Eurasian Policy of Turkey

Eurasian Policy of Turkey

From the point of view of geopolitics, Turkey belongs to the "coastal zone", and therefore, the geopolitical theorem of Turkish policy on a global scale is solved through the balance and confrontation between the two orientations - Atlanticist and Eurasian. Since the days of Kemal Ataturk, Turkey has a strong national consciousness, perceives its statehood as a colossal, almost absolute value, and tends to play a strong and independent part in the regional context.

Modern Turkey was born in a bloody battle on the Bosphorus against the British. Kemal Ataturk builds «young Turkey» on the basis of hard confrontation with the Anglo-Saxon project. In other words, the Eurasian choice lies in the foundation of the modern Turkish state, where anti-English momentum begins its modern history. The geopolitical line of Ataturk is clear: Turkey does not intend to be atlanticist colony: it's a free and fundamental choice of father-founder of the Turkish state. And this choice is Eurasian geopolitically.

In the second half of the twentieth century the regional policy of Turkey arised from the balance between orientation towards the U.S. and NATO and desire to preserve its national identity and regional independence. Even in the period of the closest rapprochement with Washington Ankara never considered itself to be a colony, but aimed to become a partner of America.

After the collapse of the USSR Turkish special services sharply intensified their activities in Azerbaijan, Central Asia and the Caucasus. Ankara sought to consolidate their interests in the format of the anti-Russian Fronde in the territories, where Moscow's positions were weakened. The climax of these trends was achieved during the first Chechen campaign, which was actively supported by Turkey logistically, informatically and economically. In short, by the mid of 1990-es atlanticist role of Turkey in its relation to Eurasia reached its climax. If Moscow at that time left the North Caucasus, amenable to the separatist invasion, and weakened and lost control of the situation in other regions, we cannot exclude the scale of participation of Turkey in the administration of the gigantic Eurasian territories.

A cursory analysis of the latest changes in the geopolitical picture of the world shows the context of the changing geopolitical functions of all major players. Turkey”s geopolitical position in the scale of regional policy is great. Eurasianism in Turkey most actively began to spread in left-wing circles. It was the left, «Communist» version, in many ways reminiscent of a similar evolution of the Russian Communists. It's concentrated around the «Working party of Turkey», Dogu Perincek, the journal «Aydenliik» and other culturally close initiatives. In this case, the inertial anti-capitalist and anti-American vector, traditional for the left and the extreme left, combined with a growing nationalism and nеоkеmаlism which, coupled with a keen attention to strategy and geopolitics, brought these circles to the issues of Eurasianism.

However, a certain interest to Eurasionism was shown by completely opposite forces - right nationalists, centrists, some religious circles, a certain segment of the military leadership of Turkey, such intellectual foundations as “Yasawi “and ASSES, a movement called «Platform of Eurasian Dialogue », seeks to bring together intellectuals of the CIS countries and Turkey. This interest is also attributed by economic structures such as ”The Eurasian Forum» of Arcan Суver, Eurasian Department of the chamber of Commerce of Turkey, organization of Eurasian cooperation of Russia and Turkey РУТАМ, non-conformist magazine «Yaryn» etc. Finally, there were a lot of support of Eurasianism in private conversations in official negotiations with many high-ranking officials and representatives of law enforcement agencies, especially the army. In each case, the framing of Eurasianism was unique, but the main vector was clear: Ankara actively seeks the answer to the challenges of the new geopolitical system, refuses from unambiguous atlanticist choice, revokes and collapses the former anti-Russian scenario, searches for a new understanding of Turkey’s place in the regional balance of powers and looks at the new Eurasia with new eyes. And this implies a new system of interaction with Russia -- under new rules in the new context.

Turkey is the East, who went to the West, remaining East essentially. Turkey is the West pushed deeply into East and fused with its values. Modern Turkey as modern Russia, is built on the ruins of the Eurasian Empire. The roots of Turks are in the endless expanses of the Eurasian continent. Their vector of movement goes to the West. Turkey itself is Eurasia, a powerful bundle of historical and political will, remelting peoples and the state in the new historical phenomenon. European and Asian Turks inseparably merged among themselves, and the axis of this synthesis is the national Turkish state, the State that is deeply Eurasian.

This brief analysis explains to us the essence of the processes taking place in Turkey today.

The fact is that the last 5 years the Erdogan’s government (moderate Islamists) moved away from the Eurasian model, though it paid special attention to Eurasian doctrine, despite the tough clash with a group of Eurasian Kemalists (in the case with “Ergenekon”), inspired by the provocateurs from the CIA. Thousands of Kemalists and Eurasianists, including most of the leaders of the Turkish General staff, were removed from their offices, and many hundreds of them were thrown in jail on false charges in violation of all laws. This Atlantisist and Pro-American revolution of Erdogan received the name of «neoosmanian policy» and meant a new integration of Ankara into the American project of the Greater Middle East. Erdogan almost broke ties with Iran, became close with the pro-US Wahhabi regimes of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and sharply deteriorated relations with Moscow. The Arab world, of course, did not improve its attitude to Turkey (former Empire), and Eurasian partner’s ties were severed. Having set the task to strengthen its influence in the region with the support of Americans and colluding with Israel (which took advantage of the visibility deterioration of relations with Turkey in becoming intimate with Greece and buying there a strategically important assets (energy) and earth), in the case of a new and serious clashes with the Islamic world, primarily with Iran, Erdogan undermined not only possible Eurasian axis (in particular, the axis of Moscow-Ankara, to which I devoted a separate book published in Turkish language a few years ago), but also jeopardize the integrity of Turkey, provoking terror against the government of the half of the population and creating conditions for a new wave of Kurdish separatism. In other words, «Neoosmanian policy» of Erdogan was a complete failure and jeopardized the very existence of Turkey. When Erdogan was supported by the Wahhabi Pro-American extremists in Syria and was opened on one side to Israel, it became obvious that he crossed the line and that Turkey is doomed. In this case The policy of Erdogan was not a fluctuation of the coastal zone between the Land (Eurasianism) and the Sea (the USA, and its regional subimperiolistic allies -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Wahhabis, etc), but definite embedding in Atlanticism, that is the straight path to suicide. Erdogan was in a position of Saakashvili in 2008 or Yushchenko. Not a long time remained before the collapse of his regime and the collapse of Turkey.

Many of the « patriotic» experts, being ignorant in geopolitics and obsessed by conspiracy theory, are ready to see here «the hand of the Americans» and the manipulation of Soros Foundation and Rothschild. They better prefer to explain all world events and never to take resolute and active position -- only passively observing what is happening. Let's imagine, that the revolution will begin in the camp of our enemies: in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, in the United States; alas, such unnoticed by us revolutions today reveals themselves in the dramatic struggle of the Bahrain folk Shia majority against Bahrain pro-Saudi atlanticist dictatorship, for example. They certainly should be classified as Eurasian, and they should be encouraged by us by all means. But the revolutions in Libya, Syria, or Iran, by contrast, are atlantisist from a geopolitical point of view. Uprising societies in Egypt and Tunisia can be considered politically ambiguous. It’s the same with the recognition of independence of certain newly proclaimed countries. Recognition of Kosovo's independence – is Atlanticism, and of South Ossetia and Abkhazia - Eurasianism.

The geopolitical line of Ataturk is clear: Turkey does not intend to be the atlanticist colony. It's a free and fundamental choice of the father-founder of the Turkish state.

Moscow sooner or later has to learn the basics of geopolitics and act in accordance with indigenous long-term and objective national interests. So we should support the people uprising in Turkey. Nothing personal, Mr. Erdogan, you will reap the fruits of what is sown by yourself.

This is what ‘s happening before our eyes. Today atlanticism of Erdogan came into the final conflict with the Eurasian masses of Turkey. Therefore, this revolution unlike many other episodes of the so-called «Arab spring», should be geopolitically qualified as positive. Of course, it involves different forces, moderated from the USA, which are among the rebels, and their networks, always making bets to several trends. But the intellectual center of the uprising is the Eurasian left of the «Working party of Turkey” and their publication (in particular, «Aydinlik») and independent TV channel Ulusal. Leaders of the party Dogu and Mehmet Perinchek are currently in prison, but millions of their followers are waging a bitter struggle with the atlantist, the Wahhabi and pro-Israel lobby, still officially dominant in Turkey. Turkey now is against Russia - almost militarily - in Syria, where we support directly opposite forces, as Eurasians and atlantisists are always on different sides of barricades. But Turkey has the freedom to choose Russia with its geopolitical place. Today the duality of Turkey appears to be obvious: Eurasian opposition attacks atlanticist, anti-national, Pro-American power. Of course, the control of the Turkish Eurasians over the total mass of the rebels is not complete, but significant. But it is obvious for Moscow with whom to be in such a situation. And we should look more closely at every Russian expert who advises in this situation to move in the direction of Erdogan or not to intervene at all: if he is himself a part of the Pro-US atlanticist network, whose presence in the Russian leadership was prevailing, until Putin had not started cleaning of the agents of Western influence in the political elites of Russia (which, alas, is far from being finished).