Turkey-USSR relations during the Turgut Ozal administration

In the press conference held after the visit, the focus was on Gorbachev's appointment, and questions that put Foreign Minister Vahit Halefoglu in a difficult position were raised at the meeting from time to time Di§i§leri Bakani ofkeli, Halefoglu: istifa yok // Milliyet. 2 Agustos 1986.. When Ozal was asked «When did you learn that you could not meet with Gorbachev?», he answered «I learned it after coming here that the meeting would not take place». It also appeared in the news that when asked by a journalist «If you had been notified in advance that there would be no meeting, would you have cancelled your visit?», he replied «I do not think so, I would not have cancelled it» Ergin S. Gonulsuz randevuya soguk te§ekkur // Milliyet. 2 Agustos 1986..

In fact, the Turkish delegation went to Moscow at the invitation of not Gorbachev but Soviet Prime Minister Ryzhkov. Nevertheless, Turkey was swift to respond Gorbachev's approach to Ozal. Turkish members of parliament pressured the USSR. The issue of Crimean Tatars, who had been exiled by the order of Stalin, was brought to the agenda in TBMM (Qasimli, M. 2012, p. 306-345).

While Turkish representatives were being shot down by Armenian terrorists, the discrimination against the Turks in Bulgaria was becoming violent, and the

Aegean dispute with Greece was still on the agenda, this stance of the Gorbachev administration, just like during the Stalin era, was aiming to pressure Turkey and leave it in a tight spot, and to attain a strategic position in the Mediterranean. Undoubtedly, the Soviet proposal was not triggered by a desire to solve the Cyprus issue (Qasimli, M. 2012, p. 357-358).

However, both sides wished that the development in relations would continue. In this context, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vahit Halefog- lu, met with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Eduard Shevardnadze, and evaluated the bilateral relations in detail when they were both in New York between September 22 and October 6 for the 39th meeting of General Assembly of the United Nations.

Turkey was declared to be an Exclusive Economic Zone in the Black Sea with the Decree of the Council of Ministers published in the Official Gazette on December 17, 1986. In the Decree, it was stated that Restrictive Agreements would be made with other countries coastal to the Black Sea in an equitable way. In this framework, as a result of the bilateral contacts with the USSR, an agreement was reached on February 11, 1987. The border that was agreed to delimit the Continental Shelf between Turkey and the USSR in 1978 would also be the border for the Turkish and Soviet Exclusive Economic Zones.

Between May 15-22, 1987, the Co-chairman of Turkey-USSR Joint Economic Commission and the Minister of Finance and Customs, A. K. Alptemoqin, visited the USSR. During his visit, on May 21, the Turkey-USSR Scientific and Technical Cooperation Activity Report for 1987-1988 was signed in Moscow.

The Deputy Prime Minister of the USSR, V. M. Kamentsev, visited Turkey between June 22-24, 1987 to attend the opening ceremony of the Turkey -- USSR Natural Gas Pipeline История поставок советского и российского газа в Европу // Коммерсантъ. 05.06.2018.. Taking place between September 2-9, the negotiations for the Consulate Agreement between Turkey and the Soviet Union resulted in success when a working document was signed on September 9 in Ankara, and the 6th term meeting of the Turkish-Soviet Joint Control Commission that was jointly controlling the River Crossing of the Turkish-Soviet State Borderline came to an end when a protocol was signed on September 11.

As a result of the negotiations held in Moscow between December 21-25, the Air Travel Agreement signed between Turkey and the USSR in 1967 was revised. Thanks to this revision, THY (Turkish Airlines) would be able to fly to the Far East by using the Siberian line after Moscow. This revision was one of the indicators of mutual trust in the aviation field of the two countries. As it may be recalled, the U-2 spy aircraft crisis had been experienced between Turkey and the USSR earlier (in 1960) even though it was due to the USA.

Bilateral relations, regional and international problems were discussed during the talks held on December 9-10, 1987 in Ankara between the Soviet dele-gation presided by Ambassador Yuri Alekseyev, who was also the Head of Middle East Unit under the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs and responsible for relations with Turkey, and the Turkish delegation presided by Ambassador Nur- ver Nure§, the Deputy Undersecretary of Bilateral Political Affairs. All of these are indications of the importance both sides attached to relations with each other.

Meanwhile, the Anavatan (Motherland) Party, of which Prime Minister Tur- gut Ozal was the leader, won the parliamentary elections of 29 November 1987 with 292 deputies and obtained the absolute majority in the Parliament1. Ozal uttered the following statements about the relations with the Soviet Union in the Program of the 46th Republic Government in TBMM on December 25, 1987: «We aim to develop friendship and good neighbourly relations, and to increase cooperation especially in the economic and commercial fields with our northern neighbour the Soviet Union and other socialist states within the framework of the principles of sovereignty, independence, equality of rights, respect for territorial integrity and non-interference in their internal affairs» 29 Kasim 1987: ANAP ikinci Kez Tek Bakina iktidar Oldu. T. B. M. M. tutanak dergisi. Donem. 18 cilt: 1 Yasama Yili: 1..

Having started on March 17, Civil Aviation negotiations between the Soviet and Turkish Delegations resulted in success on March 25, 1988, and a Protocol and two accompanying agreements were signed. Thus, the issues related to the Black Sea Airspace that had been going on for 19 years between the two countries were resolved.

In accordance with the Protocol signed on April 8, 1988, the Sarp Border Gate between Turkey and the Soviet Union was opened to road and freight transport on August 31, 1988.

During the visit of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, Yuli M. Vorontsov, to Turkey between April 26-30, the Consulate Agreement that had not been brought to a conclusion for 20 years was signed. In addition, the possibilities for further development of cooperation with the Soviet Union in various fields were reviewed.

In the meantime, in the statements made by the Turkish authorities, the steps the USSR took to embrace detente in global politics and the decision to leave Afghanistan were evaluated positively. Besides, following the earthquake that caused serious loss of life and property in the Armenian SSR, Turkey declared that they were ready for all kinds of help through governmental agencies on December 8, 1988.

Between December 26-28, 1988, Ambassador Nuzhet Kandemir, the Undersecretary of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, paid a visit to the Soviet Union as a guest of Alexander Bessmertnykh, the First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, in order to hold political consultation. During his visit, Nuzhet Kandemir also held a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze and Minister of Foreign Economic Relations Katuschev. Shevardnadze thanked Turkey for their support after the earthquake that took place in the Armenian SSR.

On May 20, 1989, Pilot Captain Aleksandr Zuyev landed at Trabzon Airport with a MIG-29 type plane he was piloting and notified Turkish authorities that he would like to defect to the USA, which caused tension in the Turkey-USSR relations again. The USSR requested the return of Pilot Captain Aleksandr Zuyev and the plane. The Soviet Embassy in Ankara presented the documents prepared by the Caucasus Military District Prosecutor's Office in the attachments of two notes dated June 1 and 2 to Turkey. Ankara 8th Criminal Court of First Instance stated in its decision dated June 6, 1989 and numbered 1989/54 that the crimes attributed to Zuyev were of a political and military nature; and in this respect, the Turkish Penal Code ruled that the perpetrator would not be extradited in the light of the Turkish law and the decisions of the Supreme Court and the international agreements to which Turkey was a party. Therefore, the asylum request of the pilot to the USA was met, but the plane was returned to the USSR.

Between November 29 and December 7, 1989, a delegation presided by the First Deputy Chairman of Council of Ministers of the USSR, Lev Voronin, visited Turkey. The «Final Protocol» was signed in Moscow at the end of the 10th term meeting of the Turkish-Soviet Joint Control Commission that was jointly controlling the River Crossing of the Turkish-Soviet State Borderline that took place between November 29 and December 8.

In the meantime, after Kenan Evren, whose term of office expired, Prime Minister Ozal was elected the 8th President of the country with 263 votes in the third round of the voting in TBMM on October 31, 19891. He took the Presidential oath on November 9, 1989 and came into office 31 Ekim 1989: Turgut Ozal Turkiye'nin 8.Cumhurba§kani Sejildi. Turgut Ozal..

President Ozal and the Dissolution Period of the USSR

As of 1990, irremediable dissolution process gathered momentum for the USSR, and a busier process began in the foreign policy with Turgut Ozal becoming president and due to the effects of new global conditions. Among the important issues in this new period in the Turkey-USSR relations was how Turkey would react in the face of the struggle for independence in the Soviet republics and the territorial claims and attacks of the Armenian SSR against the Azerbaijan SSR. In the official statement made on this topic on January 16, 1990, it was stated that the issue was considered as an internal matter of the USSR. On January 18, 1990, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, A. Mesut Yilmaz, met with the Soviet Ambassador at a reception in Ankara to discuss the conflict going on between Azerbaijan and Armenia SSRs of the Soviet Union. In a statement he made after the meeting, Minister of Foreign Affairs Yilmaz said «There are alarming events that the whole world is watching closely. Having a natural affinity with Azerbaijanis with whom they share the same language and culture, the Turkish nation follows these developments very closely». Ankara Ambassador of the Soviet Union, Albert Chernyshev, delivered the opinions of the Soviets about the events in the Caucasus and the stance Turkey maintained in this regard to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, A. Mesut Yilmaz, on January 20, 1990. In the Soviet opinions it was highlighted that the events considered to be internal matters of the USSR and that they were satisfied with the stance of Turkey. It was also emphasised that «It is of significance that the Turkish side maintains the realistic and balanced stance that it adopted in line with mutual trust and understanding enabled by excellent relations between the Soviet Union and Turkey».

In the midst of all this, Moscow administration attacked civilian demonstrators asking for independence with tanks in Baku, and 131 people were killed and thousands were injured as a result (the events known as «Black January»), which caused a huge public reaction in Turkey. In many cities in Turkey, demonstrations against the USSR were held to support the Azerbaijan SSR. Being in the USA at the time, Turgut Ozal made a statement implying that the issue was an internal matter of the USSR and the Azerbaijan SSR had more affinity with Iran in fact. However, upon intense reactions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mesut Yilmaz invited the Soviet Ambassador to Ankara to his office on January 21 and received information about the latest developments in the Azerbaijan SSR. Another interesting development was that the rumours that Nakhchivan Supreme Soviet (the parliament of autonomous republic) decided to declare independence from the Soviet Union and join Turkey reached Ankara. Upon these developments, a crisis unit was established at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara. Desiring Nakhchivan to maintain its autonomous status as per the 1921 agreement, Ankara felt uneasy about the latest developments. Although the 1921 agreement authorized Turkey to have a say according to official sources, Ankara did not want to confront with Moscow. As a result, Turkey reacted to the January Massacre via all of its political parties including the ruling party, but not at governmental level (§im$ir, B. N. 2012).

Having overcome two important crisis risks (pilot captain and Black January) in less than a year, the Turkish-Soviet relations continued to develop, and the First Consultation Meeting of the Turkish-Soviet Ministries of Foreign Affairs was held in Moscow on July 9-16, 1990. Within these dates, the USSR Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, B. N. Chaplin, paid a visit to Turkey on June 13. During this visit, the «Visa Simplification Agreement» was signed Соглашение в форме обмена личными нотами между послом СССР в Турции и Министром иностранных дел Турции об упрощении визовых формальностей..

On August 25, 1990, Ozal had a telephone conversation with Gorbachev. During the meeting, Ozal conveyed his ideas to Gorbachev on the establishment of a «Black Sea Economic Zone» that would include the coastal republics on the Black Sea and other Balkan countries with a coast on the Black Sea. Gorbachev, on the other hand, invited Ozal to the USSR again. Ozal stated that he would endeavour to perform this visit early next year (1991).

The Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, Eduard Shevardnadze, visited Turkey at the invitation of the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ahmet Kurtcebe Alptemo^in, on December 13-14, 1990. Turkey and the USSR signed Cooperation Agreement on Fisheries.

On March 11, 1991, Turgut Ozal went to Moscow upon the invitation of USSR President Gorbachev1. State Minister Gune§ Taner, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Kurtcebe Alptemo^in and Minister of Culture Namik Kemal Zeybek accompanied President Turgut Ozal during the visit held between March 11-16.

Cumhuriyet newspaper reflected this news as «President Turgut Ozal's first visit to the Soviet Union after the “Cold War”», and emphasized that Ozal was accompanied by 3 ministers, 40 bureaucrats, 65 businesspeople and 30 journalists2.

Ozal officially proposed the establishment of the Black Sea Economic Organization in Moscow. Following the meetings lasting 2 days, the Soviet Union and Turkey declared each other as «friends» for the first time after the Stalin era. Three agreements were signed between the parties. The most important of these was the 20-year long treaty of friendship, alliance and cooperation3.

During Turgut Ozal's meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev, the developments in the Gulf and the Middle East were discussed. Stating that a peaceful solution was tried to be delivered to the Gulf crisis and that he appreciated Gorbachev's efforts in this respect, President Ozal stated that it was clearly shown that the international community would not allow the legal order to be violated with the Gulf crisis. After the negotiations were completed, it was announced that full consensus was achieved between the two countries on the Gulf issue4.

In terms of political relations, Turkey was no longer a distant neighbour of the Cold War era for the USSR. Both countries could solve the problem between each other and freely discuss regional and international issues concerning them. Therefore, located in a complicated region, Turkey had no other way other than conducting multilateral foreign policy after the Cold War became a thing of the past. Close relations were for the benefit of both countries (Qasimli, M. 2012, p. 423).

The dialogues also revealed that the meetings went well5. Boris Yeltsin praised Turgut Ozal in front of journalists after their talks and said, «We also need an economist president», which also appeared in the press6.

President Turgut Ozal flew to Kyiv after completing the official part of his visit to the USSR1. Ozal was welcomed by the President of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Republic, Leonid Makarovych Kravchuk, at the airport and a meeting was held between the two. Kravchuk said he believed this visit would contribute to the deepening of relations between Ukraine and Turkey. Then, official talks started and Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Kurtcebe Alptemoqin, Minister of Culture Namik Kemal Zeybek, Presidential Spokesperson Ambassador Kaya Toperi and Turkish Ambassador to Moscow Volkan Vural put in an appearance in the Turkish delegation during the official talks Pravda'dan Ozal'a ovgu // Milliyet. 15 Mart 1991. Moskova'yla Yeni Donem // Cumhuriyet. 14 Mart 1991..

This visit of Ozal's was the second visit of a President of the Turkish Republic in the 70-year history of Soviet-Turkish relations. Cevdet Sunay had made the previous visit to the uSsR in 1969 (Qasimli, M. 2012, p. 429).

While the relations were developing this way, Turkey exhibited an extremely cautious attitude again during the August 1991 coup d'etat attempt (SCSE event), which was a critical event for the USSR. Regarding a question about the developments in the Soviet Union on August 19, 1991, Minister of Foreign Affairs Safa Giray stated his wish that this development would not yield results contrary to the Soviet people's aspirations of democracy and economic reform, would not interrupt the positive developments achieved in the fields of international peace and security thanks in part to the USSR administration, and that our friendship and cooperation relations with the Soviet Union, which improved especially in recent years, would continue at the same level.

The visit of the Commander of the Turkish Armed Forces, Dogan Gure§, to the Soviet Union between October 8-12 was one of the most important turning points in terms of bilateral military relations. He had a talk with Soviet Defence Minister Marshal Shaposhnikov and invited him to Turkey Gure§'e buyuk ilgi // Milliyet. 10 Ekim. 1991.. Dogan Gure§ also visited Azerbaijan on October 11, 1991 with the Turkish Ambassador to the USSR. Permitting such a high-ranking Turkish military official to visit the USSR, especially to visit Azerbaijan after Moscow, was probably due to the disintegration process experienced in the USSR after the failed «SCSE» coup attempt of August 1991.

The last senior level meeting between the Government of the Turkish Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the USSR visit of the Turkish Minister Finance and Customs, Adnan Kahveci, between November 4-6, 1991, and the last document signed between the two countries was the protocol dated November 28, 1991 regulating the flights of commercial aircrafts and military crafts with civil transportation purposes that would land at and take off from Leninakan Airport under force majeure with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).

During the dissolution process of the USSR, Turkey was worried about the troubles that might arise due to the Soviet military inheritance on the one hand and endeavoured to pursue an active policy about the Soviet republics that had declared their independence on the other1. Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize former Soviet republics, and it recognized the independence of Azerbaijan on November 9, 1991 (Veliyev, C. 2020). In addition, before the USSR was officially dissolved, Turkey recognized the independence of Russia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Georgia.

Being considered the final step of the dissolution process of the USSR, Gorbachev's speech dated December 25, 1991 was received favourably by Turkish President Turgut Ozal and was considered to be the end of an era Demirel, DYP Meclis Grubunda Turkler Politikasini Anlatti // Cumhuriyet. 25 Aralik Ayi 1991. Ozal'dan Gorbi'ye davet // Cumhuriyet. 27 Aralik Ayi 1991..

Conclusion

The relations between Turkey and the USSR during the Turgut Ozal era constitute the last phase of the relations between the two countries (1923-1991). In the development of these relations during the period of 1983-1991, the historical background formed by the Russian-Turkish relations that had started to form from the XV cent. and the Turkish-Soviet relations in the XX cent. occupy a special place.

On the other hand, the relations between Turkey and the USSR during the Turgut Ozal era were affected seriously by the international system of the time, the basic dynamics of bilateral relations in the world in general, and the internal dynamics of each of the two countries. At the beginning of the Ozal period, the Turkey-USSR relations gained a new dimension other than being countries partaking at two different blocs in the tough conditions of competition of the Cold War and having topical problems. The new conditions of the foreign policy of both countries enabled the Turkish-Soviet relations to evolve from conflict and rivalry into developing friendship and cooperation.

This situation enabled the Turkey-USSR relations during the Ozal period to be handled with the dimensions of discourse and execution by centring upon the liberal theory approach in international relations. In this context, it was observed that issues such as cooperation, interdependence, mutual negotiation and diplomacy, which are important to liberal theory, came to the fore in both political discourse and foreign policy practices in the process of the relations. The underlying reason was that the Ozal period (1983-1991) was the one when both Turkey and the USSR went through changes in their domestic and foreign policies.

The Ozal period could be named as the liberalization process of the country in terms of economy, politics and sociology after the 1980 Turkish coup d'etat. This liberalization highlighted issues such as cooperation, interdependence, mutual negotiation and diplomacy, which are important to the liberal approach, in both political discourse and foreign policy practices of Ozal's foreign policy. In general terms, the Ozal period was a period of foreign policy in which Turkey attempted to develop more active cooperation and better relations with other countries, especially with its neighbours, on the basis of both discourse and practice.

On the other hand, the period when Ozal was in power was the one when the Soviet Union changed its leaders unusually frequently and then entered a process of softening and dissolution. In March 1985, new political cadres were assigned under the leadership of the USSR Communist Party, whose leader was M. S. Gorbachev, and a renewal process began, which changed the situation in the country to a great extent. The years of «perestroika» and «glasnost» resulted in developments that could be defined as liberalization in both domestic and foreign policy of the Soviet Union. The concept of foreign policy was called «new political thought» and suggested the cooperation of the two systems instead of competition, and accepted the superiority of human values over class and ideological values in foreign policy relations. This foreign policy discourse and practice in the USSR caused the Cold War system, which was based on multi-dimensional competition, to soften globally. Thus, this softening also affected the development of the relations between the different blocks.

In terms of these dynamics, Turkey and the USSR could be said to go through detente period in different processes. In other words, in the period we analysed, Turkey was evolving from coup d'etat environment into liberalization in terms of discourse and practice in its domestic and foreign policy, while the Soviets were also evolving from a totalitarian political system and confrontational foreign policy to a structure that was becoming liberalized and open to cooperation.

These processes had positive impacts on the Turkey-USSR relations during the Ozal period in terms of both discourse and practice. However, it is worth mentioning that the Turgut Ozal administration did not find what they had expected from the Soviet Union at the beginning of his rule. One of the most important reasons for this was the negative historical background of the countries and the alienation that the reality of Cold War created. During this period, the USSR was a powerful and huge neighbour for Turkey, and for the USSR, Turkey was a country that they had historical problems with, including territorial claims, but above that, it was regarded as an «outpost» of their archenemy located far away, the USA.

Under these circumstances, although Gorbachev approached their relations with Turkey in suspicion, this attitude became reversed in time. During the period of frequent government changeovers until Gorbachev and when Mikhail Gorbachev was in power, Turkey attempted to improve their relations with the USSR. In fact, the Turkish foreign policy of Turgut Ozal resembled the Soviet foreign policy of Gorbachev in general terms, and this was significantly reflected on bilateral relations. Both adopted the liberal economy, both tried to pursue rational active foreign policy, and both paid attention to the creation of a peaceful international environment. This relationship process manifested itself not only in economic and cultural relations, which traditionally attract attention with their positive aspects, but also in political, security and other relations, in discourse and in practical terms in mutual visits where various agreements were signed.

On the other hand, a more active process began in the foreign policy of Turkey as of 1990 when irremediable dissolution process of the USSR gathered pace, Turgut Ozal became the President in Turkey and new global conditions emerged. Struggle for independence in the Soviet republics and the territorial claims and attacks of the Armenian SSR against the Azerbaijan SSR gained prominence in the agenda of the Turkey-USSR relations in the new period. Initially, Turkey officially reacted to both of these events in a way not to ruin the relations with the USSR, but to convey the close interest of both the government and Turkish people about these developments through diplomatic channels to the Soviet side, in other words, they remained relatively passive. Nevertheless, it was observed that Turkey began to develop an active political stance both in general and about the independence movement in the Azerbaijan SSR and the Nagorno-Karabakh issue when independence movements gathered strength in time and the future of the existence of the USSR was questioned more than before.

In summary, during the Turgut Ozal period, the Turkish-Soviet relations developed multidimensionally due to internal and external dynamics, active diplomacy was pursued, reciprocal official visits and meetings took place more often, and relations were established in almost every field.

Literature

1. Грачев, A. С. 2001. Горбачев. Москва: Вагриус.

2. Орлов, А. С. & Сивохина, Т. А. & Георгиева, Н. Г. & Георгиев, В. А. 2013. История России. Москва: Проспект.

3. Сахаров, А. Н. 2016. История России с древнейших времен до наших дней, 2016. Москва: Проспект.

4. Согрин, В. В. 2001. Политическая история современной России, (1985-2001: от Горбачева до Путина). Москва: Весь мир.

5. Abramowitz, M. 2013. Remembering Turgut Ozal: Some Personal Recollections. Insight Turkey. № 15(2). P. 37-46.

6. Armaoglu, F. 2005. 20. YuzytlSiyasi Tarihi: Cilt 1-2: 1914-1995. 12th ed. Istanbul: Alkim Yayinevi.

7. Burchill, S. 2005. Liberalism. In: S. Burchill and A. Linklater, eds. Theories of International Relations. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 57-87.

8. Griffiths, M. 2009. Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. P. 65-122.

9. Hale, W. 2012. Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

10. Hodalogullari, Z. & Aydin, A. 2016. Combined Effect of Turkish Energy Security Cooperation Between Turkey and Russia. The Journal of International Social Research. № 9 (43). P. 744-755.

11. Inalcik, H. 1982. Struggle for East-European Empire: 1400-1700. The Crimean Khanate, Ottomans and the Rise of the Russian Empire. The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, № 21. P. 1-16.

12. Larson, D. W. 2018. Kennedy and Khrushchev. Diplomatic History. № 42 (4). P 536-539.

13. Mark, E. 1997. The War Scare of 1946 and Its Consequences. Diplomatic History. № 21(3). P. 383-415.

14. Matthews, E. G. & Callaway, R. L. 2019. International Relations Theory: A Primer. 2nd ed. P. 81-132.

15. Meiser, J. W. 2018. Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory. E-International Relation. [Online]. Available at: https://cutt.ly/SOyJjlI

16. McNeill, W. H. 1998. A World History. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

17. Moravcsik, A. 1992. Liberalism and international relations theory. Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.

18. Oran, B. 2013. Turk Dig Politikasi Kurtulug Savagindan Bugune Olgular Belgeler, Yorumlar Cilt 1: 1919-1980. 18th ed. Istanbul: Ileti^im Yayinlari.

19. Qasimli, M. 2012. SSCB-Turkiye iligkileri: Turkiye'de 1980 Darbesinden SSCB'nin Dagilmasina Kadar. Istanbul: Kaknus.

20. Reus-Smit, C. & Snidal, D. eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press. P 201-266.

21. Reuveny, R. & Prakash, A. 1999. The Afghanistan War and the Breakdown of the Soviet Union. Review of International Studies. № 25. P 693-708.

22. Roy, A. 1988. The Soviet Union and the strategy of non-alignment in the Third World. New York: Cambridge University Press.

23. §im§ir, B. N. 2012. Azerbaycan: kizilordu'nun Azerbaycan'i i^gali ve Turkiye'nin tepkisi (Ocak 1990). Journal of Ataturk. № 1 (1). P 57-93.

24. Sonmezoglu, F. 2006. II. Dunya Savagi'ndan Gunumuze Turk Dig Politikasi. Istanbul: Der Yayinlari.

25. Veliyev, C. 2020. Azerbaycan-Turkiye Stratejik Ortakligi: Tarihi ve Guncel Boyutlar. Istanbul: Otuken Ne^riyat.

26. Viotti, P R. & Kauppi, M. V. 2011. International Relations Theory. 5th ed. Pearson. P 129-188.

27. Weaver, M. E. 2014. The Relationship between Diplomacy and Military Force: An Example from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Diplomatic History. № (1). P. 137-181.

28. Yanik, L. K. 2015. Liberalizm: Bir Yazin Degerlendirmesi. International Relations. № 12 (46). P. 38.

29. Grachev, A. S. 2001. Gorbachev [Gorbachev]. Moskva: Vagrius. [in Russian].

30. Orlov, A. S. & Sivokhina T. A. & Georgieva, N. G. & Georviev, V. A. 2013. Istoriya Rossii [History of Russia]. Moskva: Prospekt. [in Russian].

31. Sakharov, A. N. 2016. Istoriya Rossii s drevneyshykh vremen do nashykh dney [History of Russia: From Ancient Times to Our Days]. Moskva: Prospekt. [In Russian].

32. Sogrin, V. V. 2001. Politicheskaya istoriya sovremennoy Rossii (1985-2001: ot Gorbacheva do Putina). [Political History of Modern Russia. 1985-2001: from Gorbachev to Putin]. Moskva: Ves Mir. [in Russian].

33. Abramowitz, M. 2013. Remembering Turgut Ozal: Some Personal Recollections. Insight Turkey. № 15(2). P 37-46.

34. Armaoglu, F. 2005. 20. Yuzyil Siyasi Tarihi: Cilt 1-2: 1914-1995 [Political History of the 20th Century: Vol. 1-2: 1914-1995]. 12th ed. Istanbul: Alkim Yayinevi. [in Turkish].

35. Burchill, S. 2005. Liberalism. In: S. Burchill and A. Linklater, eds. Theories of International Relations. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. P 57-87.

36. Griffiths, M. 2009. Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. P 65-122.

37. Hale, W. 2012. Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

38. Hodalogullari, Z. & Aydin, A. 2016. Combined Effect of Turkish Energy Security Cooperation Between Turkey and Russia. The Journal of International Social Research. № 9 (43). P. 744-755.

39. inalcik, H. 1982. Struggle for East-European Empire: 1400-1700. The Crimean Khanate, Ottomans and the Rise of the Russian Empire. The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations, № 21. P 1-16.

40. Larson, D. W. 2018. Kennedy and Khrushchev. Diplomatic History. № 42 (4). P 536-539.

41. Mark, E. 1997. The War Scare of 1946 and Its Consequences. Diplomatic History. № 21(3). P. 383-415.

42. Matthews, E. G. & Callaway, R. L. 2019. International Relations Theory: A Primer. 2nd ed. P 81-132.

43. Meiser, J. W. 2018. Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory. E-International Relation.

44. McNeill, W. H. 1998. A World History. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.

45. Moravcsik, A. 1992. Liberalism and international relations theory. Center for International Affairs, Harvard University.

46. Oran, B. 2013. Turk Dig Politikasi Kurtulug Savagindan Bugune Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar [Turkish Foreign Policy Facts, Documents, Comments from the War of Independence to the Present]. Cilt 1: 1919-1980. 18th ed. istanbul: ileti^im Yayinlari. [In Turkish].

47. Qasimli, M. 2012. SSCB-Turkiyeiligkileri: Turkiye'de 1980Darbesinden SSCB'nin Dagilmasina Kadar [USSR-Turkey Relations: From 1980 Coup D'etat in Turkey to the Dissolution of the USSR]. istanbul: Kaknus.

48. Reus-Smit, C. & Snidal, D. eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press. P 201-266.

49. Reuveny, R. & Prakash, A. 1999. The Afghanistan war and the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Review of International Studies. № 25. P. 693-708.

50. Roy, A. 1988. The Soviet Union and the strategy of non-alignment in the Third World. New York: Cambridge University Press.

51. §imgir, B. N. 2012. Azerbaycan: kizilordu'nun Azerbaycan'i iggali ve Turkiye'nin tepkisi (Ocak 1990) [Azerbaijan: Red Army's Invasion of Azerbaijan and Turkey's Reaction (January 1990)]. Journal of Ataturk. № 1 (1). P 57-93.

52. Sonmezoglu, F. 2006. II. Dunya Savagi 'ndan Gunumuze Turk Dig Politikasi [Turkish Foreign Policy from World WarII to Today]. istanbul: Der Yayinlari. [In Turkish].

53. Veliyev, C. 2020. Azerbaycan-Turkiye Stratejik Ortakligi: Tarihi ve Guncel Boyutlar [Azerbaijan-Turkey Strategic Partnership: Historical and Current Aspects]. Istanbul: Otuken Ne^riyat. [In Turkish].

54. Viotti, P R. & Kauppi, M. V. 2011. International Relations Theory. 5th ed. Pearson. P 129-- 188.

55. Weaver, M. E. 2014. The Relationship between Diplomacy and Military Force: An Example from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Diplomatic History. № (1). P 137-181.

56. Yanik, L. K. 2015. Liberalizm: Bir Yazin Degerlendirmesi. International Relations. № 12 (46). P 38.

Размещено на Allbest.ru