Aykan Sever
“The role of Turkey is doubtful. The survival of the dicator in Turkey depends on his ability to overcome the economic dilemmas and to restore relations with the West. However, Turkey is also dependent on Russia”, writes Aykan Sever for Yeni Ozgur Politika.
The “Trump break” on the Ukrainian front of the postmodern re-division war is over. The clashes started, albeit on a small scale, with the strategies of Boris Johnson, the Joe Biden administration, EU-NATO moves, and Russia’s increasing military deployment to Donbas. Preparations also continue to deepen the war.
The US-NATO alliance could not fully achieve their goals through the “orange revolution”. Crimea was lost and Donbas in the east gained de facto autonomy at the end of a bloody war. There are many reasons for Biden to restart the conflict, which can also be seen as a personal reckoning for him. The first, of course, involves finishing what was left “unfinished”; that is, turning the territories of Ukraine into a NATO territory. Therefore, that lie of “territorial integrity”, which nobody believes, is repeated here (The most obvious example of hypocrisy can be observed in the abscence of any attitude towards the regions occupied by the Republic of Turkey in Syria and Southern Kurdistan. On the contrary, the aid collected by the UN for Syria is deliberately transferred to Turkey and its mercenaries so that these invasion operations are supplied with the necessary support).
From Biden’s perspective, there are various reasons for him to get involved in the process. First of all, his son, Hunter had a role in the management of a natural gas company in Ukraine but he was accused of corruption. The aid that was given to Ukraine during the Trump era was dependent on filing a lawsuit on this issue and this affected the presidential election debates as well. Hunter Biden also wrote in his memoirs about the years he worked in Ukraine: he spent the income he earned on drugs and alcohol. This could be an indicator that he does not care a lot in life about where and how he gets the money.
This search for this “rematch” has historical dimensions for the USA, possibly dating back as far as the period of the Soviet Union. Of course, one cannot expect any other thing from the US, whose CIA was formed by ex-Nazis.
Apart from these aspects of the incident, the main issue for the US is, of course, to continue with the war of sharing the world’s territories, to show that the leadership of international capitalism is still under the US, that “separatist tendencies” in the EU are suppressed and member states are re-aligned by re-establishing the integrity of NATO with the EU.
Although the EU and NATO have not shown resistance against this strategy so far, it is highly doubtful that they can afford a war with Russia. Among the reasons for this are: both the common commercial interests and the “relations” that the Putin administration has established with some governments such as the Republic of Turkey and Hungary.
Putin’s support for the neo-fascist movement across Europe and their increasing political weight is also another dimension.
The role of Turkey is doubtful. The survival of the dicator in Turkey depends on his ability to overcome the economic dilemmas and to restore relations with the West. However, Turkey is also dependent on Russia. The transfer of the Afghanistan peace talks to Istanbul and the Montreux discussions are a clear sign that nothing is going to be easy.
If there develops an ‘open war atmosphere’ between NATO and Russia, this will be costly for Turkey. It is not certain whether Turkey would dare to be a part of such a war with Russia, but the rulers in Turkey have the passion of “conquerors”.
After Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine, it is possible to motivate new attacks in Abkhazia and Ossetia with the excuse of preserving the “territorial integrity” of Georgia – which was on the side of Azerbaijan in the second Karabagh war. Then, the rest is the discourse of “Kızıl Elma” (literally translated as “Red apple”, Kızıl Elma is a doctrine linked with Turkish nationalism) and “Turanism” (an idea based on Turkish nationalism which aims at uniting Turkic, Tatar, and Uralic peoples).
War, of course, comes with its lies. On the one hand, fascists have gathered from all around the world and snipers were transferred from Georgia and burnt more than 40 people in a building in Odessa. Remember the “orange revolution” in the name of “one language, one flag, one country”.
On the other hand, we face a totalitarian nationalist ruling who sees neighbouring peoples as a ‘buffer zone’ between itself and the West. No one asks the people of Donbas about what they want. Despite all these concerns, we do not have to choose lies and war …
