TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

[Sanchez]

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]

Not just Malaysia.

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

Посольство России на Кипре начнет оказывать консульские услуги на севере острова

Представитель дипмиссии сообщил, что работу будут вести на регулярной основе

tass.ru

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]

Not just Malaysia.

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

Посольство России на Кипре начнет оказывать консульские услуги на севере острова

Представитель дипмиссии сообщил, что работу будут вести на регулярной основе

tass.ru

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.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689241604115025922

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.

 

[Bozan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689239307129688064

The UK deporting illegals and keeping them in Turkey

 

[Afif]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689239307129688064

The UK deporting illegals and keeping them in Turkey

Your undiplomatic translation could be incorrect.

 

[Ryder]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689239307129688064

The UK deporting illegals and keeping them in Turkey

They are using both Turkiye and Rwanda as a dumping ground.

What a shame.

 

[Sanchez]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Heartbang]

Judeo-American NGO Anti-Defamation League got caught in 4K admitting to orchestrate all kinds of oppressive tomfoolery.

Who watches the watchmen!?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689627734451040256

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689627742411870208

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689627745859624960

 

[Lool]

For the ppl who said that the govt is planning to take illegal non-turkish refugees from the UK into Turkiye

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689951823648468992

 

[Ryder]

Judeo-American NGO Anti-Defamation League got caught in 4K admitting to orchestrate all kinds of oppressive tomfoolery.

Who watches the watchmen!?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689627734451040256

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689627742411870208

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689627745859624960

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.

 

[Agha Sher]

The soft power of Turkiye in the region and across the world should not be underestimated.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1690303971833872386

 

[Afif]

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]

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.

 

[Nilgiri]

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]

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.

 

[Rooxbar]

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.

Per Center for Strategic and International Studies:

This weekend’s attack on Saudi oil facilities in Khurais and Abqaiq represents the single largest daily oil supply disruption in history—larger than the maximum daily output loss resulting from the Iranian Revolution, the invasion of Iraq, the Venezuelan oil strike of 2002-2003, or any of the Gulf coast hurricanes and almost twice as large as the combined outages produced by U.S. sanctions on Venezuela and Iran. The attacks targeted two critical Saudi facilities: one of the nation’s largest producing fields, Khurais, and the crown jewel of the Saudi oil system, the massive stabilization and processing facility at Abqaiq. The total supply loss from taking these facilities offline amounted to some 5.7 million barrels per day (b/d) in oil output—more than half of Saudi Arabia’s recent output and about 6 percent of global supply—as well as 2 billion cubic feet per day of associated gas.

About the fact that whether if this was Iranians or Houthis, there's zero doubt about its Iranian origin as IRGC-affiliated telegram channels posted hints about the facilities and the fact that they maybe in danger weeks before the attack and they duly celebrated just minutes after the attack; but these are Farsi "unofficial channels" so they are not cited as sources. It was so obvious that the Houthis didn't do it that even U.N. investigators concluded that the attacks came from the north not the south.

Guardian reported:

Saudi Arabia has ramped up the pressure on Donald Trump to respond to a devastating strike on two major oil installations, displaying drone and missile technology it insisted showed the attack was “unquestionably sponsored by Iran”.

At a press conference in Riyadh a Saudi defence spokesman claimed that 25 drones and cruise missiles were used in the attack on the Aramco facilities on Saturday, saying repeatedly they had been fired from the north, the direction of Iran.


Asked for his response, Trump said “We know very much what happened” but argued that it was “a sign of strength” that he has thus far taken no military action against Iran.

“How did going into Iraq work out?” Trump asked, then added: “There’s plenty of time to do some dastardly things. It’s very easy to start. And we’ll see what happens.”

There were many reports like this at the time showing Saudi frustration at a lack of U.S. response. MBS explicitly mentioned monarchy's expectations from U.S. in a live interview that I was watching, but I can't find a video of it.

 

[CAN_TR]

"Without Türkiye all those refugees from the Middle East would storm Europe and create problem"

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1693191508881461486

Imagine this guy was once our Prime Minister and also speaker of the Grand National Assembly, they care more for the sake of Europe (who are filling their pockets) than to the demographic nuke inside Türkiye.

 

[Angry Turk !!!]

"Without Türkiye all those refugees from the Middle East would storm Europe and create problem"

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1693191508881461486

Imagine this guy was once our Prime Minister and also speaker of the Grand National Assembly, they care more for the sake of Europe (who are filling their pockets) than to the demographic nuke inside Türkiye.

Türkiyes absolute biggest problem are Traitors in important positions. People who do not want to see that or are ignoring it are nothing but enemies to this Country.