The S-400 Crisis: Reading THE Turkish-Russian Relations in a Hegemonic Masculine Narrative

Since the Russian intervention in the Syrian crisis and Turkey’s subsequent downing of a Russian jet within the Syrian border in 2015, Russia has become a decisive actor influencing the course of Turkish foreign policy in a way reminding of the troublesome times of the eighteenth-century Ottoman Empire. The increasing influence of Moscow in the decision-making priorities of Ankara has resulted in Turkey’s purchase of S-400, the Russian missile system, which is incompatible with and rival to the NATO infrastructure. Against this background, one could argue that the recent Turkish-Russian relations unfold along a domination-subordination axis, which is linked to the larger debate on the hegemonic masculinity. Turkey and Russia, two agents of hegemonic masculinity in their immediate and enlarged neighborhood, have engaged in a hyper-masculine competition for the implementation of their essentially contradicting foreign policies and Turkey seems to have difficulties in executing what it promises as oppose to Russia’s all-time wins. After Donaldson’s introduction of the term in 1993, hegemonic masculinity has been a valid unit of analysis in explaining and understanding the power relations within various contexts. With the massive rise of the authoritarian and populist leaders around 2010, hegemonic masculinity has become evidently relevant in international politics as well. The studies on Turkish foreign policy, nevertheless, still lack such approach, despite its capacity to contribute important insights into analyses on Turkey’s strategy, discourse and practice. Ali Bilgiç’s ‘Turkey, Power and the West’ is a pioneer work in this category, which requires further attention and discussion by the scholars of Turkish foreign policy. Hegemonic masculinity is the dominant and desired code of male behavior in every aspect of life –in the home, on the job, by the governments. The authoritarian leaders of our time aspire for hegemonic masculinity and are in competition with each other for being the one who sets the rules of negotiation and leads the outcomes in international politics. An analysis of these two leaders’ foreign policy discourses in terms of dominant and subordinated masculinities would provide us with a better understanding of the nature of power relationship between them. This chapter, therefore, draws on the hegemonic masculinity theory to provide a gendered reading of Turkish foreign policy. In doing that it will compare the discourses of greatness and exceptionalism of Erdoğan and Putin, which is a context that brings forth the discussion of neo-Ottomanism and Russia’s attitude towards it. Also, it will dwell on both countries’ historically problematic relations with the West. In this way, the chapter will contribute to the studies on the changing Turkish foreign policy in a changing environment of crisis, disorder and hegemonic competition as well as to the studies on gendering foreign policy.