TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

[Kartal1]

Guys lets keep to the topic and discuss everything in the context of the thread.

Posts moved.

 

[Deliorman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1725035267042717917

I hear 10X more ambitious speeches on Turkish T.V. channels by "experts" every day. Knowing your place is a result of correct analysis. When you know your place, that helps you go places. BTW I'm not saying the rhetoric is genuine, that's beside the point.

What can I tell you bro... "The Art of War" is a text that must be studied by every politician and military expert in the country but instead the (anti)Turkish ruling class that rules Turkey is absolutely anti- intellectual and illiterate. The Chinese are an ancient civilization with a lot of knowledge on how to run a country and how to wage a war. They know that patience is one of the most important things when you have to beat an enemy. They know that when you are strong you have to appear weak. When you are weak you have to pretend to be strong. They know that:

- "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Does that quote remind you of Syria for example? Or what Turkey does right now during the Gazza war?

- “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Isn't that quote make you fear for the future knowing how illiterate most of Turkey's politicians and state cadres are? Where majority of them are on their positions because of party loyalty and not because of merits?

- “If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”

Turkey is temperamental, arrogant, divided... unprepared. But instead of trying to develop ourselves and stay out of trouble, some imbeciles believe that we are a superpower or something... when we are two Tweets away from another crash of the currency.

 

[GoatsMilk]

What can I tell you bro... "The Art of War" is a text that must be studied by every politician and military expert in the country but instead the (anti)Turkish ruling class that rules Turkey is absolutely anti- intellectual and illiterate. The Chinese are an ancient civilization with a lot of knowledge on how to run a country and how to wage a war. They know that patience is one of the most important things when you have to beat an enemy. They know that when you are strong you have to appear weak. When you are weak you have to pretend to be strong. They know that:

- "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

Does that quote remind you of Syria for example? Or what Turkey does right now during the Gazza war?

- “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Isn't that quote make you fear for the future knowing how illiterate most of Turkey's politicians and state cadres are? Where majority of them are on their positions because of party loyalty and not because of merits?

- “If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”

Turkey is temperamental, arrogant, divided... unprepared. But instead of trying to develop ourselves and stay out of trouble, some imbeciles believe that we are a superpower or something... when we are two Tweets away from another crash of the currency.

The scary part is that half the country thinks we are winning like we've never won before. They think we have entered some kind of Islamist golden age.

 

[CAN_TR]

The scary part is that half the country thinks we are winning like we've never won before. They think we have entered some kind of Islamist golden age.

Half of the country doesn't even understand what they are reading...

 

[Rooxbar]

Only half? That'd be a utopia.

 

[uçuyorum]

Only half? That'd be a utopia.

Our problem is widespread complacency and ignorance, especially about politics and economy, and I'd go so far as to say more than 90% of the country. It is very difficult to train smart and knowledgeable people, but more importantly you should be able to know their value and create the system such that the most brilliant can excel and use their potential, and lead the society to a better future.

 

[Zafer]

Turks are not a bunch of cowards or fools. We know that standing our ground today will stop the enemy from making gains. We can live on a loaf of bread but we won't stand down when we see the wrongdoing. Moaners are losers.

 

[Barry]

man lives in a book of fantasy

 

[Bogeyman]

Turks are not a bunch of cowards or fools. We know that standing our ground today will stop the enemy from making gains. We can live on a loaf of bread but we won't stand down when we see the wrongdoing. Moaners are losers.

Those who remain silent today will complain that our public diplomacy is a disgrace tomorrow when the same terrorists try to commit similar massacres against us. Then you will see them saying that we could not explain our problems to the West well. According to them, our diaspora in western countries will be in disgrace.

However, the issue has nothing to do with this. The West today openly supports these genocides. When it is our turn tomorrow, they will not hide their support. We experienced this in trench operations.

I've had enough of this Western love, human rights nonsense. While you ignore the hypocritical theater played by the West, you complain that we cannot adequately explain our problems to them about the crimes they openly support. This is nothing but stockholm syndrome.
They will never see us as equal partners or allies. You will see that they are always trying to weaken us from within. When we become weak, they will do the same thing they did in Iraq. First they will divide the country. Then they will make us fight against each other. In the meantime, they will protect the traitors among us.
They will call this apostleship of democracy.

Anyone who claims otherwise sees himself in a dream world.

 

[CAN_TR]

Those who remain silent today will complain that our public diplomacy is a disgrace tomorrow when the same terrorists try to commit similar massacres against us. Then you will see them saying that we could not explain our problems to the West well. According to them, our diaspora in western countries will be in disgrace.

However, the issue has nothing to do with this. The West today openly supports these genocides. When it is our turn tomorrow, they will not hide their support. We experienced this in trench operations.

I've had enough of this Western love, human rights nonsense. While you ignore the hypocritical theater played by the West, you complain that we cannot adequately explain our problems to them about the crimes they openly support. This is nothing but stockholm syndrome.
They will never see us as equal partners or allies. You will see that they are always trying to weaken us from within. When we become weak, they will do the same thing they did in Iraq. First they will divide the country. Then they will make us fight against each other. In the meantime, they will protect the traitors among us.
They will call this apostleship of democracy.

Anyone who claims otherwise sees himself in a dream world.

We took in millions of people because of "human rights" nonsense and kept them in our country for saving the West from illegal migration instead opening the gates and sending the demographic nuke to Europe. Can you guranatee that Western Powers will not use exactly those people we are harboring in the country not as tool to create internal problems?

One side calls this "human rights" the other one "our muslim brethrens" it's the same only in a different package, anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

 

[Bogeyman]

We took in millions of people because of "human rights" nonsense and kept them in our country for saving the West from illegal migration instead opening the gates and sending the demographic nuke to Europe. Can you guranatee that Western Powers will not use exactly those people we are harboring in the country not as tool to create internal problems?

One side calls this "human rights" the other one "our muslim brethrens" it's the same only in a different package, anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.

First of all, I write the last thing I will say first.
What I wrote is not for you. But here I will sarcastic those who boast about their nationalism and pursue reckless dreams.

For some reason, citizens who say this do not hesitate to dream of going to war with Iran or liberating Southern Azerbaijan. Those who complain about 5 million refugees coming from Syria or Afghanistan are not thinking about the 10 million people likely to come from Iran. If you complain so much about refugees, why do you see going to war with Iran as child's play?

Do not dream of Southern Azerbaijan in vain, people. You cannot get out of that bottomless pit alive.

 

[Asena_great]

First of all, I write the last thing I will say first.
What I wrote is not for you. But here I will sarcastic those who boast about their nationalism and pursue reckless dreams.

For some reason, citizens who say this do not hesitate to dream of going to war with Iran or liberating Southern Azerbaijan. Those who complain about 5 million refugees coming from Syria or Afghanistan are not thinking about the 10 million people likely to come from Iran. If you complain so much about refugees, why do you see going to war with Iran as child's play?

Do not dream of Southern Azerbaijan in vain, people. You cannot get out of that bottomless pit alive.

well done not answering the question that @CAN_TR asked. always go off topic like pelikans

 

[Bogeyman]

well done not answering the question that @CAN_TR asked. always go off topic like pelikans

No, I confronted you with the contradiction you are experiencing within yourself.
You are actually unaware of the cost of the things you desire.

 

[Asena_great]

No, I confronted you with the contradiction you are experiencing within yourself.
You are actually unaware of the cost of the things you desire.

this was the question there are 13 million kaçak in this country and we are holding them here in order to protect Europe from demographic nuke. what is the guarantee that western powers wont use that 13 million kaçak against turkey ??? dont go off topic answer the question

 

[Bogeyman]

this was the question there are 13 million kaçak in this country and we are holding them here in order to protect Europe from demographic nuke. what is the guarantee that western powers wont use that 13 million kaçak against turkey ??? dont go off topic answer the question

No, you don't deserve to hear the answer to that.
When you give up chasing daily realities, come back and let's talk again.

 

[Asena_great]

No, you don't deserve to hear the answer to that.

that's it ?? is this all you have for the question ??

 

[Rooxbar]

First of all, I write the last thing I will say first.
What I wrote is not for you. But here I will sarcastic those who boast about their nationalism and pursue reckless dreams.

For some reason, citizens who say this do not hesitate to dream of going to war with Iran or liberating Southern Azerbaijan. Those who complain about 5 million refugees coming from Syria or Afghanistan are not thinking about the 10 million people likely to come from Iran. If you complain so much about refugees, why do you see going to war with Iran as child's play?

Do not dream of Southern Azerbaijan in vain, people. You cannot get out of that bottomless pit alive.

Although I have my premonitions that long-term planning in international affairs is neither practical nor sustainable, hence not believing in the efficacy or, in any chance, the seriousness and unity of will with which the "Great middle-east project" is being pursued, still the current situation in northern Iraq and Syria and the way the west has planned and conducted the invasion of Gaza and the long-term encroachment on the West Bank, bears some resemblance to the project being implemented, albeit in a haphazard and unsatisfactorily choppy manner. Given that reality, one must ask "what would have been the optimal response by Turkey to the incitement of a civil war in Syria?" if the goal of establishment of a part of "the great Kurdistan" could be anticipated? Could we block it?

We can repeat the same question for Iran. Iran is even more of a powederkeg than Syria. Its disintegration in the coming decade (or two, give or take) is, in my view, inevitable; which translates to "the advancement of the "great middle-east project in its next phase, aka Iran, is inevitable". Another Kurdish front will be formed. What is the optimal response to this inevitability? When this disintegration happens, the alternatives on the ground are several kurdish militias, who already have their eyes on Iran's western border with Turkey. Iran's internal pan-Iranists have helped them change the demographics of the region (which is called "Western Azerbaijan") from 90% Turkish thirty years ago, to 60% kurdish now; they have achieved this within the confines of the "Islamic" republic, that is presumably devoid of those Pan-Iranist sentiments. You have to have plan b about when shit hits the fan and the kurdish militias, attack and displace Azerbaijanis from South Azerbaijan. You have to have plans to be able to influence this process, even if you think it will not happen.

Your repsonse can be the passive, "no we don't want another Kurdish front to the east; we are opposed to disintegration of Iran, we support Iran's territorial integrity". I don't need to remind you of AKP's early policy towards disintegration of Syria. Then when the facts on the ground (YPG and U.S. support for it) hit them in the face, they changed that policy to "we support the territorial integrity of Syria". That posturing has no effect on the reality of a "northern authonomous Kurdistan region of Syria". In Iran's case as well, your moral outrage and moralistic support for territorial integrity will not amount to anything, when there's a fact of "Autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iran" under the auspices of U.S.

When you develop policy, you look at the stuff you can control, and the stuff you can't. Then you control the things you can, and develop reactions to influence the stuff you can't control.

Another alternative is dreaming about controlling the stuff you can't, and then when the reality of the fact that you can't control it hits you in the face, bury your head in the sand and repeat the same chorus as you were singing before that fact had become reality.

I do not have the perfect answers as to what kind of policy could have been drawn up in the face of the reality of YPG on the ground, and the ways to control it, diminish its influence and spread and dissuade the powers from collaborating and strengthening it. But one thing is for certain; if you didn't dream about a territorially intact Syria with an Islamic Brotherhood admin at the top, you could have devised realistic policy towards what was inevitable and outside your control.

"The great middle-east project" and its goals are not all out of control and inevitable. But the disintegration of the "Islamic Republic" regime is. Ask any Iran expert, who knows Persian and has lived in that country for some time and is familiar with the cultural outlook and the state apparatus. Hence you devise policy about "South Azerbaijan" and "East Kurdistan", given this reality, not given your dreams about the territorial integrity of Iran. Unlike in Syria and Iraq, there's a huge number of Turks in that region. If you pursue your dreams, you will not be able to influence the process, giving up the ground for Kurdish militias to completely occupy "West Azerbaijan" and beyond, as your government is singing the chorus about "territorial integrity of Iran". If instead of pursuing dreams however, you look at it realistically, you will try to plan ahead, the way Iran plans ahead for disintegration of Turkey, having back-channel communication with PKK and its offshoots, along with Hizbullah and its political offshoots. They have trump cards when dealing with you. What you got? Your country has banned the only South Azerbaijani T.V. channel, has had made zero efforts to prop up and support political parties there, and bans their major activists from entering the country.

 

[Bogeyman]

Although I have my premonitions that long-term planning in international affairs is neither practical nor sustainable, hence not believing in the efficacy or, in any chance, the seriousness and unity of will with which the "Great middle-east project" is being pursued, still the current situation in northern Iraq and Syria and the way the west has planned and conducted the invasion of Gaza and the long-term encroachment on the West Bank, bears some resemblance to the project being implemented, albeit in a haphazard and unsatisfactorily choppy manner. Given that reality, one must ask "what would have been the optimal response by Turkey to the incitement of a civil war in Syria?" if the goal of establishment of a part of "the great Kurdistan" could be anticipated? Could we block it?

We can repeat the same question for Iran. Iran is even more of a powederkeg than Syria. Its disintegration in the coming decade (or two, give or take) is, in my view, inevitable; which translates to "the advancement of the "great middle-east project in its next phase, aka Iran, is inevitable". Another Kurdish front will be formed. What is the optimal response to this inevitability? When this disintegration happens, the alternatives on the ground are several kurdish militias, who already have their eyes on Iran's western border with Turkey. Iran's internal pan-Iranists have helped them change the demographics of the region (which is called "Western Azerbaijan") from 90% Turkish thirty years ago, to 60% kurdish now; they have achieved this within the confines of the "Islamic" republic, that is presumably devoid of those Pan-Iranist sentiments. You have to have plan b about when shit hits the fan and the kurdish militias, attack and displace Azerbaijanis from South Azerbaijan. You have to have plans to be able to influence this process, even if you think it will not happen.

Your repsonse can be the passive, "no we don't want another Kurdish front to the east; we are opposed to disintegration of Iran, we support Iran's territorial integrity". I don't need to remind you of AKP's early policy towards disintegration of Syria. Then when the facts on the ground (YPG and U.S. support for it) hit them in the face, they changed that policy to "we support the territorial integrity of Syria". That posturing has no effect on the reality of a "northern authonomous Kurdistan region of Syria". In Iran's case as well, your moral outrage and moralistic support for territorial integrity will not amount to anything, when there's a fact of "Autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iran" under the auspices of U.S.

When you develop policy, you look at the stuff you can control, and the stuff you can't. Then you control the things you can, and develop reactions to influence the stuff you can't control.

Another alternative is dreaming about controlling the stuff you can't, and then when the reality of the fact that you can't control it hits you in the face, bury your head in the sand and repeat the same chorus as you were singing before that fact had become reality.

I do not have the perfect answers as to what kind of policy could have been drawn up in the face of the reality of YPG on the ground, and the ways to control it, diminish its influence and spread and dissuade the powers from collaborating and strengthening it. But one thing is for certain; if you didn't dream about a territorially intact Syria with an Islamic Brotherhood admin at the top, you could have devised realistic policy towards what was inevitable and outside your control.

"The great middle-east project" and its goals are not all out of control and inevitable. But the disintegration of the "Islamic Republic" regime is. Ask any Iran expert, who knows Persian and has lived in that country for some time and is familiar with the cultural outlook and the state apparatus. Hence you devise policy about "South Azerbaijan" and "East Kurdistan", given this reality, not given your dreams about the territorial integrity of Iran. Unlike in Syria and Iraq, there's a huge number of Turks in that region. If you pursue your dreams, you will not be able to influence the process, giving up the ground for Kurdish militias to completely occupy "West Azerbaijan" and beyond, as your government is singing the chorus about "territorial integrity of Iran". If instead of pursuing dreams however, you look at it realistically, you will try to plan ahead, the way Iran plans ahead for disintegration of Turkey, having back-channel communication with PKK and its offshoots, along with Hizbullah and its political offshoots. They have trump cards when dealing with you. What you got? Your country has banned the only South Azerbaijani T.V. channel, has had made zero efforts to prop up and support political parties there, and bans their major activists from entering the country.

How will you, who look at the wave of refugees coming from Syria and complain that the country is being dragged into civil war, manage the wave of refugees coming from Iran? Will we establish buffer zones across the border, as in Syria? You are aware that Iran's military power is not comparable to Syria, right? Or what will be the damage that the oil wells to be bombed in the Persian Gulf will cause to the world economy?

If Iran disintegrates, even the aftershocks that will occur will collapse Turkey.
Because we have no allies in the West. They are waiting for us to weaken like hyenas. Thus, they will have the opportunity they want to divide Turkey.

To hell with the history or ideology of the countries in the region.
If we are to be pawns on the route the West has drawn for us, at the end of this road they will make us worse than Syria.

 

[Bogeyman]

How will you, who look at the wave of refugees coming from Syria and complain that the country is being dragged into civil war, manage the wave of refugees coming from Iran? Will we establish buffer zones across the border, as in Syria? You are aware that Iran's military power is not comparable to Syria, right? Or what will be the damage that the oil wells to be bombed in the Persian Gulf will cause to the world economy?

If Iran disintegrates, even the aftershocks that will occur will collapse Turkey.
Because we have no allies in the West. They are waiting for us to weaken like hyenas. Thus, they will have the opportunity they want to divide Turkey.

To hell with the history or ideology of the countries in the region.
If we are to be pawns on the route the West has drawn for us, at the end of this road they will make us worse than Syria.

If there is a war involving Iran or the Persian Gulf, the price of oil and the dollar in the current conjuncture is capable of returning the Turkish economy to the stone age. So be careful what you wish for.

 

[Rooxbar]

How will you, who look at the wave of refugees coming from Syria and complain that the country is being dragged into civil war, manage the wave of refugees coming from Iran? Will we establish buffer zones across the border, as in Syria?

I have never espoused or held that position. That's just a populist and easy to cling-on-to position that people use as an scapegoat to blame their economic woes on, and parties use that popular attitude to gain support (albeit I do strategically see benefit in amplifying that attitude instead of the only existing alternative of "ummah"; you gotta work with what you have after all). I don't think Syrian refugees are causing, or will cause the collapse of this country, demographically or economically. I think they are a burden, and the economic collapse of the country that results in antagonistic attitudes will cause problems if they are not to leave after the aforementioned attitude is already ossified in the population, but I don't see it as an existential threat (I wouldn't say these things if I was a politician though, given the popular sentiment that has already formed).

I already told you, I don't care about dreams. If a tsunami is coming, I'd rather plan for it, than deny its existence.

You are aware that Iran's military power is not comparable to Syria, right? Or what will be the damage that the oil wells to be bombed in the Persian Gulf will cause to the world economy?

No country can keep whole when the 90% of the population hates its regime's guts, and is sanctioned to the ground, so much so that there are factionalization inside every facet of their state apparatus. You may say "To hell with the history or ideology of the countries in the region", but a superficial surface level understanding of IRGC and its projected unified message and ideology will keep you from understanding that the Quds force and IRGC intelligence offices are in a brewing civil war with the other factions within, only shrouding it from public as they cannot afford to make it known as they are not sure who will Khamenei back. After he dies, which is imminent, these two factions will back two separate candidates for supreme leader. The former will back Mojtaba Khamenei, and the latter Raisi. There are deep religious, cultural and ideological reasons for this factionalization, but that's outside the scope of a forum post.

Needless to say, this crisis paired with the powderkeg that is the Iranian public will not go hand in hand well. They are also very suitable for foreign meddling. The pairing of an internal strife in the military with a very dissatisfied population will completely overrule the possiblity of Iran's vastly overblown military power keeping its unity, as they will be the players of this factionalization themselves. I could forward you to articles about this factionalziation, the accusations of one side against the other about being pawns of Mossad and having roles in the assassination of Suleimani or their Nuclear scientists, but they are all in Persian.

If Iran disintegrates, even the aftershocks that will occur will collapse Turkey.
Because we have no allies in the West. They are waiting for us to weaken like hyenas. Thus, they will have the opportunity they want to divide Turkey.

So what is the solution to Iran's disnitegration? Burying our heads in the sand and saying it didn't happen, after it has happened already, like the brilliant foreign policy lessons we have been teaching the world in the Iraq and Syria case?

If there is a war involving Iran or the Persian Gulf, the price of oil and the dollar in the current conjuncture is capable of returning the Turkish economy to the stone age. So be careful what you wish for.

I couldn't give less shits if Iran disintegrates or not; or if Syria does, on a personal level that is. I wish they don't disnitegrate form the pov of interests of the Turkish state, but the universe has this bad habit of not obliging my wishes.