TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

[Nilgiri]

You are only thinking purely of international politics in peacetime.

First of all, let me remind you of the importance of strategic depth and reliability in the points you missed.

It is not possible for Turkey to target deep ties in the defense industry with both countries. Because if you deepen ties with one side, this will be seen as insincerity in the other country. This reduces you to average country status for the other side.

None of the countries that are our so-called allies in NATO are really sincere about fighting with us against Russia. This was tested and seen when we shot down the Russian plane in 2015.
However, unlike them, Pakistan has a sincerity in fighting shoulder to shoulder with us. And you cannot defend the Pakistan-India balance policy when nuclear weapons are on the table.
If Pakistan is going to put the nuclear option on the table, it will want to see our clear stance on Kashmir.

Even if Turkey's hand is not guaranteed in this regard, it is obvious that we are in a much better situation than the strategic advantages that India can provide against us.

Moreover, the deepening of Türkiye-India relations would lead us into a dangerous impasse. Because the USA will ask India to embargo us if we go to war with Greece. The USA can't impose the same on Pakistan, can it?

That's why I prefer not to believe that India will come to help Turkey in difficult times.

Military balances also have a weight in peacetime. Turkey has long-term and large-scale plans with Central Asian countries. It is possible that Pakistan will also be included in the equation during Turkey's efforts to establish unity with the countries in the region. We can expect Pakistan to be a military deterrent against Russia. However, while India has deep ties with Russia, it is impossible to think that it will support the Central Asian countries, let alone go to war for them.

Therefore, the ties we can establish with India are doomed to reach a dead end. And the Pakistan-India balance policy may result in us losing the bulgur we have.

I understand where you are coming from. Yes I am speaking more of the peacetime relationship rather than military strategic one.

The latter tends to slot in firmly and persist for its various reasons.

However any country must also analyse and weigh other side of the coin with countries it finds itself in such relationships (in past and present to manage/hedge the future)....to the highest degree possible.

Proof of action weighed past words when it comes to gauging things like sincerity.

Some are microcosms and some are macrocosms, some are combinations:


A) Pakistani participation in this forum versus Turkish participation in the other forum. Manner of things that happened and why.
Why things like this came to head the way they did if everything is firm at even strategic apex level.

One would expect any trivialities smoothed over easily and effectively....yet certain things stuck in the craw especially when it came to (especially) Iran and its "games" (forum level reflecting the geopolitical level). Unsurprisingly also the big country in between Pakistan and Turkiye.



B) If aid was severely lacking in the 71 war (given what they lost, the manner in how they lost it... and how it sticks in their memory, heavy chip on shoulder and axe grinding), how can the Pakistanis be assumed to act in the end in some direct way regd. Greece/NATO/US et al w.r.t some conflict/war with Turkiye?

It needs proof again in the past to be harnessed in present and future rather than words right? If A was not done, why would the mirror reciprocity B be assumed to be fait accompli done? i.e what is actually transactions in the end (since no one runs a charity, especially in geopolitics) with veneer of sincerity for the feeling of warmth.


C) What has Pakistan's relationship been with the Turkic groups of Afghanistan in that conflict? One with Turkish and Central Asian Turkic interests? Or?



D) Putting aside the heavy impact of Persian in language, culture, islamist ethos and so on within Pakistan (the basic script chosen vs script Ataturk chose to move away from)... what was the side Pakistan took in the Syria war to begin with you mention?

Did mercenary fighters get sent to help the Turks or Assad (on behest of Iran)? Pakistan come clean and take accountability on this? Or shrug its shoulders?..like with AFG (and now AFG shrugs its shoulders at TTP).

What has the continued relationship been like with Assad (upsetting many Turks right in this forum that I saw a few times)...while Turkish forces and allies blood still fresh on his hands?



E) If you are bringing up a nuclear angle, what exactly was the extent of Pakistani involvement in the Iranian nuclear program given Pakistan knowing full well what the Ayatollah regime and larger Iranian relationship and security threat was and is to Turkey?

Was there a basis for Turkiye to develop something independently over timeframe needed on its own strategic accord anyway (and proof to show for this)? Why was it not done? Why NATO/US NWS at incirlik instead all this while? These all have no inertias and momentums for Turkiye?



F) Regd Russia, did Imran Khan (while PM) actually attend the much vaunted meeting with Erdogan and Mahathir? Or KSA was able to put some pressure that overrides things?

Where was he (quite strangely) when Russia-Ukraine war broke out? What is the nature of leverage Iran and KSA enjoy in Pakistan (especially since the 80s) and why compared to Turkiye?

What to make of relationship now where lot of asserted pro-Turk PTI (IK supporters) Pakistanis say any country in the world dealing with current Pakistani (army backed) regime is doing Pakistan great harm?

They say that any country helping this regime is helping the US in the end (as they say US were complicity in Pakistani army removing IK).
regd Kashmir issue stance, economy, foreign relations, internal security etc... (decisions and results by that regime so far compared to IK as they see it)?

Has Turkiye heeded their (most "pro Turk" mass of Pakistanis, that of course also deliberately avoid this biraader forum for its lack of vice) call sincerely? What is the correlation of this asserted pro-Turk mass on largely just a pro-Erdogan basis too?

There's lot more I could go into, but I'll stop here.


Again putting aside everything Turkiye has leveraged with and continues to leverage with (in its military development, putting aside economics) the NATO forces you say will be on the other side in any war with Greece. If the approach is good for goose (NATO, West), should it not be for the gander (Russia, India, China other entities etc).

Putting that aside, I'm just saying absolute proven sincerity would need a considerable amount of proof to have been built in complete different ways on these matters...as simply talk is cheap.

Now gauged relative sincerity given the real imperfect world, that I can understand. But it must be understood to be a relative one, with flaws to analyse and build up own resilience to counter and hedge.

Because actual patriot and soldier blood on line when its wartime is something only any country can count on only itself for....papers, treaties, words, promises all go out the window, and you are left with transactions completed (if these were actually advantageous all things considered, you will find out only in the war)...as any other (wherever asserted vs actually on spectrum) friend-ally-partner-acquaintaince (or enemy of enemy) has to make the call if sticking out their neck too is worth it for them.

Not understanding this, means countries just sell themselves short in the end (and suffer for it in war, sanctions etc), as relations are not properly hedged and balanced optimally. i.e too many IOUs accumulating on one side that wont be cashed in a war....and by the lopsidedness you also forewent some manner and number of things you could have bulked up instead in peacetime (and related transfer coefficient to a future war effort that way).

 

[Nilgiri]

In general all forms of hyper islamism today have been cultivated and promoted by the anglo-american world. It keeps the muslim brain dead, it controls how he thinks and thus by extension constantly act in a way that is counter productive to his interests.

The problem we have is that we are in the generations who have been brainwashed in these ideas from birth, there is nothing that can be done to bring them out of it. In many ways i think Islamic civilisation has been condemned to dive head first off a cliff. You get an Ataturk today, before he has a chance to raise his voice the Islamist will murder him.

I honestly think that if Turkiye completely falls to this western financed islamism, its over for Islamic civilisation in the mid to long term. Keep in mind that FETO and AK party were meant to turn Turkiye into another Iran. The ambition would have been that the leader of FETO would have been the returning Ayatollah to Turkiye. In Irans case their pre baked leader was shipped in from France, in Turkiyes case it would have been from America.

Turks must remember that the British empire were the first ones to understand the value in hyper islamism being used to destroy the empire from with in. It never stopped, today the anglo-american world is the biggest instigator of extremist islamism globally. All you have to do is pay attention to the results of Islamism and you see its nearly all leads to failure.

On a side note the biggest media entities in Turkiye like "daily zaman" used to constantly write articles about how great the feto leader was and how his wisdom and guidance was important for Turkiye. Meanwhile every other article was promoting the balkanisation of Turkiye and constantly insulting Turkish history and culture.

Many racists within Turkiye realised that clinging to islamism allowed them to attack Turks and get away with it. We are a country where the Turk experiences the most racism. We even had mentally sick islamist given TV shows to tell Turks how bad Ataturk was and it would have been better for Islam had the christians destroyed the Turkish armies of Ataturk.

In general any large power in world will use internal weakness to its favour to weaken the other party. Religion is one, ethnicity is another....whichever apparent cleaves in identity can be used.

The Turks have put large amounts of this off the table to begin with given what Ataturk started and has been progressed upon since, the very ethos of the modern Turkish nation. True enlightenmened impact is a rare thing and it is really ultimately in Turk people own hands to pursue this always.

So these issues you speak of come to the forefront precisely because of the deep impact secularism has had on Turkiye. Most other countries in the muslim world, it (political islam) has long been heavily normalised and encouraged by the majority of the population (as simply the Ataturk legacy and impact never existed at all). Things are doubled down upon that are total anathema to the Turkish sensibility (yes I mean even w.r.t current AKP era).

I saw a poll that pew did that had Turkish population that wanted sharia as the law of the land at 12% when this was in the 80%+ range for most of the muslim world. Only central asian turkic countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakh, Uzbek etc) also had the number as low as Turkiye did.

This means there is great inheritance for Turkiye to harness against nefarious designs....simply not available to most others in larger muslims world till they strive over time same way that Turkiye has. Turkiye in end will have to dig deep, the world is large and there will always be more powerful countries in it....its population will stabilise somewhere around 10 billion maybe, Turks will be just 1% of it.

But you Turks realise you are in the thick of such battle, while others are entirely delusional such battle exists (and the costs it imposes on them directly or in potentials of what they could be), or completely accept political-Islam as the full ideal default to begin with.

This is why I hold Turkiye at a higher level like I do with countries that have put religion (and as many identities as possible other than the national one) off the table (politically) as the starting principle and work to institutionalise this as deeply as possible over time (though yes challenges, frayings and even reversals present themselves at times too...and one must hope enough has "caught" to overcome long term)

Of course every other country seeking to do you harm will experiment here to reverse and upset things. Countries have interest in seeing those different or threatening enough to them be weak as possible. This is the unfortunate reality. So "different enough" countries must be attuned to this as far as possible, and I am actually pretty confident in Turkiye to overcome this in the end as internally there is enough that has "caught" in the resilient way....at least from what my interaction has been with Turks thus far ar large.

But yes there will be immense stresses and challenges to see through regardless, especially from one's own political forces that can make expedient hay from these pressures, grievances and tensions.

But I think Turks have it always within them collectively in enough degree to surmount all of these.

 

[Bozan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1723452932610269448

Apparently (I'm not fully believing this news) hundreds of Kalashnikovs were in a truck being smuggled in from Syria, so that goes to my previous point...

 

[Afif]

So these issues you speak of come to the forefront precisely because of the deep impact secularism has had on Turkiye. Most other countries in the muslim world, it (political islam) has long been heavily normalised and encouraged by the majority of the population (as simply the Ataturk legacy and impact never existed at all). Things are doubled down upon that are total anathema to the Turkish sensibility (yes I mean even w.r.t current AKP era).

I saw a poll that pew did that had Turkish population that wanted sharia as the law of the land at 12% when this was in the 80%+ range for most of the muslim world. Only central asian turkic countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakh, Uzbek etc) also had the number as low as Turkiye did.

This means there is great inheritance for Turkiye to harness against nefarious designs....simply not available to most others in larger muslims world till they strive over time same way that Turkiye has.

There are counter examples that would disprove this largely binary assumption. (Which is quite old school btw)

For example, Malaysia and Indonesia. Despite having very conservative societies (compared to Türkiye) and state penal codes closer to classical Islamic law, both countries are doing relatively well. Specially Malaysia. By and large It is as much industrialised as Türkiye and with a similar quality of life.

Success of any particular set of political ideology to solve the 'big problem' is largely context, culture, people and time dependent. (In this case strict secularism)
One that worked well for someone is not necessarily going to be best suited for somebody else's context.

What really matters, is democracy and rule of law. (Each are mutually supportive and ensure the other. It is hard to imagine long term systematic implementation of rule of law without proper democracy) Which most Muslim countries lack, not because the populations are ultra religious and Islamist, but because since the inception, many of these countries are run by extremely corrupt political establishment (in many cases even secular dictators and elites) who are supported and kept in power by various superpowers for geopolitical reasons (as obviously they can give back much more to their masters unlike a democratic government, which would inevitably put the interest of the people and country first. And that in many cases doesn’t go well with superpowers and their regional/global interests) and that makes it even more difficult to remove them and establish democratic institutions and process in the long run.

And what really differentiate Malaysia and Indonesia from other Muslims countries is that, they have relatively established democratic processes where people can vote and has the right the choose their leader and hold them accountable to a degree. Which in return ensure relative implementation of rule of law. Hence, ultimately somewhat uninterrupted path toward development.

Other than that, concepts like secularism, human rights liberty and freedom are pretty much relative and open to interpretation.

I would also like hear what @Rooxbar think if he is interested. He has some good and thoughtful insights in topic like that.

 

[Ryder]

The US military used uranium-impregnated bullets in all the countries it occupied. That's why babies are born deformed in Fallujah, Iraq. (@FDefects has enough visuals on the relevant X account) With the genocides committed by the US army and torture in places such as Abu Ghraib prisons, they cannot even come close to the Turkish army. I'm not talking about groups supported in proxy wars here. I'm talking directly about the millions of people who were murdered here. They did the same thing in Vietnam.
They used orange gas as a chemical weapon there too.

The United States is the country that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, which withdrew from the war in World War II, just to intimidate Soviet Russia, even though it was about to surrender. They did this arbitrarily. They had no military gain.

Yes, Americans living in glass houses should not talk to us about human rights. Because the last country in this world that can talk about human rights is the USA.

I agree with this human rights is just nice cover for geopolitical imperialism.

Us Turks need to break out of this uncle tom crap start doing our own imperialism.

We only became anti imperialist during the Turkish independance war just so we can get support worldwide.

We need to break out from this slave mentality.

We dont owe anybody. Anything not to americans, europeans, Islamic world or even the Turkic world for that matter.

After the independance war we need to learn that doomsday weapons we only protect and save Turkiye from invasion also protect their interests.

We need stop treating God as if its a lucky charm. We all need to work hard for the future.

Hence why im critical of Islamists, Kemalists and Secularists alongside Liberals who only give a shit about their ideology not of the nation.

I live in Australia i dont see much arguments about ideology like Religion vs Science or Religion vs secularism.

People dont waste their time on mundane crap.

Turks need to do the same artik. Our ancestors were conquerors we need to think like them also be smart.

We need to stop begging for a leader that will come and save us. Seljuks, Ottomans and Ataturk have all passed away from this earth and left their legacies. We need stop going to their graves and begging for them to come and save us.

Let them rest in peace.

 

[Rooxbar]

There are counter examples that would disprove this largely binary assumption. (Which is quite old school btw)

For example, Malaysia and Indonesia. Despite having very conservative societies (compared to Türkiye) and state penal codes closer to classical Islamic law, both countries are doing relatively well. Specially Malaysia. By and large It is as much industrialised as Türkiye and with a similar quality of life.

Success of any particular set of political ideology to solve the 'big problem' is largely context, culture, people and time dependent. (In this case strict secularism)
One that worked well for someone is not necessarily going to be best suited for somebody else's context.

What really matters, is democracy and rule of law. (Each are mutually supportive and ensure the other. It is hard to imagine long term systematic implementation of rule of law without proper democracy) Which most Muslim countries lack, not because the populations are ultra religious and Islamist, but because since the inception, many of these countries are run by extremely corrupt political establishment (in many cases even secular dictators and elites) who are supported and kept in power by various superpowers for geopolitical reasons (as obviously they can give back much more to their masters unlike a democratic government, which would inevitably put the interest of the people and country first. And that in many cases doesn’t go well with superpowers and their regional/global interests) and that makes it even more difficult to remove them and establish democratic institutions and process in the long run.

And what really differentiate Malaysia and Indonesia from other Muslims countries is that, they have relatively established democratic processes where people can vote and has the right the choose their leader and hold them accountable to a degree. Which in return ensure relative implementation of rule of law. Hence, ultimately somewhat uninterrupted path toward development.

Other than that, concepts like secularism, human rights liberty and freedom are pretty much relative and open to interpretation.

I would also like hear what @Rooxbar think if he is interested. He has some good and thoughtful insights in topic like that.

I have been working on the question of, what I call, "the wealth of western nations" for the past ten years. There are literally hundreds of answers in the form of books and papers. Some more serious than others. As a question it kind of, unhelpfully, boils down to the impossible question of "why did history happen as it did, instead of some other way?". Joseph Needham thinks the former question is as impossible a question to answer as the latter. Through reading at least about 600 sources on or related to the subject I've come to disagree with that agnosticism, despite starting out sympathetic to that sentiment. I have about 3 thousand pages of notes on refuting the 11 archetypal arguments I have gleaned on the subject.

"Democracy and rule of law" is one aspect of one of the chief arguments for "paths of development" (incidentally argument no. 1 in my notes; I call it the "liberal argument"). Theoretically it doesn't hold as a necessity, and hence obviously not sufficient (this is obviously controversial, but the full argument is outside the scope of a forum post; about 400 pages of my notes are dedicated to refuting this point. Mostly it is historical counter examples.)

But "rule of law" of course is a very generic and vague recipe, something that must figure in any functional society of course. What I argue against, is not the idea per se, but the idea as the principal step towards prosperity and development, esp. as it pertains to the European case.

Practically, what holds will be contingent upon the history and situation of that particular country and region. I know precious little about Indonesia and Malaysia, so my answer is "I do not know". Even in the case of Turkey, I do not know. I have my theories, but I am not sure. What I have learned from reading both the current literature on theories of development and econodynamics, and also history of Europe is that I can safely discard all 11 arguments proposed so far as neither sufficient nor necessary. Most of them confuse effects for causes. There are certain necessary factors to development, but you can't go about it in a social engineering way. You have to work with whatever lemons you have in that particular country. So in a country with no democratic traditions, institutions, no bourgeois class, etc. the answer cannot lie in producing these things out of thin air. The answer will be in the constraints of that country's current situation.

P.S. as for Secularism; you can have western-style development without it; the problematic factors in a religious legal system and theocracies are certain contingent corollaries of the "religious mindset". It pertains to attitudes towards religion more than it does to the fact of religiosity or theocratic rule. This holds theoretically. Practically, those problematic corollaries almost always are extant alongside religiosity. Very few exceptions exist, so secularism comes close to being a universal must when it comes to development. But similar to what I said about "democracy" before, one has to figure out a "natural" path in the constraints of a system and popular attitudes.

 

[Ryder]

EU Commission urges Turkey to refrain from unilateral actions that challenge EU interests, international law | eKathimerini.com

The European Commission’s report on Turkey, published on Wednesday, acknowledges the progress in Athens-Ankara relations in the aftermath of the devastating earthquakes that hit southern Turkey in February. However, the report also urges the EU candidate country to refrain from taking unilateral...

www.google.com

Basically the EU is telling to Turkiye to back off from challenging EU's interests.

The Floodgates have long been open.

 

[Afif]

I have been working on the question of, what I call, "the wealth of western nations" for the past ten years. There are literally hundreds of answers in the form of books and papers. Some more serious than others. As a question it kind of, unhelpfully, boils down to the impossible question of "why did history happen as it did, instead of some other way?". Joseph Needham thinks the former question is as impossible a question to answer as the latter. Through reading at least about 600 sources on or related to the subject I've come to disagree with that agnosticism, despite starting out sympathetic to that sentiment. I have about 3 thousand pages of notes on refuting the 11 archetypal arguments I have gleaned on the subject.

"Democracy and rule of law" is one aspect of one of the chief arguments for "paths of development" (incidentally argument no. 1 in my notes; I call it the "liberal argument"). Theoretically it doesn't hold as a necessity, and hence obviously not sufficient (this is obviously controversial, but the full argument is outside the scope of a forum post; about 400 pages of my notes are dedicated to refuting this point. Mostly it is historical counter examples.)

But "rule of law" of course is a very generic and vague recipe, something that must figure in any functional society of course. What I argue against, is not the idea per se, but the idea as the principal step towards prosperity and development, esp. as it pertains to the European case.

Practically, what holds will be contingent upon the history and situation of that particular country and region. I know precious little about Indonesia and Malaysia, so my answer is "I do not know". Even in the case of Turkey, I do not know. I have my theories, but I am not sure. What I have learned from reading both the current literature on theories of development and econodynamics, and also history of Europe is that I can safely discard all 11 arguments proposed so far as neither sufficient nor necessary. Most of them confuse effects for causes. There are certain necessary factors to development, but you can't go about it in a social engineering way. You have to work with whatever lemons you have in that particular country. So in a country with no democratic traditions, institutions, no bourgeois class, etc. the answer cannot lie in producing these things out of thin air. The answer will be in the constraints of that country's current situation.

Wow! You have lot more 'unconventional wisdom' than i anticipated. Thank you for the post.

I must admit this post of mine is not a very accurate representative of my view.
I wrote it in a hurry. It is quite vague and generalizing and missing many clarifications.

And you couldn't have said it better, it all Ultimately boils down to the ultimate question of "why did history happen as it did, instead of some other way?".

Many prominent philophers and social scientists tried to answer it.
It is hard not to feel helpless in my quest for an unified theory (that would solve the puzzle in its entirerities and explain everything) given the amount of near-impossible complexities, valid counter arguments/counter examples that I am faced with, even when reading through selected material.

Sometime, I just give up thinking, perhaps ultimately, History doesn't have any obligation to make sense to us.
Perhaps in the end Postmodernist are right. Maybe there are no 'grand narratives' after all. History is mostly random and a collection messy events.

But then few days later I start reading again. Cuase i am not giving up yet. There has to be an ultimate selection of deep underlying patterns that would be able explain everything. A unified theory of some sort.

I wonder what you plan to do with your 10 years of work. Surely, you cannot keep all of it to yourself. That won't be fair to exclude others from such vast knowledge.
Are you going to write a book in the future?

 

[Nilgiri]

There are counter examples that would disprove this largely binary assumption. (Which is quite old school btw)

For example, Malaysia and Indonesia. Despite having very conservative societies (compared to Türkiye) and state penal codes closer to classical Islamic law, both countries are doing relatively well. Specially Malaysia. By and large It is as much industrialised as Türkiye and with a similar quality of life.

Success of any particular set of political ideology to solve the 'big problem' is largely context, culture, people and time dependent. (In this case strict secularism)
One that worked well for someone is not necessarily going to be best suited for somebody else's context.

What really matters, is democracy and rule of law. (Each are mutually supportive and ensure the other. It is hard to imagine long term systematic implementation of rule of law without proper democracy) Which most Muslim countries lack, not because the populations are ultra religious and Islamist, but because since the inception, many of these countries are run by extremely corrupt political establishment (in many cases even secular dictators and elites) who are supported and kept in power by various superpowers for geopolitical reasons (as obviously they can give back much more to their masters unlike a democratic government, which would inevitably put the interest of the people and country first. And that in many cases doesn’t go well with superpowers and their regional/global interests) and that makes it even more difficult to remove them and establish democratic institutions and process in the long run.

And what really differentiate Malaysia and Indonesia from other Muslims countries is that, they have relatively established democratic processes where people can vote and has the right the choose their leader and hold them accountable to a degree. Which in return ensure relative implementation of rule of law. Hence, ultimately somewhat uninterrupted path toward development.

Other than that, concepts like secularism, human rights liberty and freedom are pretty much relative and open to interpretation.

I would also like hear what @Rooxbar think if he is interested. He has some good and thoughtful insights in topic like that.

It's of course not a perfect binary since larger context is factor multivariate (each one having a coefficient with the matter).

There are always factors: luck based: natural resource, geographies, neighbours et al. and human based: enlightened principled decisions that can erode and override burdens (be those luck or human based).

If you study Indonesia and Malaysia (or preferably lived in the region like I have), you will know what they are for each one....be it Pancasila in Indonesia or the constitution of Malaysia (and the British legal system) that greatly constrain political Islam....especially application of these to the substantial minorities within both countries...and in the case of Malaysia for example its ability to secure and harness transmittance of development and intellectual capital its Chinese minority was able to leverage quite well in the broader world.

Where the balancing act (w.r.t larger religious based politics) did not materialise at all in the local context, you have countries like Singapore that industrialised and developed even more.

Where an excess of (luck based) natural resource superseded all basic need to develop proper balance by enlightened principle, you also have heavily islamist fundamentalist countries in Middle East that have gotten lot wealthier.....and needing little of the hard work Turkiye had to invest w.r.t Ataturks founding principles to industrialise and develop the more comprehensive longer term way (given the long term intellectual capital formed by this).

But make no mistake, given finite mental resource and time, any intellectual capital sustenance requires religion to be kept away from the exercise of the state's great power....and confined to individual, family and voluntary community.

Past the moral basis of this (that Ataturk clearly saw), there is simply the effect of finite time society has for intellectual pursuit if it rather chooses to engage substantial amounts of this on societal control by state power, using religion....as this always ends up displacing or even suppressing critical elements of enlightenment and intellectual development that are the only ticket out long term for any society.

This is why for an overall natural resource scarce country like Turkiye, it has done far far better than the vast majority of its co-religion countries worldwide.

This is exactly how Iran has also squandered immense amounts of its own potential, even with ample natural resource available to override it.

In the end, democracy and rule of law are not equals at all. Rule of law (and the law being properly crafted) is far more important given what happens (mob rule) if democracy is made supreme i.e basic rights being on the table for the collective vote and tyranny of the majority.

This is why the republic is the most important thing for a country. It defines exactly what is out of bounds for state power given its natural rights lie in the individual.

This is why Ataturk was enlightened putting certain things off the table in the Turkish Republic....like ability of religion to transmit to politics and the state's law itself.

Absolutely zero chance my great Turkish professor who mentored me, would have achieved his intellectual fortitude without Ataturk's republic...or that he would have arisen and developed same way in another co-religion country to Turkiye that chose the typical non-Ataturk route.

My great Iranian professors who I am also acquainted with over time also all have full stories to tell on the great squandering of the Ayatollah era. i.e the Ataturk state missed in their context.

There is little else to note from rest of muslim world in intellectual capital at the apex....largely again because of the apex they have denied themselves for various reasons mentally.

i.e Their decisions made, their squanderings, their mental deployments and their doubling down on things and manufacturing of new grievance sets to add to old ones....that modern Turkish republic simply never had to sink into and squelch in thanks to Ataturk et al.

Most Turks have little idea about how bad and deep that stuff can go. It is why Turkiye is a relative intellectual capital heavyweight with numbers to prove this.

But when it really finally rears its ugly head, this very forum gets created as an example....simply certain things (the anti-intellectualism essentially) bristle immediately with the Turkish sensibility and its modern psyche..... that has matured in its way the others simply did not.

 

[Sanchez]

The Confidence Building Measures (CBM) discussed between #Greece and #Turkey include, according to a report by @manoliskostidis:
-Avoid flying at low altitude
-Enable IFF for Turkish Fighters when entering Greek FIR so they are recognized as Allied-Friendly
-Decreasing tensions such as ship patrols too close to each fleet that can create friction and tension (DG comment: e.g. collision)

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1724390494405333231

 

[what]

Good steps to build the foundation of hopefully more to come.

 

[Sanchez]

Iyi party forced a postponement on the Swedish NATO ascension.

Today, at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly where the proposal on Sweden's membership was discussed, we, as IYI Party commission members, announced that we would withdraw the proposal in question, if not, we would put a commentary, since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not provide satisfactory answers to our questions about the steps to address Turkey's demands and concerns, and a country other than us is still continuing the approval process.

Following the discussions, the Commission meeting was adjourned to an undetermined date.

We will continue to follow every issue that is in the interests of our country and that our nation is sensitive to.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1725155237449580707

 

[Rooxbar]

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.

 

[Afif]

Just to add some fun. Secretary Blinken's reaction was priceless.

 

[Rooxbar]

Just to add some fun. Secretary Blinken's reaction was priceless.

BTW this reinforces my theses that Biden has abandoned the exclusivity of Obama's "pivot to asia" approach, because they anticipate more action in mid-east.

 

[DBdev]

So really AKP simping for a bunch of murderous militants in a conflict which Turkey has no interest in and is actively funded by entities hostile to Turkey is biting Turkey in the ass.

Who would've thought?

Azeris make me sick with their support of zionists. They can't be ignorant to facts of suffering Palestinians since 1920s but they still support terrorist state Israel.

YES terrorist state. Even Netanyahu's party Likud was once called Irgun a ruthless Jewish terrorist organization (among many others) that bombed people, kidnapped, tortured and killed innocent Arabs as well as British people.

Literally you are making me sick to my stomach. Yes Hamas kidnapped people, yes Hamas bombed people and those are terroristic acts but they learned it from Netanyahu and those who became before him. They are the real victims not mass murdering invaders from Europe and Russia, the zionists.

"Hostage taking and the murder of hostages were two terrorist practices introduced by the Irgun under Menachem Begin . This photograph shows the bodies of two British army sergeants, Clifford Martin (left) and Mervin Pace ."

https://www.palquest.org/en/media/9592/hostage-taking-irgun#&gid=1&pid=1

 

[GoatsMilk]

Azeris make me sick with their support of zionists. They can't be ignorant to facts of suffering Palestinians since 1920s but they still support terrorist state Israel.

YES terrorist state. Even Netanyahu's party Likud was once called Irgun a ruthless Jewish terrorist organization (among many others) that bombed people, kidnapped, tortured and killed innocent Arabs as well as British people.

Literally you are making me sick to my stomach. Yes Hamas kidnapped people, yes Hamas bombed people and those are terroristic acts but they learned it from Netanyahu and those who became before him. They are the real victims not mass murdering invaders from Europe and Russia, the zionists.

"Hostage taking and the murder of hostages were two terrorist practices introduced by the Irgun under Menachem Begin . This photograph shows the bodies of two British army sergeants, Clifford Martin (left) and Mervin Pace ."

https://www.palquest.org/en/media/9592/hostage-taking-irgun#&gid=1&pid=1

Once we completely destroy relations with the west and we bury relations with Isreal and we can no longer even get the engines for the fighter jet we are making let alone the ones we are begging them to buy today, what do we do? When the shit hits the fan, the Turkish people cannot run like AK party cronies where they will even send their sons to the vatican for protection.

Once these relations are completely destroyed and the americans and europeans find common purpose to be 100% on the side of our enemies like greece, where they get F35 and we get dick, what's the plan? Scream god is great?

Scream Zionism like every loser/failed Islamist minded nation while western jets destroy and then pound the absolute shit out of your nation.

But anyway lets go with the idea that destroying relations is good, exactly what erdogan is doing now. When is erdogan sending the army to Palestine? If you are going to destroy relations and screaming Zionism like the mad mullah regime, when are you going to do something? When is Erdogan going to do something stupid like attack Israel? So Israel with her more advanced airforce can humiliate another Muslim army? And indirectly prove to themselves that their god is the real god, thus increasing their fervour and ambition to turn the entire Muslim middle east into their property? When the zionist will turn the Muslim into her dhimmi. Where you will be forced to pay special taxes for protection by the jewish army.

You don't defeat zionism or western imperialism by being stupid, Ottomans became insanely stupid and corrupt and in the end the kaffir took complete control of all the holy places and arguably still own them today under their saudi/isreali vassals.

You want to defeat zionism, play the game. Keep things smooth for another 20 years, develop your capabilities in the background, develop your economy and develop your nations leverage, then eventually you can overcome.

Even 1.2 billion chinese leader comes out saying he doesnt want war. No doubts he wants war, but he wants war when its in his advantage. He knows with such a massive population all the chinese need is time before they can overcome the USA in their backyard. Meanwhile 80 million Turkiye that still can't produce her own fighter yet wants to war with "EVERYONE" more advanced then her. The days of jumping on a horse with bow and arrow in hand are long over. You need technology, science, industry. Being tough and willing isn't enough anymore.

And if a major war comes, no ummah is sending an army to help us. It didn't happen in a thousand years of war with the kaffir, its not going to happen now when every islamist minded nation is terrified of the west and her power.

 

[Afif]

Making the Palestinian issue a state policy is wrong from the begin on, that aside I do not understand switching from bad to worse.

US does not give F35, so we demand F16. Same story US does not give F16, so we demand EF2000.

Utter BS policies are followed, instead of wasting billions on F16's, EF2000, pump that money into engine for Hurjet (TRmotor is making the Kaan engine, task TEI with a 20000lb engine for Hurjet, make your own fighter jet and make more funds available for ANKA-3 and Kizilelma.

Get on with our own stuff, West does not want a Muslim country that surpass themselves in military tech (we don't regards ourselves a Muslim country in the sense of governance, but the west do so they will embargo us on everything possible)

That is not how it works. Fundementally, West does not determine policy decisions based who is a Muslim country and who is not.

Today West is top to bottom materialist in all of its structure. They will be in bed with anybody (including muslim countries) when it suits their interests. And when it doesn't, they will decouple very fast.

 

[Okaber]

Azeris make me sick with their support of zionists. They can't be ignorant to facts of suffering Palestinians since 1920s but they still support terrorist state Israel.

That is his personal opinion, how did you decide that Azerbaijanis collectively support Israel?

When it comes to state level, Azerbaijan supports two-state solution with East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, and also officially recognizes Palestinian state.

What I think you should rather ask is why all those Arab states are indifferent, countries like Saudi Arabia that can actually make a difference. Yet they don’t act beyond empty statements.

Iran also showed itself to be all talk while Israel is leveling Gaza.

 

[Bürküt]

Azeris make me sick with their support of zionists. They can't be ignorant to facts of suffering Palestinians since 1920s but they still support terrorist state Israel.

The fact that Palestinians declare us genocider of Armenians and support China in the East Turkestan issue also makes me sick to my stomach.But wait, they have luxutry to do this for their own interests but nobody else (We TURKS) can't act the same?? This is a dirty war where both sides play very dirty.Don't let the dirt spill on us.Why are those who boast about how neutral we were in the Russia-Ukraine war want us to be side or give reaction on this issue?