WhatsApp_Image_2021-05-01_at_2.42_.07_PM_

Failing to secure a deal with the United States (US) and other NATO countries for an air defense system, Turkey turned to Russia for the S-400 air defense system. In 2017, Turkey signed a deal worth $2.5 billion for the procurement of four batteries of S-400. This deal was not welcomed by the Western world who viewed it as a threat. Tukey was repeatedly asked by US to abandon the deal and opt for its Patriot air defense systems instead since there were serious concerns in Washington that the deployment of S-400 will pose major compatibility issues between the Russian and NATO equipment, particularly the F-35 fighter jets. However, Turkey proceeded with the deal with the justification that S-400 will not be integrated with NATO equipment and will work on an independent network.

On 12 July 2019, Turkey received its first shipment of the S-400 air defense systems and became the first NATO country to acquire this system. Resultantly, Turkey was sanctioned by USA under the Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) following this procurement. It was also informed that it will be removed from the F-35 fighter jet program despite the fact that it contributed significantly to the development and finance of this initiative. As soon as the first shipment arrived in Turkey, the training of the Turkish pilots operating the F-35 aircraft in US was halted to signal Washington’s severe disapproval of the deal.

The Trump administration warned Turkey of more sanctions if it did not withdraw from the deal. With the change of administration in the US, renewed efforts were once again made to persuade Turkey to give up the deal. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu at the NATO Summit held in March 2021. S-400 was one of the prime issues discussed between both of them. Secretary Blinken urged that Turkey should withdraw from its deal with Russia, reiterating the compatibility issues of S-400 with NATO equipment. Turkish Foreign Minister informed his counterpart that it was a “done deal” and Turkey had no intention to reverse it. As a result, the US officially notified Turkey that it had been removed from the F-35 consortium agreement on 22 April 2021.

The US State Department has warned of “potentially serious consequences” if Turkey activates the systems. When reports of Turkey testing the S-400 emerged, a Pentagon spokesperson stated “We have been clear: An operational S-400 system is not consistent with Turkey’s commitments as a US and NATO ally. We object to Turkey’s purchase of the system and are deeply concerned with reports that Turkey is bringing it into operation.” Compounding Washington’s problems, Russia is offering more jets to Turkey such as Su-35 and Su-57 fighter aircraft to complement the S-400 air defense system.

Efforts towards easing tensions between the US and Turkey have not borne any meaningful results. In 2019, a technical joint working group was proposed by Turkey to assess the operational use of the Russian air defense system. However, the proposal was turned down by the Americans. Similarly, there were speculations of using the Crete Model after the Turkish Foreign Defense Minister Hulusi Akar stated that Turkey was open to negotiations on the S-400 for a settlement similar to the Crete Model. The model refers to the settlement of a conflict which was ignited after Greece purchased S-300 air defense systems from Russia in 1996. Due to strong opposition from Turkey, these air defense systems were never deployed in Cyprus but were shifted on the small island called Crete in Greece. Resultantly, applying the model in this case implies that Turkey would merely possess the S-400 systems and not activate it, rather keep it at a location on which the US and NATO members have no objection. These speculations were short-lived as the Presidential Spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin denied that such a formula was not on their agenda and Turkey’s position on the S-400 was very clear. It is likely that Russia may have objected to this option.

Turkey is caught between the two major powers, with each side aiming to extend its sphere of influence. The issue still remains unresolved even after two years of the arrival of the S-400 batteries as Ankara has not been able to come up with an option which could satisfy both sides.

Another way to look at this issue is that Turkey is signaling its new geo-political status where it has adopted a policy of non-alignment with either the US or Russia rather it aims to balance both sides. It sees itself as a regional actor which can assert itself independently without clearly siding with any major power. In the future, it could use the defense procurement from Russia as a bargaining chip to get some incentives from Washington. At the same time, it could improve its relations with Russia by cooperation in economic, diplomatic, and military domains.

It is yet to be seen how Turkey tries to ease its tensions with Washington and strengthen its ties with Kremlin. However, one thing is clear that this deal is likely to impact Turkey’s position in the region, its alliances, and the great power competition in the Middle East.

Shaza Arif is a Researcher at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS). The article was first published by Khaleej Mag. She can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »