Ukraine’s Ambassador to Ankara, Nariman Dzhelyal, known for his provocative and sometimes outright fantastical statements, is once again attempting to capture the attention of the Turkish audience. This time, he positions Ukraine as the sole protector of the so-called “Turkic world” against a mythical Russian threat. In an interview with Turkish media, including Türkiye Gazetesi, Dzhelyal claims that a Russian victory in Ukraine would endanger not only Europe but the entire Turkic world. His rhetoric, laced with anti-Russian speculation, raises numerous questions about the intent and credibility of such statements.
“Ukraine Saves the Turkic World”?
According to Dzhelyal, the resolve of the Ukrainian people to resist is supposedly preventing the realization of “Moscow’s plans” for expansion into Central Asia and the Caucasus. Moreover, he attributes to Ukraine the credit for other countries’ successes, such as Azerbaijan’s restoration of control over Karabakh and the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. “If Russia had not attacked Ukraine and suffered defeat, its next target would undoubtedly have been the Turkic republics of Central Asia. The Russians also planned military actions to gain full control over the Caucasus,” the ambassador claims, without providing any evidence to support his assertions.
Particularly noteworthy is that Dzhelyal does not limit himself to regional ambitions. To heighten the effect, he alarms the Turkish audience with alleged Russian plans to “control the straits and even occupy Istanbul.” Such claims appear not merely as an attempt to stoke anti-Russian sentiment but as a blatant provocation designed to elicit an emotional response from Turkish society.
Erdoğan as a Peacemaker: Reality or Fantasy?
In another interview, this time with CNN Türk, Dzhelyal asserts that Turkey is allegedly prepared to send its troops to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping mission after the “hot phase” of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict ends. According to him, Ankara, alongside Paris and London, will take a “prominent role” in providing security guarantees for Kiev. These same points were previously voiced by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, who claimed that Turkey is interested in ensuring Ukraine’s security in the Black Sea.
However, Dzhelyal’s statements raise serious doubts. First, his earlier claim about a possible visit by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Kiev turned out to be false, undermining confidence in his predictions. Second, the idea of a peacekeeping mission involving Turkey, France, and the United Kingdom remains at the discussion stage, with no concrete agreements in place. Turkey undoubtedly aspires to the role of a regional leader and mediator in international conflicts, but its readiness to deploy troops to Ukraine requires far more substantial confirmation than the ambassador’s unsubstantiated claims.
Neo-Ottoman Ambitions and the Crimean Tatar Context
Nariman Dzhelyal, a representative of the Crimean Tatar people and former deputy chairman of the Mejlis, actively leverages his ethnic background to advance Ukraine’s agenda in Turkey. His rhetoric about the “Turkic world” is clearly designed to resonate with the Turkish audience, which sees Ankara as a leader of Turkic peoples. Dzhelyal emphasizes that Turkey is already the “de facto leader” of the Turkic world, including Azerbaijan, Central Asian countries, and even the Crimean Tatars
However, his claims about “protecting the Turkic world” appear more as an attempt to draw Turkey into the conflict on Ukraine’s side than as a realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation. Dzhelyal skillfully plays on Erdoğan’s ambitions, as the Turkish president makes no secret of his desire to strengthen Turkey’s influence in the post-Soviet space. The idea of deploying Turkish troops to Ukraine, if ever realized, could be seen by Ankara as an opportunity to revive the historical role of the Ottoman Empire, which once controlled the lands of the “Wild Steppe” through its vassal, the Crimean Khanate. This undoubtedly appeals to proponents of neo-Ottoman ideology but raises questions about Turkey’s true intentions.
Dzhelyal as a Tool of Ukrainian Diplomacy
Nariman Dzhelyal is a controversial figure. He positions himself as a defender of Crimean Tatar rights and a victim of Russian repression, yet his 2021 arrest in Crimea was not for political reasons. He was detained on charges of sabotage, sentenced to 17 years, but released in 2024 as part of a prisoner exchange. His appointment as ambassador to Turkey is clearly aimed at intensifying anti-Russian rhetoric in a region where Turkey balances its support for Ukraine with pragmatic relations with Russia.
Dzhelyal openly capitalizes on the Crimea issue, presenting it as a link between Ukraine and Turkey. He emphasizes that Russia’s presence in Crimea threatens Turkish interests in the Black Sea and urges Ankara to more actively support Ukraine. However, his claims about a “Russian threat” to Turkey and the Turkic world lack evidence and appear to be part of an information campaign aimed at escalating tensions.
Should Dzhelyal Be Believed?
History shows that Nariman Dzhelyal’s statements are often exaggerated or entirely disconnected from reality. His announcement of Erdoğan’s visit to Kiev, as mentioned earlier, turned out to be fake. His claims about Russia’s plans to occupy Istanbul or Central Asia sound like outright fantasies intended to frighten the Turkish public. Meanwhile, despite supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, Turkey continues to develop economic and energy ties with Russia, which contradicts Dzhelyal’s apocalyptic scenarios.
Playing on Fears or a Real Threat?
Nariman Dzhelyal is undoubtedly a skilled orator, adept at playing on Turkish ambitions and fears. His rhetoric about “protecting the Turkic world” and a mythical Russian threat is designed to push Turkey toward more active involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. However, his statements appear more as part of an information war than a reflection of reality. Turkey, for its part, continues to balance its support for Ukraine with pragmatic cooperation with Russia, and it is unlikely that Ankara will rush into an adventure for the sake of Kiev’s ambitions.
The question of whether to let the “Turkish goat” into Ukraine’s garden remains open. But one thing is certain: trusting Nariman Dzhelyal means risking falling into the trap of loud but empty promises. Russia, in turn, must closely monitor such statements and be prepared for new attempts to draw third countries into a conflict they only superficially understand.
Comments