In the first conflict, Turkey supports the sovereignty of Ukraine and condemns the annexation of Crimea but keeps its close ties with the Russian Federation. Turkey has strong historic, ethnic, religious ties with Crimea and Crimean Tatars. In the second conflict, Turkey, while positioning itself firmly against aggression, has close relations with Hamas but tense relations with Israel. Turkey can relate with the region historically as the region was once part of the Ottoman Empire, and also with the Arab population through Islam religion. 

The difference of the public opinion on these two conflicts is more pronounced. The ordeal of the Crimean Tatars does not find any coverage in the mainstream media. If presidents of Turkey and Russia do not meet, the Ukraine-Russian conflict does not attract much attention. On the other hand there are mass demonstrations to support Palestinian cause and to condemn Israel. News programs widely cover the topic. Both left and right wing politicians compete with each other in their reaction towards Israel and accusing the West of insincerity.

Moreover there is a general agreement that the West is responsible for Russian aggression in Ukraine. Turkey opposes the annexation of Crimea and gives military support to Ukraine by providing drones and arms. Despite this, walking the thin line of balance prevents acknowledging openly the oppression and persecution of the Crimean Tatars. It is reported that in the last 9.5 years more than 5000 human rights violations have been registered in Crimea and majority of the cases are related to Crimean Tatars. 

Turkey is geographically and culturally in between Europe and the Middle East, and also has strong cultural ties with the Central Asian states. Naturally it is affected by both Western and Eastern traditions. Indeed Turkey used to pacify its clash of cultures with the metaphor of being a bridge between West and East. 

The westernization efforts which began during the Ottoman Empire, reached its peak with the reforms of Ataturk. Later membership of the Council of Europe in 1949 and NATO in 1952 established the ‘Western head of the bridge’. The Balkan Pact - between Turkey, Greece, Yugoslavia - and the Treaty of Sadabad - between Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan - aimed Turkey to be a center of stability and trust for both the East and the West. However, instead of forming a hybrid culture to link the eastern and western civilizations, Turkey’s geography and cultural aspects formed the Eastern head of the bridge. In fact even for the many secular Turks, the West is the untrustable imperialist power and Russia is a balancing power against it.

The emphasis on being a bridge began to weaken with the development of the Greater Middle East concept, which took Turkey from the periphery and placed it right into the Middle East. The ruling politicians were elated with the potential to influence a region from North of Africa to Central Asia. Initially President Erdogan shone in the region with the ‘one minute’ rebuke towards Shimon Peres. Another motto has been popularized ‘zero problem with the neighbors’. As the traditional Turkish Middle-East policy is abandoned in favor of the more assertive ones, disagreements with the other countries in the region increased.

The destabilization in the Greater Middle East region produced millions of refugees with the hopes to reach the West through Turkey. However for the vast majority it was the end of the road. As a result  the Greater Middle East adventure converted Turkey from a bridge to a barrier between the West and the East. 

Today Turkey has conflicts with the majority of the countries in the Middle East and tries to normalize its relations. Moreover, unwise policies weakened its economy and strained its internal affairs. Whenever there is an international crisis the possible attitude of Turkey is uncertain. As Turkey loses its weight in international diplomacy the West becomes distant and the Turkish public becomes distant to the West.

It is appreciable that President Erdogan follows a balanced approach in response to the recent conflict in the Middle East. His rhetoric is much milder than the opposition who contemplates military intervention in Gaza. 

The experience of twenty years as the head of the country undoubtedly contributes to his restraint. However the battered Turkish economy is another reason to keep his tone down. 

The economy requires recuperating years of economic mismanagement and restoring investor confidence. The pragmatic leader most probably calculates the winning strategies of the coming municipal elections in this dire situation and tries to stay appealing for the foreign investments.

Nonetheless Turkey and Turkish people were never so much closer to the Middle-East but farther to the West during the history of the Turkish Republic. Moreover the millions of refugees mainly from Syria but also from Afghanistan changes its demography and shifts the balance even more towards the East.