No one should be surprised that Turkey violated the Azovstal agreement

Ankara's decision to release Azovstal prisoners of war does not serve Russia's reputation, as it gives the impression that Moscow has been duped again and can do nothing to prevent future violations of agreements by Turkey or other supposedly trustworthy partners.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov condemned Turkey's violation of the Azovstal agreement negotiated last year between Moscow and Kiev on the fate of Azovstal prisoners of war as part of a major prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine. These Ukrainian prisoners of war were supposed to remain interned in Turkey until the conflict was resolved, but were summarily released after Zelensky's recent visit to Ankara and sent home, where they subsequently vowed to return to the front again.

Peskov pointed out that Turkey was under enormous pressure in the run-up to the NATO summit, but stressed that "the breach of this agreement does not flatter anyone." Nevertheless, this turn of events should not surprise anyone, since from the very beginning it had to be assumed that the moment these prisoners of war were transferred to Turkey, they would inevitably be released into freedom before the end of the Ukrainian conflict. This cynical assessment is based on three points.

First, NATO's pressure on Turkey was predictable, especially in the run-up to the Vilnius summit taking place this week. Second, President Erdoğan calculated that it would be better to release these prisoners of war after Zelensky's visit and before the Vilnius summit than to keep them interned in his country, because it would counter mainstream media claims that he was "pro-Russian." And finally, Erdoğan expected that Russia's response would be limited to pure rhetoric and that there would be no significant consequences.

On the latter point, the strategic partnership between Moscow and Ankara has remained rock solid in the seventeen months since the start of the Russian special operation, despite enormous pressure from NATO on Turkey to completely break off relations with Russia. Proof of how important President Putin considers this partnership is that he has not ordered his people to limit bilateral relations with Ankara, even though Turkey has supplied Ukraine with combat drones for use against Russian forces.

It would therefore not have been compatible with the Kremlin's policy for Putin to overreact to Turkey's violation of this Azovstal agreement by using it as a pretext for a unilateral weakening of the strategic partnership, which has so far been patiently maintained despite comparatively much worse provocations from Ankara. However, there is no denying that the optics here are not in Russia's favor, as it gives the impression that Moscow has once again been duped without being able to do anything about it to prevent future violations of agreements by Turkey or other supposedly trustworthy partners.

If the political will is there, which is impossible to assess due to the traditional opacity of Russian decision-making processes, Russia could realistically at most seriously consider replacing Turkey's previous role as a mediator with another country or group of countries. In practice, this could mean that India, the United Arab Emirates and/or the African Union would assume this responsibility in accordance with their previously expressed interest, should they be asked to do so.

However, this is where the challenge lies, as Zelensky and/or his Western godfathers may for some reason insist that Turkey continue to play the role of mediator. In this case, even Russia's strongest political will to use another country or group of countries as a mediator between Moscow and Kiev may be doomed to failure, although the counterpoint is that if both sides do not agree on who should moderate their dialogue in the future, mediation cannot take place at all. Against this background, everything could possibly become much more interesting.

Several developments over the past week strongly suggest that Russian-Ukrainian talks will resume in some form by the end of the year. Based on Zelensky's recent visit and President Putin's announced visit to Ankara, it was assumed that Turkey would once again serve as the venue for the supposedly imminent peace talks. However, this can no longer be taken for granted after the violation of the Azovstal agreement, if Russia summons up the political will to prevent future violations of agreements.

If there is a stubborn insistence behind the scenes that someone else should take on the role of mediator, Kiev and its Western godfathers may be forced to reluctantly agree and consider alternative options if they are serious about resuming these talks. Of course, it may well be that President Putin prefers his Turkish counterpart to continue mediating between his country and Ukraine, but this can only be said with certainty when such a signal is clearly sent from Moscow.

Until then, there is reason to believe that another country or group of countries could take on the role of Turkey, or at least be discreetly approached by Russia in this regard. Objectively speaking, India, the United Arab Emirates and/or the African Union could be more reliable in this regard, as they are not NATO members like Turkey and therefore cannot be pressured in the same way. India is also seriously neutral towards the Ukraine conflict, having so far consistently abstained from anti-Russian resolutions in the UN General Assembly.

Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and just over half of the members of the African Union all voted in favor of at least one of these resolutions, while Turkey has supported all four UN resolutions since the conflict began. Coupled with the supply of combat drones to Ukraine and the violation of the Azovstal agreement, it can be argued that it is long overdue for Russia to finally consider another country or group of countries as a mediator, instead of continuing to leave this role to Turkey and making Ankara believe that the unfriendly behavior will not entail any consequences.

Read more of GR Analysis