As I anticipated in my last column on the importance of the Istanbul Canal, this week marks a chapter of tension and resistance. Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine find themselves trapped in a geopolitical scenario that defines the balance of power in our time. Today, the fate of these countries is intertwined in a web of decisions that could tip the scales of history.
Last Wednesday, the arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu, the popular mayor of Istanbul and Erdogan’s main opponent, ignited the spark of an unexpectedly large citizen uprising. As if the ghost of the 2013 Gezi protests had awakened, the streets of Istanbul filled with demonstrators, defying authority with years of repressed fury. Voices cried out for justice as the city witnessed a battle between democracy and authoritarianism.
Erdogan’s government responded with an iron fist: banning demonstrations, restricting social media, and launching a media campaign to demonize the opposition. But the resistance did not fade. Istanbul, with its unique geographical position between East and West, once again became the epicenter of a struggle that transcends its borders.
This week, parallel to the protests in Istanbul, negotiations between Russia and Ukraine resumed to ensure security in this vital artery of trade and geostrategy. This is no coincidence. The stability of the Black Sea is a key piece in the geopolitical chessboard, where every move is calculated with surgical precision.
For Russia, control of the Black Sea is a matter of imperial survival. Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Moscow has reinforced its military presence in the region. The invasion of Ukraine has not only been a territorial conflict but a declaration of intent: Russia is unwilling to relinquish its influence in this strategic region.
Ukraine, on the other hand, fights to maintain its access to the sea, which is crucial for its economy and sovereignty. Without control of the Black Sea, Kyiv faces geopolitical suffocation, limiting its chances of true independence. In this context, the negotiations between the two nations go beyond a military battle; they are about geostrategic positioning.
Turkey, with its control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, plays a crucial role in this dispute. Erdogan is well aware of this and has attempted to use his position as leverage in his foreign policy. The Istanbul Canal project, designed to reduce dependence on the Bosphorus, is not just an engineering feat but a strategic move to consolidate control over Black Sea maritime traffic.
However, Imamoglu’s arrest and the eruption of protests have weakened Erdogan’s image both domestically and internationally. Growing internal pressure could force him to toughen his international stance, using the Black Sea as a stage to reaffirm his authority. The options are dangerous: yielding to the West and losing Moscow’s favor, or aligning with Russia and risking NATO’s support.
The streets of Istanbul burn with the indignation of a society defying its leader. In the Black Sea, negotiations seek to curb a war that threatens to spread beyond its borders. Meanwhile, the world watches.
