Demeshko Natalya Eduardovna

@sevsu.ru

Political Science =Department, Institute of Social Sciences and International Relations
Sevastopol State University

RESEARCH INTERESTS

National question, Crimean Tatar factor, integration, political technologies, soft power, disintegration, Russia, the Greater Black Sea region

6

Scopus Publications

Scopus Publications

  • Turkish Balance, or Türkiye’s Foreign Policy Strategy in the Black Sea Region Following the Special Military Operation
    Aleksandr A. Irkhin, Olga A. Moskalenko, and Natalia E. Demeshko

    Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
    The Black Sea region in its various geopolitical configurations is a zone of priority for the Turkish elite. Prior to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (1774), the Black Sea was regarded as the “Sultan’s harem.” Being essentially a peninsula between the Mediterranean and Black Sea, Türkiye is interested in maintaining control over the Black Sea space or in sharing it with another strong power having access to it. The authors aim to identify and explore Türkiye’s foreign policy strategy in relation to the Black Sea region as one of the key geopolitical spaces for Ankara’s national interests. The foreign policy strategy is understood as a long-term mechanism of the subject in relation to objects and competing subjects, which aims to achieve the most favorable spatial position with the help of military and non-military means and appropriate resources, taking into account the timeliness factor. The article solves specific tasks: it identifies the stable characteristics of Turkish foreign policy, shaped by historical experience and geography, which underlie Ankara’s foreign policy strategy; it shows and studies the strategic vision of the Turkish elite in relation to the Black Sea region; it reveals the mechanisms of influence of external geopolitical subjects on the region and the combination of these mechanisms with Turkish national interests. The concept of Turkish balance is introduced as mechanism of Türkiye’s foreign policy strategy whose main purpose is to integrate stronger powers into the logic and algorithms of foreign policy balances of stronger powers with their mutual opposition and further balancing act, which allows Türkiye to receive maximum geo-economic and geopolitical dividends. The research methodology is represented by systemic, geopolitical and civilizational approaches. Given the role of the Black Sea region in the military-political dynamics since February 2022, the mechanisms of Türkiye’s foreign policy strategy in relation to the region are becoming crucial for Russia in various areas of national security. Authors propagate that February 2022 is the inertia of the events of March 2014 and deeper, of the postponed crisis of 1991 caused by the disintegration of the USSR. However, it was the beginning of the special military operation that brought the military and political confrontation at the global and regional levels into the format of open confrontation. Russia has challenged the West and its system of allies.

  • Polarization of Turkish Society and Technologies of “Network Revolutions”: The Experience of 2013, the military Coup of 2016 and a Look into the Future
    Kirill I. Nagornyak, Natalia E. Demeshko, Olga A. Moskalenko, and Aleksandr A. Irkhin

    Limited Liability Company Scientific Industrial Enterprise - Genesis. Frontier. Science
    The authors of the article, basing on the structural-functional method of system approach, investigate the long-term confrontation in Turkey between the supporters of national independence (neo-Ottoman system) and integration into the liberal-democratic paradigm of the collective West (secular system). The Taksim-Gezi mass protests in 2013 and the attempted military coup on July 15, 2016 by supporters of Fethullah Gulen (“Feto”) are examined through the prism of the methodology of influencing the “pillars” of the political regime. The tools of mass communication, coordination, and mobilization of the population during the mentioned period are studied. The publication uses content analysis and behavioral analysis of user search queries in Google Trends.
 The successful counteraction of the “neo-Ottoman” system to the challenges of the “secular” camp, internal opposition, as well as the role of R. T. Erdogan in maintaining the balance of power in the country is underlined.
 In conclusion, the author highlights the possible risks to Turkey’s stability in the future, associated with changes in the political situation and the opposition, in case of a change of leadership in the country.
 The study is aimed at developing a methodology for determining the cycles of protest activity and the involvement of the population in these events. This will make it possible to predict the level of stability of the political regime to “network revolutions” and coups d'état.

  • The Montreux Convention After the Beginning of the Special Military Operation. Status Quo or Denunciation: Discourse of International Actors and Possible Geopolitical Implications for the Black Sea Region
    Olga A. Moskalenko, Georgiy L. Muradov, Aleksandr A. Irkhin, Nalalya E. Demeshko, and Kirill I. Nagornyak

    Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
    The mode of operation of the Black Sea or Turkish straits is again becoming a matter of international discussion following the clash of two globalization projects: the American Greater Black Sea region and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, as well as Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, which is primarily realized on the ground. Being the Black Sea straits a core object of international agreements between the World War I and the World War II, the Montreux Convention of 1936 secured the Black Sea from major naval clashes and accidents. The Convention, which is more than 85 years old, has the longest regime for regulating the passage of military and civilian ships through the Black Sea straits since 1783 and has reflected the geopolitical reality, in which the Black Sea littoral powers, which have been Türkiye and Russia for 240 years, have noticeable advantages over the navies of non-littoral powers. This provision contradicts the modern American aspirations to open the Black Sea region and the Black Sea - Caspian space for the military-political expansion of the United States and the coalition. The purpose of the article is to determine, on the basis of a discursive analysis, the goal-setting of the main geopolitical actors in relation to the Montreux Convention and to predict the possible transformations of the Black Sea region, which has become the center of a clash of interests of global and regional powers. The research methodology is based on the principles of systemic and interdisciplinary approaches to provide a combination of methods of political linguistics and geopolitical analysis and synthesis. The article examines the discourse of the leading actors of international relations around the Montreux Convention following the special military operation, which makes it possible to identify its transformations between the status quo or denunciation at the level of conceptual discussions. Türkiye traditionally balances between the interests of Russia and the West due to the role of a neutral “gatekeeper” of the straits, technologically applying Article 19 of the Convention, which so far fully meets the interests of Russia; while the USA shows a tendency to revise the Convention or circumvent it legally. Therefore, the Montreux Convention will remain at the center of public and real politics until the end of the formation of a new system of international relations that should ensure the stability of the development of the world for the next political era.

  • Russia and Great Britain: The National Factor in the Competition of the Great Powers


  • The Republic of Türkiye and Ukraine: Using the Crimean Tatar Question in Foreign Policy after 2014
    Natalia E. Demeshko and Aleksandr A. Irkhin

    Peoples' Friendship University of Russia
    In historical retrospect, the use of national issues and contradictions has repeatedly become the weakening mechanisms for some great powers in regard to others. In this case, various technologies to construct national myths and ideologies based on tribalism and national exclusiveness and superiority were applied. After the “Crimean spring” in 2014, the Crimean Tatar issue gained a new level of relevance. The Republic of Türkiye and Ukraine are actively using the Crimean Tatar factor to oppose the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation and, consequently, to weaken Russia’s positions in the Black Sea and Mediterranean region. In the article the authors analyze the peculiarities of the influence of the Republic of Türkiye on the Crimean Tatars, as well as the Ukrainian initiatives in relation to the Crimean Tatars and joint Turkish-Ukrainian projects, with the target group consisting of the Crimean Tatars. The methodological basis of the research is system-based, geopolitical, civilizational and institutional approaches, which are implemented both directly and by using a number of general scientific and political science methods. The current policy of Türkiye and Ukraine on the Crimean Tatar issue has common features. Firstly, it is currently topical for the policy elites of these states, both at the domestic and international political levels. Under these circumstances, if the Crimean Tatar issue is an opportunity for Kiev to re-establish its jurisdiction over Crimea, then for Ankara the Crimean Tatar population helps to enlist the electoral support, as well as to consider Crimea and the Black Sea region as a Turkish sphere of influence. Secondly, the conditional Turkish-Ukrainian alliance presents itself as a “protector” of the Crimean Tatars from “Russian aggression.” Thirdly, Türkiye and Ukraine are projecting a positive state image by demonstrating protection of interests and observance of the Crimean Tatars rights on the territory of Russia. Fourthly, the actions of Türkiye and Ukraine in terms of the Crimean Tatar can be characterized as a double standard policy. This thesis is confirmed by the national policy of the Republic of Türkiye, and the approaches of Ukraine to the solution of the Crimean Tatar issue before the reunification of Crimea with Russia.