TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

AzeriTank

Contributor
Messages
689
Reactions
2 1,753
Nation of residence
Azerbaijan
Nation of origin
Azerbaijan
Mostly we handle our problems with our neighbours include philipines through talk.
For decades,there are no wars between neighbours in ASEAN.
We mostly negotiate peacefully instead of guns.
I thought he is the foreign minister, my bad. Its totally normal if he is the prime minister as mentioned.
sorry but we Turks give huge attention to murtual respect especially in this kind of scenarios.
 

Baryshx

Contributor
Messages
919
Reactions
8 1,924
Website
www.twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Let me ask you using your analogy

If Turkey support Israel to destroy Palestine , do you think that Palestine have the right of supporting Greece to destroy Turkey ?
What funny question?

Palestine already supports Armenia, Greece and Greek Cypriot.
Last but not the least, the support and sympathy for the Palestinian cause is for moral and socio-cultural reasons, not to validate their highly corrupt and puppet political leadership who most of the time don't know what they are doing, nor do they legally represent the people of Palestines.
There is no need for this shitty agitation.

The Turkish Cypriots, Karabakh/Azerbaijan and Uyghur Turks are going through the same thing.

Palestine stands out because it is a popular culture toy.

The Turk-hating terrorists in Turkiye are following the same path.

Where were you people when millions of people were killed and raped in Iraq and the same thing was happening in Syria? If you are so Muslim and human?

They were wishing America success for the blessing of democracy. Hypocritical dishonesty.
 
Last edited:

Sanchez

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,490
Reactions
47 6,514
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There are about hundred steps you can take in that direction before you recognize a country, see Taiwan. None of this means TRNC will be recognized.
 

dBSPL

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Ambassador
Messages
2,034
Reactions
77 10,517
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Not just Malaysia.

TASS: Russia will provide consular services in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.


On the US side, Congressman Sessions recently became the first American politician to arrive in TRNC by direct flight. The organization he attended and was invited to was organized by the TRNC Ministry of Trade and Industry.
 

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
7,897
Reactions
54 27,926
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Not just Malaysia.

TASS: Russia will provide consular services in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.


On the US side, Congressman Sessions recently became the first American politician to arrive in TRNC by direct flight. The organization he attended and was invited to was organized by the TRNC Ministry of Trade and Industry.

The Russian Greek Cypriot embassy stated that this is a move to fulfill the responsibilities towards Russian citizens living in the TRNC, and that countries such as the USA, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and France have had diplomatic representations in the north of the island for many years.
 

Sanchez

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,490
Reactions
47 6,514
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
There's not much available. If this deal is something like they did with Albania, it only includes Turkish citizens that are in UK illegally being returned.
 

Bozan

Contributor
Messages
1,066
Reactions
5 1,284
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Turkey
There's not much available. If this deal is something like they did with Albania, it only includes Turkish citizens that are in UK illegally being returned.

Disrupting small boat supply chains means preventing people leaving turkey by boat too, which is common
 

Sanchez

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
DefenceHub Diplomat
Messages
1,490
Reactions
47 6,514
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Disrupting small boat supply chains means preventing people leaving turkey by boat too, which is common
Partly yes but we have now multiple small boat manufacturers building and exporting boats to all over Europe. Cutting the supply chain to Europe is one thing, stopping the builders is one thing.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,254
Reactions
5 17,725
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Judeo-American NGO Anti-Defamation League got caught in 4K admitting to orchestrate all kinds of oppressive tomfoolery.

Who watches the watchmen!?


Adl actually made Anti semitism worse in a society.

Norman finkelstein actually talked about this numerous times that playing the anti semitic card actually makes people hate Jews even more.

His also more disgusted about how Some Jews and Zionists always play the holocaust card as he believes its a disgrace for a lot of the Jews who suffered under Nazi rule only to have people using their suffering to score political points.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,802
Reactions
64 6,735
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
It is not a secret that arab youth aged between 18-24 in the rich gulf are fairly educated and open minded.

But Don't get your hope too high.
Old habits die hard. Vas majority of people over 40 in the gulf lives with a mindset that stuck in 18th century.

IMO, unless there are sort of democratic modernizations of their political, economic and social institutions, it is unlikely that Türkiye and the Gulf region would fundementally get alone in long run with two different value systems.
 

Rooxbar

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
423
Reactions
32 1,343
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
In the aftermath of this attack, it was reasonable to assume that the Saudis were expecting the U.S. to show that they are serious in their promise of defending Saudi Arabia from Iran. (It should be obvious for anyone who even cursorily followed the Yemen War, that the Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry is not meant to be used by the incredibly young, able and dynamic army of Saudi Arabia, but as an investment guarantee for actual military defense by U.S. in case of any serious threats; and to be fair in the Yemen War U.S. helped Saudis quite a bit). But U.S. completely abandoned Saudis to their own devices after the Iranian attack (which incidentally came after Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran started, showing how it will be Saudis who will bear the brunt of U.S. antagonism against Iran). This must have been a huge shock to the Saudi leadership and an affirmation of the continuation of the Asian Pivot strategy of Obama era during Trump administration, signalling the aforementioned strategy's institutional and non-partisan roots, leaving Saudis vulnerable in the Gulf region after being abandoned by the Americans.

Saudi response to this was quite puzzling to me until a couple of weeks ago when new evidence illuminating the facts popped up. The response that I didn't understand included the rapprochement with Russia and China and snubbing U.S. demands on oil production (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/us/politics/us-saudi-oil-deal.html) and trying to hurt Democrats in the midterms (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/did-saudi-arabia-just-hand-the-midterms-to-the-gop.html). I said this response was puzzling to me because it seemed rash on one hand, and on the other hand irreconcilable with Saudi goals in Iran's containment as it seemed China and Russia wouldn't really be able to guarantee Saudi security against Iran. It seemed to me the only concessions Saudis could get from Iran by playing Russia and China would be empty promises as it would be hard to imagine Russia and China defending Saudis against attacks by Iranian proxies. This is the reason the Iran-Saudi deal supervised by the Chinese seemed like a farce to me. The Saudi-Iranian division goes much deeper than to be reconciled by some potential promises on paper and the Chinese don't have the kind of control and extent of relations with Iran that is presumed in IR received wisdom.

But now I understand why Saudis did all this and what the reasons behind the empty Chinese deal and the daring oil production decisions were, esp. at a time U.S. needed low energy prices the most (to make Russian sanctions more effective). The reason was this: Saudis were signalling to U.S. that "we don't trust you to defend us, so you might lose us if you don't give guarantees to protect us. Look! we're getting closer to Russia and China and even got a deal with Iran." This carrot and stick game then became much more explicit with leaks about a Saudi security pact recommendation to U.S., promising recognition of Israel and normalization of relations in exchange for security guarantees for Saudi Arabia by the U.S. (the proverbial carrot in this case being the continuation of Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry worth billions of dollars that are not seriously meant to be used by an almost non-existent Saudi army, and probably the tacit agreement that they will keep selling their oil to Russia and China in dollars)

And now we get this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...125ca4-37a2-11ee-ac4e-e707870e43db_story.html

This has very little to do with Iran's confiscation of tankers and such (as always if something is emphatically repeated by a government, it's probably a superficial excuse). Confiscation of tankers by Iran has been going on and off for a decade now. Sometimes U.S. forces are replenished or increased in the region in response. But never, even in the case of Iranian attacks against U.S. Navy ships and such (https://www.businessinsider.nl/phot...-navy-vessels-2020-4?international=true&r=US; https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...troy-iranian-boats-harassing-us-ships-200385; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/19/us-demands-iran-free-seized-ship-vows-to-protect-gulf), has U.S. deployed this many personnel and fighters in the region. This is unprecedented when the situation with Iran doesn't warrant it at all comparing it with the historical parallels. So this tanker narrative must be the tip of the iceberg; and it is. The real reason behind this massive deployment of troops is U.S. intention to show the Saudis that U.S. is indeed serious this time about their words (words which they always use; the last link in the batch of three in the last sentence shows how U.S. threatened Iran about the tankers in 2019 when the tensions were much higher than they are now, but there were no new troop deployments and the more serious case was the Abqaiq–Khurais attack which U.S. did nothing about).

But the main point is that if the plan in Washington is to sign the proposed Saudi deal to guarantee their security, there would be no reason to prove their seriousness and create this escalation. So in my opinion this signals that U.S. wants to soften the Saudis up, trying to convince them that there's no need for a deal because U.S. is serious about protecting Saudi Arabia without a deal also. I don't think Saudis will fall for that. But I also don't think U.S., esp. a democratic administration, can afford to make such a deal with the Saudis in the current climate of public opinion about the Saudis in U.S. They probably don't want the deal regardless of that due to their Asian pivot as well. So the song and dance will continue. Maybe the gods smile on us and U.S. rejects the deal and Saudis try to find new protectors. One can only hope.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,201
Reactions
94 18,632
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
In the aftermath of this attack, it was reasonable to assume that the Saudis were expecting the U.S. to show that they are serious in their promise of defending Saudi Arabia from Iran. (It should be obvious for anyone who even cursorily followed the Yemen War, that the Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry is not meant to be used by the incredibly young, able and dynamic army of Saudi Arabia, but as an investment guarantee for actual military defense by U.S. in case of any serious threats; and to be fair in the Yemen War U.S. helped Saudis quite a bit). But U.S. completely abandoned Saudis to their own devices after the Iranian attack (which incidentally came after Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran started, showing how it will be Saudis who will bear the brunt of U.S. antagonism against Iran). This must have been a huge shock to the Saudi leadership and an affirmation of the continuation of the Asian Pivot strategy of Obama era during Trump administration, signalling the aforementioned strategy's institutional and non-partisan roots, leaving Saudis vulnerable in the Gulf region after being abandoned by the Americans.

Saudi response to this was quite puzzling to me until a couple of weeks ago when new evidence illuminating the facts popped up. The response that I didn't understand included the rapprochement with Russia and China and snubbing U.S. demands on oil production (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/us/politics/us-saudi-oil-deal.html) and trying to hurt Democrats in the midterms (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/did-saudi-arabia-just-hand-the-midterms-to-the-gop.html). I said this response was puzzling to me because it seemed rash on one hand, and on the other hand irreconcilable with Saudi goals in Iran's containment as it seemed China and Russia wouldn't really be able to guarantee Saudi security against Iran. It seemed to me the only concessions Saudis could get from Iran by playing Russia and China would be empty promises as it would be hard to imagine Russia and China defending Saudis against attacks by Iranian proxies. This is the reason the Iran-Saudi deal supervised by the Chinese seemed like a farce to me. The Saudi-Iranian division goes much deeper than to be reconciled by some potential promises on paper and the Chinese don't have the kind of control and extent of relations with Iran that is presumed in IR received wisdom.

But now I understand why Saudis did all this and what the reasons behind the empty Chinese deal and the daring oil production decisions were, esp. at a time U.S. needed low energy prices the most (to make Russian sanctions more effective). The reason was this: Saudis were signalling to U.S. that "we don't trust you to defend us, so you might lose us if you don't give guarantees to protect us. Look! we're getting closer to Russia and China and even got a deal with Iran." This carrot and stick game then became much more explicit with leaks about a Saudi security pact recommendation to U.S., promising recognition of Israel and normalization of relations in exchange for security guarantees for Saudi Arabia by the U.S. (the proverbial carrot in this case being the continuation of Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry worth billions of dollars that are not seriously meant to be used by an almost non-existent Saudi army, and probably the tacit agreement that they will keep selling their oil to Russia and China in dollars)

And now we get this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...125ca4-37a2-11ee-ac4e-e707870e43db_story.html

This has very little to do with Iran's confiscation of tankers and such (as always if something is emphatically repeated by a government, it's probably a superficial excuse). Confiscation of tankers by Iran has been going on and off for a decade now. Sometimes U.S. forces are replenished or increased in the region in response. But never, even in the case of Iranian attacks against U.S. Navy ships and such (https://www.businessinsider.nl/phot...-navy-vessels-2020-4?international=true&r=US; https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...troy-iranian-boats-harassing-us-ships-200385; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/19/us-demands-iran-free-seized-ship-vows-to-protect-gulf), has U.S. deployed this many personnel and fighters in the region. This is unprecedented when the situation with Iran doesn't warrant it at all comparing it with the historical parallels. So this tanker narrative must be the tip of the iceberg; and it is. The real reason behind this massive deployment of troops is U.S. intention to show the Saudis that U.S. is indeed serious this time about their words (words which they always use; the last link in the batch of three in the last sentence shows how U.S. threatened Iran about the tankers in 2019 when the tensions were much higher than they are now, but there were no new troop deployments and the more serious case was the Abqaiq–Khurais attack which U.S. did nothing about).

But the main point is that if the plan in Washington is to sign the proposed Saudi deal to guarantee their security, there would be no reason to prove their seriousness and create this escalation. So in my opinion this signals that U.S. wants to soften the Saudis up, trying to convince them that there's no need for a deal because U.S. is serious about protecting Saudi Arabia without a deal also. I don't think Saudis will fall for that. But I also don't think U.S., esp. a democratic administration, can afford to make such a deal with the Saudis in the current climate of public opinion about the Saudis in U.S. They probably don't want the deal regardless of that due to their Asian pivot as well. So the song and dance will continue. Maybe the gods smile on us and U.S. rejects the deal and Saudis try to find new protectors. One can only hope.

The underlying issue is that a significant chunk of the democrat party establishment esp those in the Obama faction + allies (and now back to WH executive power) in the deepstate have a long term push they are promoting w.r.t improving relations with Iran and attempting to put the nuclear deal with them as the overarching legacy to the democrat/liberal legacy of bringing peace to the Middle East....delegating things to amateurish fools like Ben Rhodes of all people in critical junctures regarding this.

The pretty horrible 6 billion dollar bribe they just threw the Iranians way will just be another signal received negatively by KSA and Israel.

The US deep state factions need serious analysis by any country in the world to properly hedge and prepare its own security interest affairs. They should not be assumed as a monolith...its a big powerful country that expanded its ego after the 1991 USSR collapse into the domain of hubris and this now creates voids within its own deepstate wake that become polarised and insular even more (to its own system, principles and earlier working order when things were relatively more tightly knit in the cold war era), given the psyche of power.
 

Kitra

Active member
Messages
80
Reactions
2 180
Nation of residence
Sweden
Nation of origin
Turkey
In the aftermath of this attack, it was reasonable to assume that the Saudis were expecting the U.S. to show that they are serious in their promise of defending Saudi Arabia from Iran. (It should be obvious for anyone who even cursorily followed the Yemen War, that the Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry is not meant to be used by the incredibly young, able and dynamic army of Saudi Arabia, but as an investment guarantee for actual military defense by U.S. in case of any serious threats; and to be fair in the Yemen War U.S. helped Saudis quite a bit). But U.S. completely abandoned Saudis to their own devices after the Iranian attack (which incidentally came after Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran started, showing how it will be Saudis who will bear the brunt of U.S. antagonism against Iran). This must have been a huge shock to the Saudi leadership and an affirmation of the continuation of the Asian Pivot strategy of Obama era during Trump administration, signalling the aforementioned strategy's institutional and non-partisan roots, leaving Saudis vulnerable in the Gulf region after being abandoned by the Americans.

Saudi response to this was quite puzzling to me until a couple of weeks ago when new evidence illuminating the facts popped up. The response that I didn't understand included the rapprochement with Russia and China and snubbing U.S. demands on oil production (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/25/us/politics/us-saudi-oil-deal.html) and trying to hurt Democrats in the midterms (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/did-saudi-arabia-just-hand-the-midterms-to-the-gop.html). I said this response was puzzling to me because it seemed rash on one hand, and on the other hand irreconcilable with Saudi goals in Iran's containment as it seemed China and Russia wouldn't really be able to guarantee Saudi security against Iran. It seemed to me the only concessions Saudis could get from Iran by playing Russia and China would be empty promises as it would be hard to imagine Russia and China defending Saudis against attacks by Iranian proxies. This is the reason the Iran-Saudi deal supervised by the Chinese seemed like a farce to me. The Saudi-Iranian division goes much deeper than to be reconciled by some potential promises on paper and the Chinese don't have the kind of control and extent of relations with Iran that is presumed in IR received wisdom.

But now I understand why Saudis did all this and what the reasons behind the empty Chinese deal and the daring oil production decisions were, esp. at a time U.S. needed low energy prices the most (to make Russian sanctions more effective). The reason was this: Saudis were signalling to U.S. that "we don't trust you to defend us, so you might lose us if you don't give guarantees to protect us. Look! we're getting closer to Russia and China and even got a deal with Iran." This carrot and stick game then became much more explicit with leaks about a Saudi security pact recommendation to U.S., promising recognition of Israel and normalization of relations in exchange for security guarantees for Saudi Arabia by the U.S. (the proverbial carrot in this case being the continuation of Saudi purchase of U.S. weaponry worth billions of dollars that are not seriously meant to be used by an almost non-existent Saudi army, and probably the tacit agreement that they will keep selling their oil to Russia and China in dollars)

And now we get this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...125ca4-37a2-11ee-ac4e-e707870e43db_story.html

This has very little to do with Iran's confiscation of tankers and such (as always if something is emphatically repeated by a government, it's probably a superficial excuse). Confiscation of tankers by Iran has been going on and off for a decade now. Sometimes U.S. forces are replenished or increased in the region in response. But never, even in the case of Iranian attacks against U.S. Navy ships and such (https://www.businessinsider.nl/phot...-navy-vessels-2020-4?international=true&r=US; https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...troy-iranian-boats-harassing-us-ships-200385; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/19/us-demands-iran-free-seized-ship-vows-to-protect-gulf), has U.S. deployed this many personnel and fighters in the region. This is unprecedented when the situation with Iran doesn't warrant it at all comparing it with the historical parallels. So this tanker narrative must be the tip of the iceberg; and it is. The real reason behind this massive deployment of troops is U.S. intention to show the Saudis that U.S. is indeed serious this time about their words (words which they always use; the last link in the batch of three in the last sentence shows how U.S. threatened Iran about the tankers in 2019 when the tensions were much higher than they are now, but there were no new troop deployments and the more serious case was the Abqaiq–Khurais attack which U.S. did nothing about).

But the main point is that if the plan in Washington is to sign the proposed Saudi deal to guarantee their security, there would be no reason to prove their seriousness and create this escalation. So in my opinion this signals that U.S. wants to soften the Saudis up, trying to convince them that there's no need for a deal because U.S. is serious about protecting Saudi Arabia without a deal also. I don't think Saudis will fall for that. But I also don't think U.S., esp. a democratic administration, can afford to make such a deal with the Saudis in the current climate of public opinion about the Saudis in U.S. They probably don't want the deal regardless of that due to their Asian pivot as well. So the song and dance will continue. Maybe the gods smile on us and U.S. rejects the deal and Saudis try to find new protectors. One can only hope.
This all relies on the fact it was Iran which performed the attack.

However, the attack was performed as an super precision guided attack on some empty tanks with no consequences what so ever. No critical infrastructure were attacked. Some of the pictures indicated rediculas centimeter accuracy. All this by a country which have their own refineries.

The refinery was up and running within days of the attack.

The whole thing was suspective as hell.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom