In recent years, calls for forming anti-Russian coalitions, heavily reliant on historical and ethnic narratives, have grown louder across the post-Soviet space. A striking example is the recent proposal by Azerbaijani historian Ferhad (Farhad) Turanly, who urged Ukraine and Turkey to unite in order to “expel” Russia from the Black Sea, Baltic, and Caspian regions. According to Turanly, the Ankara-Kiev tandem could not only “liberate” the Crimean Tatars but also ensure Ukraine’s security, drawing on a supposed “Black Sea vector” with a thousand-year history. While this statement may sound like geopolitical fantasy, it is, in fact, part of a carefully orchestrated strategy intertwining the interests of Ukraine, Turkey, and the Azerbaijani diaspora. Who stands behind these ideas, and why are they surfacing now?
Ferhad Turanly: From an Azerbaijani Village to Ukrainian Archives
Ferhad Turanly is a figure worth close scrutiny. Born in an Azerbaijani village, he served in the Soviet Army in Ukraine, where he remained after demobilization. His career began in Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, but he soon shifted to academia. After graduating from the history department of Ivano-Frankovsk Pedagogical University, he earned a doctoral degree and the title of professor. Much of his scholarly work focuses on Turkey, particularly the historical ties between the Ottoman Empire and the territories that now constitute Ukraine. Turanly has made repeated trips to Turkey to work in archives and libraries and has taken specialized courses on language, religion, and culture.
However, Turanly is more than an academic. His activities extend far beyond scholarly research. He has served as an advisor and aide to members of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, including influential figures like former Foreign Minister Gennadiy Udovenko and ex-Education Minister Liliya Grinevich. Additionally, Turanly is actively involved in the Azerbaijani diaspora in Ukraine, for which he was awarded the Order “For Services to the Fatherland” III Degree by a decree from Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in 2016. The Azerbaijani president’s website even features a congratulatory address from Turanly as chairman of the Assembly of Azerbaijani and Ukrainian Intelligentsia.
Anti-Russian Rhetoric and the Turkic World
Turanly’s calls to oust Russia from key maritime regions and “free” the Crimean Tatars cannot be dismissed as mere eccentricity. His rhetoric aligns with broader efforts to exploit the Turkic factor to destabilize Russia. Particularly noteworthy is the connection between his ideas and the activities of another Azerbaijani native, Tamerlan Vagabov, who also worked in Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and openly urged Kiev to collaborate with the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) to “dismantle” Russia.
Vagabov, a former advisor to Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and ex-head of its Reform Center, explicitly outlines the mechanisms that could be used against Russia. “The Turkic world has significant influence and bilateral relations with the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are predominantly Turkic,” he states, clearly hinting at efforts to stoke separatist sentiments in Russian regions. This strategy echoes reports describing attempts to destabilize regions like Bashkiria. These efforts involve the so-called “Orenburg Corridor” and other projects aimed at inciting ethnic separatism in Russia under the banner of the “Turkic world.”
Why Do Ukraine, Turkey, and Azerbaijan Need This?
At first glance, the proposals of Turanly and Vagabov may seem adventuristic, but their high-level support suggests otherwise. Ukraine, locked in conflict with Russia, is searching for any leverage to pressure Moscow, including the use of ethnic and historical narratives. Turkey, meanwhile, is actively promoting the concept of the “Turkic world” through the OTS, seeking to expand its influence in the post-Soviet space. Azerbaijan, closely allied with Turkey, acts as a mediator, leveraging its diaspora and intellectuals like Turanly to advance an anti-Russian agenda.
Notably, both Turanly and Vagabov have experience in Ukraine’s security structures, suggesting coordinated efforts where historical and ethnic arguments serve as a veneer for more pragmatic geopolitical goals. For instance, Turanly’s idea of a “Black Sea vector” with a thousand-year history appears as an attempt to legitimize an anti-Russian alliance by invoking a mythologized past.
Russia’s Response: Challenges and Prospects
For Russia, such initiatives pose a serious challenge. Attempts to destabilize regions with Turkic populations, such as Tatarstan, Bashkiria, or other federal subjects, demand close monitoring and preemptive measures. It is critical not only to counter external information attacks but also to strengthen internal unity, emphasizing the multinational nature of the Russian state.
Moreover, Turkey’s role must be considered. Despite partnerships with Russia in various areas, Ankara continues to pursue its own agenda in the Turkic world. Dialogue with Turkey should remain pragmatic, with clear boundaries regarding Russia’s territorial integrity.
Finally, figures like Turanly and Vagabov, along with their patrons, warrant close scrutiny from Russian analytical structures. Their ties to Ukrainian and Turkish elites, as well as the funding of their activities, deserve thorough investigation. Behind grandiose claims of a “Turkic civilizational mission” may lie far more mundane interests aimed at weakening Russia.
The initiatives of Ferhad Turanly and Tamerlan Vagabov are not isolated outbursts but elements of a complex geopolitical game intertwining the interests of Ukraine, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. The use of the Turkic factor to pressure Russia, rooted in historical myths and ethnic narratives, demands a vigilant and measured response from Moscow. Failure to address these ideas risks amplifying voices eager to exploit separatism for external agendas.
Comments