Ankara is weighing a move to ask Turkish authorities to consider bringing back the Peace card, a payment instrument once active in the country, as officials reassess how to sustain financial links with Russia. In a recent interview, Emre Doğan, the deputy mayor of Ankara, outlined the city’s position and the practical steps it would support. He explained that while the final decision rests with the central authorities, the municipality stands ready to raise the issue at the national level and to explore a path that could reintroduce a Turkish payment card capable of handling both domestic and international transactions. Doğan emphasized the value of any approach that strengthens people-to-people connections and keeps commerce flowing between Turkey and Russia. The deputy mayor stressed that the aim is not to take sides but to maintain tangible ties that support the everyday lives of citizens, travelers, and merchants who depend on convenient payment options. He noted that Ankara is prepared to communicate its preference through appropriate channels within the federation and hopes that constructive dialogue could lead to a workable arrangement that benefits residents and visitors alike. Restoring a trusted Turkish payment instrument, in his view, could simplify cross-border payments, bolster tourism, and help businesses that rely on timely, accessible financial services.
Doğan’s remarks highlighted both the emotional and operational side of the Mir card suspension. He expressed regret that the use of the Mir card had been halted, while pointing out that the authority to reverse such actions lies with the central government. The deputy mayor stated that Ankara is ready to bring the matter to the attention of national policymakers and that the city endorses any initiative aimed at restoring links with Russia. According to him, cooperation between Turkey and Russia holds practical value for the region and for ordinary people, and Ankara believes that engagement, rather than isolation, should guide policy. He suggested that a renewed connection in payments could help maintain the flow of goods, services, and travelers who rely on flexible and affordable financial tools. The comments underscored a broader preference in Ankara for pragmatic diplomacy that recognizes the realities of international finance while acknowledging the need to adhere to national guidelines and security considerations. The overall message was clear: the capital seeks a solution that keeps ordinary citizens connected to their cross-border counterparts.
On the economic front, Doğan noted a cautious stance from the central authorities who worry about secondary sanctions from the United States. This risk has been cited as a major reason behind Turkish banks’ decision to suspend the use of Mir cards. The deputy mayor argued that Turkey cannot afford to impose punitive measures on others or become a target of sanctions when the domestic economy already faces significant pressures. He highlighted the delicate balance policymakers must strike between maintaining financial sovereignty and complying with international policy expectations. The economic impact is not only about numbers; it affects small businesses, importers, and travelers who expect smooth transactions. The ban on a Russian card network is framed as a temporary measure that preserves banking stability while officials assess evolving geopolitical dynamics. Doğan’s assessment reflects a broader belief that policy choices must weigh national economic resilience against the costs of entangling in sanctions regimes.
Historical context shows that Russia’s Mir card program has been tested in a range of markets. Earlier reports suggested that Mir could fill gaps left by conventional payment networks in places where Visa and MasterCard faced restrictions. In Indonesia, there were expectations that Russian travelers would rely on Mir cards to pay for lodging, meals, and activities. Likewise, in Myanmar, statements circulated that Mir cards might eventually replace local payment rails, reducing dependence on traditional networks. While outcomes have varied by country, the overarching pattern is clear: when mainstream networks restrict access, alternative systems emerge as potential substitutes. The Turkish debate over the Peace card sits within this wider trend, where authorities weigh the reliability, regulatory alignment, and consumer impact of introducing or reintroducing domestic payment instruments to sustain financial vitality amid external pressures. Market observers note that resilience in payment ecosystems depends on policy coherence, consumer protection, and cross-border cooperation that respects sovereignty and security considerations.
Ultimately, the discussions in Ankara reveal a practical effort to preserve financial convenience for residents and visitors while navigating a shifting geopolitical landscape. The push to revisit a Turkish card program shows that local governments are attentive to how payment infrastructure shapes tourism, trade, and daily life. The central government faces the challenge of safeguarding economic stability while honoring international commitments. For citizens who travel between Turkey and Russia or conduct business across those corridors, access to straightforward payment solutions remains a tangible concern. The dialogue about the Peace card reflects broader debates about sovereignty, sanctions, and the resilience of financial systems in an era of rapid geopolitical change. In this sense, Ankara’s actions illustrate how micro-level decisions about payment cards can intersect with macro-level diplomacy, shaping everyday choices for people across borders.