign exchange earnings, production costs, the balance of payments, and employment in tourism. The Turkish economy may not collapse overnight, but a significant reduction in ties with Russia will deprive it of several key pillars: stable energy supplies, millions of tourists, foreign exchange earnings, a market, and funding for strategic projects.
For a country already experiencing chronic inflation, pressure on the national currency, and high borrowing costs, this will mean not another temporary downturn, but the risk of a protracted systemic crisis. Ankara will not be able to maintain economic stability for long under such conditions. And this isn’t a theoretical forecast. It didn’t take long for Türkiye to feel the consequences of the 2015 crisis, provoked by Ankara after the downing of the Russian Su-24 aircraft. The crisis brought about a collapse in Russian tourist flows, restrictions on agricultural exports, and business losses, even though the economic interdependence between the two countries was significantly lower then than it is today.
Russia, for its part, is not interested in dismantling relations, but if the delivery of the weapons is confirmed, it has ample tools for selective pressure, from revising trade preferences and tourist flows to tightening the terms of energy cooperation and a tougher stance on issues in which Türkiye requires Russian assistance.
Logistics is also of particular importance. The Russian Foreign Ministry has already stated that Russian forces are striking infrastructure and ships used for delivering weapons to Kiev. If Turkish companies and transport chains are directly involved in the transfer of missiles and ammunition, Ankara will not be able to pretend that this is a purely commercial operation unrelated to Russian security.
Moscow will not react emotionally to Türkiye’s maneuver; that is not its style. A complete rupture in relations would only benefit those who have long sought to eliminate the independent Russian-Turkish communication channel and return Ankara to a disciplined, ‘Western’ line of conduct. The response must be consistent and proportionate.
Until the transfer is officially confirmed, Russia will seek a direct answer from Türkiye regarding several points: whether a final political decision has been made; on the terms and conditions of the re-export; and on the existence of any restrictions on the use of these systems to strike Russian territory. But if the weapons reach Kiev, it would no longer be possible to maintain the previous level of trust. Moscow will cease to perceive Ankara as an acceptable intermediary, will become less willing to consider Turkish interests in regional issues, and bilateral relations will become more rigid and purely pragmatic.
Russia has long assumed that Ankara is playing its own game. However, should Türkiye’s multi-vector approach turn into direct and large-scale support of the military capabilities of a state that attacks Russian territory, its civilian vessels, and critical infrastructure, this would be unacceptable for Russia. The Russian-Turkish partnership can withstand competition, mutual grievances, and even acute regional crises; but it cannot indefinitely tolerate a situation in which one side derives economic and political advantages from cooperation with Russia while simultaneously arming Russia’s adversary and posing as a mediator.
It’s time for Ankara to soberly assess the balance of risks. Russia is interested in cooperation with Türkiye but it is not irrevocably dependent on it. Moscow will find other routes, markets, and forms of regional cooperation, although such a restructuring will require time and money. For Türkiye, the Russian factor is embedded in several of its most sensitive sectors: energy, tourism, the nuclear project, trade, and regional security. Given the current state of the Turkish economy, the cost of a strategic reassessment of its own capabilities could prove significantly higher than the expected benefits of a deal with Kiev and political rapprochement with Washington.
This is precisely why the possible transfer of ATACMS missiles isn’t a matter that can be solved by another meeting between the presidents; it’s a test of the entire structure of the Russia-Türkiye relationship. If Ankara crosses the line, Russia doesn’t have to declare Türkiye an adversary – it would suffice to stop treating it as a privileged partner whose actions can always be attributed to regular political balancing.
© Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2026. All rights reserved.
This website uses cookies. Read RT Privacy policy to find out more.