Neo-Ottomanist Fist against the Globalisation - The Snarl of the Wolf

Erdogan: Everybody’s False Friend

The Turkish President only knows one loyalty — to himself. Little wonder Erdogan acts like a congenital flamethrower in international relations.

https://www.theglobalist.com/turkey-erdogan-turkey-foreign-policy-nato/

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is famous for claiming to pursue a “zero problems” foreign policy in the Middle East. Aiming for zero problems in the Middle East is difficult for anybody to deliver on. After all, the wider neighborhood is fiendishly complex and conflict-ridden.

No wonder that his vision unraveled badly. In the process, Erdogan crossed swords with just about every nation in the region, from Egypt to Syria and Iran to Iraq.

Erdogan: Flamethrower in action

Not to be perturbed by his complete failure to deliver on his promise, Mr. Erdogan – with a penchant for inconsequential grandiosity – next went about creating major tensions with the major nations beyond his immediate neighborhood.

First, he loved Russia, then vowed to despise it. Then, he loved it again. The same goes for the United States. It used to be a big friend, but when – in view of spurious charges – Washington didn’t extradite Fetullah Gülen, he called the United States all sorts of names.

His penchant to act like a very cheap rug merchant has left a sour taste in the mouths of many a leader around the world. One should not try to tackle everything on the basis of a very transparent tit-for-tat deal. As a matter of fact, Erdogan is far more transactional than even Donald Trump will ever be.

Germany received no better treatment than the other nations, with the (predictable) highlight of Erdogan calling out the entire country for acting like modern Nazis. In his classic bipolar pattern, when Erdogan saw the economic consequences of the baseless disdain displayed toward Germany, he told his ministers in so many words to love Germany again.

Shredding respect for Turkey

A man like Erdogan who, in such a monomaniacal fashion, is so wedded to his own boundless vanity is not anybody who serves his nation well. If anything, Mr. Erdogan has greatly shrunk the amount of respect that Turkey used to receive in the world.

Erdogan evidently believes that he is, quite literally, the mastermind of global affairs and can play off any country against another at his whim.

Unfortunately, he has surrounded himself with such a large number of yes men that he lacks any sense of realism. And none of his courtiers, for fear of being ousted (or worse), have the courage to tell him the plain truth. As a result, Erdogan doesn’t see that “his” Turkey is actually the one being played, not the other way around.

Russia’s Putin is the clearest cut case of someone who despises Erdogan. While the latter considers him an equal, Putin plays needy Mr. Erdogan like a fiddle.

Western hesitations

Western countries are not quite so unconstrained, in part because they exaggerate the options that Mr. Erdogan has at his disposal beyond NATO and the West. Sure, he can turn to Russia and the Saudis, but neither of those nations will provide his nation with anywhere near the wealth and integration into the international division of labor that the West can.

For that reason, rather than continuing to beat around the bush, it is certainly high time to speak more clearly and more directly to Mr. Erdogan. Tell him that his real options are very limited. Say that everybody’s patience is running out. And make it plain that it is utterly amateurish to engage in very transparent games of playing nations off against each other.

Erdogan and the Germans

Turkey is in too low a weight class to have real heft in that game. There are some notable exceptions. Germany is one of them. The Germans are masters in believing that their hands are tied vis-à-vis Erdogan.

Most fundamentally, they don’t understand that their reflexive obsequiousness doesn’t buy them anything, not even at home. Significant parts of the German foreign policy community still lack a true sense of strategy and strategic heft. That explains the penchant toward mealy mouthedness and near-permanent accommodation.

Macron to the rescue?

It apparently will take political Berlin another decade before it understands that, on many levels, it has only one interest and one loyalty – to help liberal Muslims that are under grave threat in Erdogan’s Turkey (and elsewhere).

That is why the suggestion by Soner Cagaptay to have Emmanuel Macron on behalf of the rest of Europe beat some real sense into Erdogan is a good one.

Erdogan and the PKK

Currently, Mr. Erdogan is once again engaging in utter hyperbole, promising to rid the entire region of “any terrorist.” Given that he considers the entire PKK as terrorist, it matters that Turkey has undertaken more than 25 military operations against the Kurds over the last 25 years.

These actions have evidently not crushed the PKK in Iraq. Not to mention that Erdogan also initiated a dialogue phase with the PKK five years ago, when that served his domestic political goals. It’s back to war now.

Smart Turkey analysts already predict that Erdogan will be into peacemaking with the Kurds again as soon as he has smashed the very anti-Kurdish MHP party. Currently, he needs its support in his pursuit of his imperial presidency.

Fortunately for other nations – and unfortunately for the Turks at home – Erdogan makes plenty of boastful statements in the foreign policy arena that thankfully almost always turn out to be hollow. That stands in stark contrast to Erdogan’s relentless harshness and crushing strategies at home.

“Army of Islam”: Erdogan’s Plot Against Israel

How many more sinister steps can Erdogan take before the EU and the U.S. recognize that he is a threat to Western strategic interests?

https://www.theglobalist.com/turkey-erdogan-democracy-media-israel-united-states-europe/

Less than a month ago, the Turkish daily Yeni Safak ran an interesting article in advance of the summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul.

The newspaper, which is considered one of the mouthpieces of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), published the article under the headline “A Call for Urgent Action.”

The same article was also published on the newspaper’s website with the more explicit title, “What if an Army of Islam was Formed Against Israel?” The article openly called on the 57 member states of the OIC to form a joint “Army of Islam” to simultaneously attack Israel from the east, west, north, and south.

According to Israel’s Shin Bet, the source of the article appears to be the Turkish company SADAT, which among other sinister plots is aiding Hamas with funds and military gear to create a “Palestinian” army to join in the fight against Israel.

The creation of an Army of Islam

The idea of creating an “Army of Islam” to destroy Israel was accompanied by an interactive map providing formation of military forces for a joint Muslim attack on Israel. It also provides details on military forces based in various locations and the role they can play to execute their scheme.

Yeni Safak further explained that “If the member states of the OIC unite militarily, they will form the world’s largest and most comprehensive army. The number of active soldiers would be at least 5,206,100, while the defense budget would reach approximately $175 billion.”

This article provided additional details of the scandalous plan, stating that “It is expected that 250,000 soldiers will participate in the first of a possible operation.

Land, air and naval bases of member states located in the most critical regions will be used. Joint bases will be constructed in a short period of time… It is possible for 500 tanks and armored vehicles, 100 planes and 500 attack helicopters and 50 ships to mobilize quickly.”

Regardless of how absurd and troubling this suicidal plan may seem, Erdogan did not disavow the report. In fact, he has reiterated on several occasions his ambition to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, in which context he wants to create the “Army of Islam.”

Resurrecting the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire he speaks of is the same that committed genocide against more than one million Armenians in the wake of the Ottomans’ defeat at the end of World War I.

No one should dismiss Erdogan’s yet hidden illusion to commit genocide against the Jews in Israel. Erdogan is dangerous because he is insane enough not only to think in these incomprehensible terms, but to act on them on numerous fronts, as he is now doing.

In recent years, Erdogan has been busy establishing military bases in Qatar and Somalia, and most recently reached an agreement with the Sudan to acquire a Sudanese island in the Red Sea to be used as forward military base.

Meanwhile, he is throwing his brash and bearish weight on the Caucasus and former Soviet states such as Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and others to follow his dictates.

He has repeatedly threatened to invade Greek islands in the Mediterranean, not to mention his recent incursion into Syria for the express purpose of establishing a permanent presence in the country under the guise of fighting Kurdish terrorism.

Recently, at the commemoration ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the death of Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II at the Yildiz palace in Istanbul, Erdogan stated that “The Republic of Turkey, just like our previous states that are a continuation of one another, is also a continuation of the Ottomans.”

Declaring that Europe will be Muslim

Erdogan further stated, according to Bloomberg, that ‘Too many Turks, misled by the West, have cut the country off from its Ottoman roots.’ “History isn’t just a nation’s past, it’s the compass for its future.”

MP Alparslan Kavaklioglu, a member of the ruling AKP and the head of the parliament’s Security and Intelligence Commission, recently stated:

The Muslim population will outnumber the Christian population in Europe. This… has increased the nationalistic, xenophobic and anti-Islam rhetoric there. Hence, marginal, small parties have started to get large numbers of votes… But there is no remedy for it. Europe will be Muslim. We will be effective there, Allah willing. I am sure of that.

Making Turkey the leading Islamist state

To promote the revival of the Ottoman Empire and his ambition to become the leader of the Muslim world, Erdogan exploits Islam as the common cause around which all Muslim states can rally. He uses religion to prevent questioning either his motive or the nature of his mission, as he can portray that as if it were all ordained by God.

No one should be surprised if Erdogan soon announces that Sharia law is the law of the land. He exploits Islam for personal and political gain, uses Islamic symbols and precepts to indoctrinate the public and promotes Islamic studies in schools to cultivate a new generation of devout Muslims loyal to him.

Although Erdogan still pretends to govern an Islamic democracy, the truth is that Turkey in no way resembles a democracy under his dictatorial reign. He is steadily making Turkey an Islamist state that stands by and supports Islamic extremist groups such Hamas and the likes of ISIS.

The U.S. and the EU must stop Erdogan from blackmailing the West

Since the publication of this outrageous plan, not a single U.S. or EU official has condemned it. The United States and the EU must demand that Erdogan disassociate himself from the ideas reported by Yeni Safak and reject it in the strongest terms.

Moreover, the United States should put Erdogan on notice that further promulgation of his Ottoman revivalist ideology will be dealt with as a threat to the United States’ and the EU’s strategic interests and will bear severe consequences.

No one, especially the United States and the EU, should dismiss Erdogan’s outrageous anti-Western scheme, which poses a major security threat. It’s time for the EU to permanently and publicly close the door to Turkey’s prospective EU membership.

No American administration should allow Turkey to threaten the destruction of one of its closest allies—Israel—which should have a chilling effect not only on every Israeli, but also on every close ally.

No leader who is silent about the creation of an Islamic Army should be trusted and treated as a legitimate head of state, but must be dealt with as a traitor who is inviting disaster onto his country and people.

No country that cozies up to and buys weapons from the West’s enemy—Russia—and buys oil from the Islamic State should remain a member of NATO.

And no head of state who has dismantled every democratic pillar in his country and is transforming it into an extremist Islamic state can be a trusted as an ally – especially one who is interfering in the domestic affairs of many countries and undermining the international order.

Indeed, how many more sinister steps can Erdogan take before the EU and the United States recognize that he is a threat against Western strategic interests? He must be stopped from blackmailing the West while destroying the country that was envisioned by its founder Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

Globalists vs. Nationalists: Who Owns the Future?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/globalists-vs-nationalists-who-owns-the-future/

Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, was a free trade zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: “There shall be open borders.”

Bartley accepted what the erasure of America’s borders and an endless influx or foreign peoples and goods would mean for his country.

Said Bartley, “I think the nation-state is finished.”

His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.

This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th Century Britain. The St. Paul of this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his vision and the power of his rhetoric.

In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to be removed. There, Cobden thundered:

“I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe—drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.”

Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the “American System,” had been embraced.

The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding Father of his country in his first address to Congress: “A free people … should promote such manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military supplies.”

In his 1791 “Report on Manufactures,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “Every nation ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence.”

This was wisdom born of experience.

At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence. They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency among Americans.

Britain’s folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but could not produce.

America’s own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with JFK’s Trade Expansion Act and LBJ’s Immigration Act of 1965.

By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun. U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of the country.

Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation’s manufacturing base and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no greater loss.

The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.

We see it in Trump’s hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.

We see it in England’s declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.

Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and occupy their homelands.

Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?

The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer — a world of free trade, open borders and global government — are constructs of the mind that do not engage the heart.

Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for pluralism and diversity?

Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?

On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.

Patriotism trumps ideology.

In “Present at the Creation,” Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank, Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.

We are present now at the end of all that.

And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.

To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

Beyond the Trump-Erdogan Meeting: The Rise of Eurasianists and Turkey’s Syria Policy

http://arabcenterdc.org/policy_analyses/beyond-the-trump-erdogan-meeting-the-rise-of-eurasianists-and-turkeys-syria-policy/

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Washington did not usher the “new beginning” in US-Turkey relations that he had expected to attain. Right after Erdogan’s return to Ankara, Turkey accused the US envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, Brett McGurk, of backing Kurdish militants and demanded his removal. Meanwhile, Senators John McCain and Dianne Feinstein called on Erdogan to hold Turkish security personnel accountable for attacking the protesters near the Turkish ambassador’s residence in the American capital, adding that the United States should throw Turkey’s ambassador “the hell out.” Moreover, new revelations on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s controversial dealings with Turkey continue to put pressure on the Trump Administration—which may otherwise be willing to be more open about discussing Erdogan’s obsessive demands for extradition of the Turkish activist preacher Fethullah Gulen as well as the release of the Iranian-Turkish businessman Reza Zarrab (accused of violating sanctions on Iran).

Beyond Trump-Erdogan relations, however, there may be a deeper, structural divergence between Washington and Ankara in the long term. Although most critics focus on Erdogan’s authoritarianism as a threat to Turkey’s future in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the rising tide of a Eurasianist civil-military elite in the country has received little attention. It is imperative to understand Eurasianism as it gains ground in various sectors in Turkish society, as it will likely shape Turkey’s Syria policy and beyond, and thus, relations with the United States in the coming years.

The Fall of Neo-Ottomanism, The Rise of Eurasianism

Since Erdogan’s removal of Ahmet Davutoglu as prime minister in May 2016, Turkey’s Syria policy has changed significantly in favor of Eurasianist elements within the Turkish state apparatus. With thousands of Turkish Army officers sacked following the botched coup attempt in July 2016, the Eurasianist generals filled the vacuum by offering support to Erdogan against the “western-backed plot.” Turkey’s Syria policy evinces concrete foreign policy implications; Ankara has prioritized its fight against the Kurds over supporting the Syrian opposition—which was one of the reasons for the fall of Aleppo—and engaged consecutive deals with Moscow, including a potential contract for the S-400 Russian defense shield system. The Eurasianists played a key role in arranging back-stage talks with the Asad regime as well as restoring the crumbling Erdogan-Putin relations.

Eurasianism forges a plethora of intellectual and social trends including Kemalism, Turkish nationalism, socialism, and radical secularism. The perspective is rooted far back in the Marxist Kadro and Yon movements in the early decades of the Turkish Republic and gained momentum during the 1990s under emboldened Kemalist generals. Although there are many factions and variants of Turkish Eurasianism, three main tenets of the Eurasianist worldview are important to note: (1) an anti-imperialist reading of western capitalist development and a deep skepticism toward globalization; (2) a conspiratorial belief that Turkey’s unity and borders are threatened by the western powers’ self-interested policies in Iraq and Syria, referred to as the “Sèvres Syndrome”; and, (3) a perspective that places Turkey’s future as part of the Eastern bloc, primarily Russia, the Central Asian Turkic republics, and China, as western organizations gradually lose their significance around the globe.

Following the “post-modern coup” against Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan’s Islamist Welfare Party in 1997, the Kemalist generals with a  Eurasianist vision rose to the upper echelons of the state apparatus and suggested that Turkey should establish a new alliance with Russia. With the rise of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the ensuing pro-European reform packages, however, the Eurasianists lost their influence. In fact, the leading figures of the movement were imprisoned due to their alleged roles in extrajudicial killings of Kurds during the 1990s and the later coup attempts against the AKP government—famously known as the Ergenekon and Balyoz trials.

In early 2014, the trial cases were ended abruptly after corruption allegations surfaced against Erdogan’s inner circle. After the attempted coup in July 2016, Erdogan declared that Turkey had entered “a new war of liberation”—using the Kemalist lexicon—against the “western plot” aiming to overthrow his government and decided to mend fences with the generals. Since then, the Eurasianists have strongly supported Erdogan’s war against “western-backed” enemies—Gulen, liberals, and Kurds—and gradually formed a marriage of convenience with the AKP government.

ALEXANDER DUGIN: "MOSCOW-ANKARA" EURASIAN AXIS

https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/studio/alexander-dugin-moscow-ankara-eurasian-axis

How Do Eurasianists Influence Turkey’s Syria Policy?

Exploiting Erdogan’s weakness in the domestic and international arenas, the Eurasianists, remarkably, have reinterpreted the AKP’s neo-Ottomanism as part of Turkish chauvinist nationalism. The shift in Turkey’s Kurdish policy was the best example. While the architect of the neo-Ottomanist vision, Ahmet Davutoglu, was advocating for a Muslim brotherhood between Turks and Kurds, the Eurasianists perceived the Kurdish issue as a national security threat. The Eurasianists’ position has strongly been against Turkey’s support of the Syrian opposition and the Muslim Brotherhood. As they helped to break down Turkey’s peace process during 2013-15, they paved the way for military operations in southeast Turkey and eventually changed the course of Turkey’s policy in Syria—drawing principal attention to the Kurdish threat and hindering the government’s ability to support the Syrian opposition.

Although neo-Ottomanism and Eurasianism are clashing perspectives, it is important to highlight how anti-American/anti-western discourse becomes the overlapping feature of the two, often feeding into each other. Animosity toward the United States is on the rise and the anti-western rhetoric in the Turkish media cuts across party lines: the pro-government media blames “traitors” for having alleged ties to a western-backed coup against Erdogan, while the opposition aims to prove its authentic patriotism by blaming Erdogan’s concessions to the United States. Thus, given the fact that the Eurasianist vision and Euro-skepticism have reached major political parties, such as the Turkish Nationalist Action Party (MHP) and Republican People’s Party (CHP), some marginal Eurasianist groups such as Dogu Perincek’s Patriotic Party (VP) enjoy disproportionate influence in shaping Ankara’s policies—reminiscent of the rising clout of anti-globalist, isolationist groups around the world.

Beyond the ideological realm, Perincek’s group has cultivated deep connections to many key positions in the state’s intelligence and judicial apparatuses in the wake of a massive purge following the coup attempt in July 2016. As some 130,000 civil servants were sacked, the government aimed to fill the vacancies with a pro-AKP constituency; however, a quirky vetting process under the state of emergency often invited controversy in conservative circles. Some fear that purges in the bureaucracy are getting out of Erdogan’s control. Many are concerned about the purges since they reach deep into the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the armed forces, and the universities. Even many conservative intellectuals are now afraid of providing constructive criticism—including the circles of Abdullah Gul, Bulent Arinc, and Ahmet Davutoglu, who were effectively silenced—that the Eurasianist bureaucrats are finding a fertile environment to shape state policies.

The Eurasianists, for example, strongly support Erdogan’s proposal of reinstating the death penalty—which is declared as the “reddest of the red lines” by European officials—hoping to see further deterioration of Turkish-EU relations. They also support Turkey’s further engagement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as an alternative path.

A Detachment from the Arab Gulf?

The major fault line between neo-Ottomanism and Eurasianism is the vision of Turkey’s role in the Middle East. Davutoglu has been an ardent critic of Kemalist foreign policy, which long discarded cultural and religious affinities between Turks and Arabs. The Eurasianists, on the other hand, view Turkey’s strong relations with the Arab Gulf states and the Muslim Brotherhood at best as a liability, and at worst as a dangerous association. Turkey’s active policy in Syria was especially criticized by the Eurasianists who have Alevi backgrounds, and they accused the Turkish government of pursuing sectarian politics. Although Turkey’s Alevis and Syria’s Alawis are historically and culturally different, both groups are fearful of the Sunni identity that is associated with the neo-Ottoman perspective.

In this regard, the Eurasianist perspective of Iran has evolved over the years. For long, Iran as an “Islamic Republic” was perceived as a threat to Turkey’s secular order, and thus, the Eurasianists were most skeptical about close relations between Ankara and Tehran under Erdogan’s AKP. After the Syrian civil war, Iran’s support of the Asad regime and the increasingly sectarian nature of the Turkey-Iran competition have transformed Eurasianist thinking. The Eurasianists are against Turkey’s alliance with Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni population in Iraq; for them, Ankara’s Iran policy should focus solely on cutting links between Tehran and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Moreover, as an anti-Western power, Iran is considered a potential partner on certain issues.

Overall, the Eurasianist vision has strong reservations regarding Turkey’s current policy in the Middle East. Given the deep mistrust between Erdogan and the Eurasianists, the question revolves around the durability of the pragmatic alliance. Erdogan recently declared that the state of emergency may be extended seemingly forever—“until the country achieves welfare and peace.” Whereas the presidential ruling by decree will empower Erdogan, the state of emergency conditions invite messy wars in the Turkish state apparatus, which eventually harm the normalization of the country. Despite their dislike of the all-powerful Erdogan, the Eurasianists cherish Turkey’s new presidential system that revolves around a strong man—an authoritarian structure with a Putinesque model where they have increased ability to exert influence in the long term.

Does Washington Grasp the Structural Shift beyond Erdogan?

The recent spat between Turkey and Germany over the use of the Incirlik air base is the latest indicator of Ankara’s fragile relations with NATO. Turkey’s increasing drift away from NATO, however, is often depicted in the western media as a result of Erdogan’s stumbling policy choices in Syria. Such analyses omit consideration of the structural transformations inside the Turkish state apparatus, which are now successfully exploited by Russia.

For instance, Russian Eurasianists with ties to Alexander Dugin—dubbed as “Putin’s Rasputin”—have provided ample support to the Perincek group and played a key role in repairing Putin-Erdogan relations in favor of a Turkish Eurasianist expansion of influence. Whether Moscow has any relations with Turkey’s anti-NATO officers is a mystery. What is known, however, is that the massive purge after the coup attempt targeted western educated officers including hundreds of senior military staff serving in NATO in Europe and the United States. Not surprisingly, officers with Eurasianist leanings have become the primary beneficiaries of the purge process. Of particular note, among the Eurasianist generals who received promotions after the July 2016 coup attempt was Lt. Gen. Zekai Aksakalli, commander of the Turkish Special Forces in Syria and Iraq. Aksakalli oversaw the Operation Euphrates Shield, which almost put Turkey on a collision course with the United States in northern Syria.

Putin’s goal to detach Turkey from NATO, of course, is not bound to the Syrian dynamics. The increasingly strong economic relations between Ankara and Moscow facilitate Turkish-Russian cooperation. Yet, the weakest link in the chain vulnerable to Russian manipulation between Washington and Ankara is Turkey’s war against the PKK. The Trump Administration appears to be confused as to how to deal with the issue. The confusion is most clearly reflected in Washington’s decision to arm the PKK’s affiliate, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), in Syria while simultaneously increasing pressure on the group to cut its ties to the PKK. Some officials believe that US relations with the Syrian Kurds are “temporary, transactional, and tactical” and thus, relations with Turkey are a long-term strategic priority for Washington. Others are aware of the potential consequences for arming PKK-affiliates at the conclusion of the Raqqa operation. Regarding a long-term strategic partnership, the Trump Administration appears to be giving Ankara assurances for cooperation against the PKK in Turkey and Iraq.

What is most needed, however, is Washington’s serious diplomatic efforts to ensure a new round of a peace process between Turkey and the PKK. Focusing on short-term maneuvers based on armed operations in Syria and Iraq, the United States inadvertently feeds Turkish Eurasianist views. This short-term focus may be caused by the fact that Washington’s perspective of Turkey is partially shaped by dominant media imagery of Erdogan’s Turkey as a “neo-Ottoman” (read “anti-NATO”) state. Such a depiction is misleading not because Ankara is strongly committed to NATO; instead, Turkey’s drift away from NATO is more serious, structural, and deeper, and surely, it goes well beyond Erdogan’s grip. That, perhaps, is why Washington should care more, not less, about Turkey’s domestic politics in the long term. In disregarding human rights abuses and the media crackdown in Turkey, Washington risks losing its soft power among the Turkish citizenry—who no longer see the United States as “the leader of the free world”—and thus, the ideology of Eurasianism could find broad public appeal.

Mustafa Gurbuz is a Non-resident Analyst at Arab Center Washington DC. To learn more about Mustafa and read his previous publications:

Check the link above!

Turkish President Erdogan: Freemason Globalist Or Anti Zionist Hero Against The Deep State?

https://steemit.com/politics/@truthseekereport/turkish-president-erdogan-closet-freemason-globalist-or-anti-zionist-hero-against-the-deep-state

By now, the world of politics has its eyes on Turkey and it's current attempt to "crush the Kurds" in Syria with Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan already starting to push his army into Syria under pointless pretences with the real intent of overthrowing Assad under the guise of "defeating the Kurds" if you are not already aware the Kurds are already losing against the Syrian Army.It is obvious that Erdogan wants to eradicate both the Syrian Army and the Kurds now that the Kurds in Syria are no longer seen as "useful tools against Assad" by the Neocons in the U.S/Israeli government.

Eradicating the Kurds in Syria also helps the U.S and its allies, destroy all the evidence/witnesses of U.S/Israeli/Saudi war crimes in Syria.

This move by Turkey has received condemnation from Syrian President, Bashar Al Assad who has condemned Erdogan's actions in Syria and has stated that "Turkey is supporting terrorism in Syria"

Erdogan has also boldy warned the U.S to not interfere in Turkey's activities and this caused a lot of people in Turkey to cheer for their President viewing him as an "Anti Zionist" but sorry to burst their bubbles but Erdogan has been spreading the same NATO/U.S propaganda against the Assad regime in Syria for years and Erdogan has also helped the CIA backed terrorist organization known as the "Free Syrian Army" by giving them refuge in Turkey.

Furthermore, in 2014,an Egyptian TV program claimed that Erdogan was in fact, a Freemason.These claims was initially seen as outlandish at first until a year after those claims, there were Freemasonic Symbols in Erdogan's Palace.

Could Erdogan be a Freemason and if so,how deep are his Freemasonic connections?

The Freemasonic connection might be a red herring as his meetings with James Rothschild (from the infamous Zionist Rothschild Banking Dysnasty) alongside other influential businessmen including Henry Kissinger in a "high level meeting" organized by Bloomberg in 2016 should already be very telling and reveals his true allegiances.

Like many other puppets on the political stage, most of what he does is nothing more than part of a ridiculous puppet show carefully constructed by various special interest groups who seeks to distract us from the real agenda that is being shaped by them.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/mehmet-y-yilmaz/a-masonic-symbol-in-erdogans-palace-81792

Pres. Erdogan Admits that Turkey is…The ‘Continuation’ of the Ottoman Empire
http://www.thecaliforniacourier.com/pres-erdogan-admits-that-turkey-is-the-continuation-of-the-ottoman-empire/

For many decades Turkish officials have outright denied the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide. In recent years, however, some Turks have made the excuse that today’s Turkish Republic is not responsible for the Armenian Genocide because it was committed by the Ottoman Empire, a defunct state.

With this pretext, the issue is no longer whether genocide was committed or not, but who is responsible for it. Those who use this justification, claim that the Republic of Turkey is neither the successor nor the continuation of the Ottoman Empire, but a new and separate state!

This argument has gradually grown weaker as Pres. Recep Tayyip Erdogan began speaking and acting as an Ottoman Sultan! Two weeks ago, the Turkish leader made matters worse for his country when he, according to The Times of London, asserted that “modern Turkey is a ‘continuation’ of the Ottoman Empire — a direct contradiction of Ataturk’s ideology, which cast the Imperial era as backwards, stale and to be discarded and forgotten rather than celebrated.”

By stating that Turkey is a ‘continuation’ of the Ottoman Empire, Erdogan effectively concedes that today’s Turkey is responsible for the actions of the Ottoman Empire. In other words, the Republic of Turkey, which inherited the Ottoman Empire’s assets, also inherited its liabilities!
To confirm his allegiance to the Ottoman dynasty, Erdogan attended a ceremony earlier this month to mark the centenary of the death of Sultan Abdulhamid II, the ‘Red Sultan,’ who has been rehabilitated by the current government. Erdogan conveniently ignored the fact that the Red Sultan had ordered the killing of 300,000 Armenians from 1894 to 1896, known as the Hamidian massacres. As reported by The Times of London, “The descendants of one of the last Ottoman sultans are to be given Turkish citizenship, ending almost a century of outcast and ostracism.”

According to The Times of London, “Abdulhamid II ruled from 1876 to 1909, and was much maligned in Kemal Ataturk’s modern Turkish republic for his authoritarianism, anti-Westernism and clampdowns on the media. Yet, in the era of President Erdogan he has been rehabilitated. A television series, ‘Payitaht’, which depicts the life of Abdulhamid in glowing terms has been lauded by Mr. Erdogan as essential viewing for Turkish youths to find out about their country’s history…. ‘We see Sultan Abdulhamid II as one of the most important, most visionary, most strategic-minded personalities who have put their stamps on the last 150 years of our state,’ Mr. Erdogan said. ‘We should stop seeing the Ottomans and the Republic as two eras that conflict with one another.’ Abdulhamid died in 1918 and at celebrations for the centenary this week, Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that he would personally oversee the granting of citizenships to the family.”

Arrogantly, Erdogan then warned that U.S. soldiers in Northern Syria would soon receive the ‘Ottoman slap,’ according to Reuters. He was “referring to a half-legendary Turkish martial move that involves a potent open-palm hit, resulting in a one-hit knockout or even skull fractures and death.” An illustration published by the pro-government Turkish media shows Pres. Donald Trump receiving an ‘Ottoman slap’ by Pres. Erdogan. Furthermore, Reuters quoted Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu stating that Washington was backing the YPG [Kurdish forces in Syria] because it shared the same “Marxist, communist, atheist” ideology!

Returning to the issue of whether the Republic of Turkey is a brand new and separate entity from the Ottoman Empire, Prof. Alfred de Zayas, an international law expert, explained in an essay titled, “The Genocide against the Armenians 1915-1923 and the relevance of the 1948 Genocide Convention,” that a ‘successor state’ is responsible for the crimes committed by its predecessor regime. Moreover, a state that is a ‘continuation’ of a previous entity is even more responsible because there is no difference between the two, as admitted by Erdogan two weeks ago.

addition, Alfred de Zayas quoted in his study Prof. M. Cherif Bassiouni stating that “In international law, the doctrine of legal continuity and principles of State responsibility make a ‘successor Government’ liable in respect of claims arising from a former government’s violations.” Prof. de Zayas concluded that “the claims of the Armenians for their wrongfully confiscated properties did not disappear with the change from the Sultanate to the regime of Mustafa Kemal.”

Finally, Prof. de Zayas affirmed that “the principle of responsibility of successor States has been held to apply even when the State and government that committed the wrongs were not that of the ‘successor State.’ This principle was formulated, inter alia, by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Lighthouse Arbitration case.”
 We can conclude that Pres. Erdogan, by affirming that today’s Republic of Turkey is the continuation of the Ottoman Empire, has inadvertently admitted that Turkey is responsible for the genocidal, territorial and economic damages caused by the Ottoman Empire to the Armenian people. Erdogan’s confession should be presented as evidence when demands emanating from the Turkish Genocide of Armenians are submitted to the World Court.