Russia crisis inevitable with person-to-person relations

In the past when there was a "tête-à-tête," in other words a one-on-one meeting, between heads of states, this meant there would still be someone else in the room, most of the time a junior level diplomat, to take notes so the conversation could find its place in the state's archives. 

Or if two sides had decided that no one should be present in the room, the Turkish head of state (be it the president or prime minister) would give a summary of the meeting afterwards to his aides. This was state tradition; it was important for the continuity in the state. 

I recalled that tradition during the crisis with Russia.

At the very beginning of the crisis I had predicted that the tension between the two countries would not escalate.

I was proven wrong. Why was I wrong?

After all, the two countries were usually never on the same page when it came to regional and international issues. But they never let their disagreements on political issues affect other dimensions of their bilateral ties. In other words, past experience demonstrated that both sides thought political disagreements were not critical enough to disrupt "mutually beneficial" economic cooperation, or vice versa, that bilateral relations were mutually beneficial and thus strong enough to serve as a security valve to stop any political tension from escalating.

The two capitals had succeeded in compartmentalizing their relations and containing their differences for the sake of economic gains. This is usually the case between administrations based on liberal democracy and economy, something the two capitals have been distancing themselves from in the course of the past decade.

Just as I failed to understand Turkey's certain policy moves, I failed to predict...