Sunday, October 16, 2016

An Insecure West and Turkey?

Certainly a loaded headline. How is the West insecure? Why is the West insecure?
What does their insecurity have to do with Turkey? Did their insecurity stem from their failed coup attempt?  Is the article the Greek perspective? NATO perspective? Both?

Greece spends large on NATO. 
On Monday, figures were released showing Greece as having the second highest spending in NATO, second to the U.S.
Greece was pivotal in moving ‘refugees’ to Europe as part of NATO's weaponized refugee movement. This has been discussed previously here at the blog.

Paints the US as victim to Turkey. Which is absurd. Poor US.. no one to talk to :(
Has the US done anything about Gulen yet? Nope!
Certainly demonizing Turkey. Which only bolsters my opinion of Turkey being targeted by NATO. Greece and Turkey have a lot of challenging, difficult  history, that’s for sure!

In Washington, Berlin and Brussels, you can’t helping sensing the fear of losing Turkey as an ally and partner of the West. President Recep Tayyip Ergodan is doing everything in his power to enhance that fear and to project the image of a powerful yet unpredictable leader. His meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his outbursts against the Europeans and his tough stance on the issue of Mosul are all part of this strategy.

The Americans have lost their traditional footholds in the Turkish military and foreign ministry. They no longer have anyone in Ankara with whom to talk and are having trouble interpreting Erdogan’s actions. (Are they really?) The Europeans, meanwhile, are terrified that Turkey will turn the refugees staying in its borders loose on the bloc’s shores. (They've been moving refugees back into Syria.. and need them to block Greater Kurdistan so sending them to Europe is a bit of a silly claim. Besides Italy has been trafficking migrants through to Europe now- mostly from Africa and nothing to do with Turkey)
“We don’t want to be sitting around a table in a few years arguing over who’s to blame for losing Turkey,” one top European official said.

Greek interests are not being well-served by all this insecurity surrounding Turkey. The country’s geopolitical hand may be stronger, but we are not yet in a position where either the American or the Europeans would intervene decisively in the event of a confrontation with Turkey. In the best case, they would resort to their usual tactic of trying to meet both sides in the middle.
Turkey's not going to intervene in Greece at this time- They're presently occupied so I find that suggestion non credible- If Greece wanted to keep relationships good with Turkey why didn't they return the coup plotters?  Instead of giving them military escort for safe landing and ensuring they made their way into Europe- Not neighbourly of Greece at all. No sireee...
There are those who believe that Turkey could collapse or that Erdogan could be overthrown in the next few years, when the imprisoned establishment decides to exact its revenge. Nothing is out of the question. The Turkish economy is dealing with its own challenges and there are a number of open fronts for the country, many of them quite explosive.
 Yes, Turkey is being economically targeted! 
Erdogan and Turkey are in a state of instability and no one can forge policy on the basis of pipe dreams. Athens no longer has the Russian card, and while it can be fairly confident that the Americans and the Europeans will not allow Greece to become a failed state, that’s as far as they can rely on their support.

The US could supply it with the hardware that would help the country to safeguard itself from an unpredictable Turkey and enhance its regional role, but Washington is not ready to make such a move, mainly because it doesn’t want to offend Ankara.

These are the broad brushstrokes we need to bear in mind as a difficult winter approaches, with challenges looming on the Cyprus issue and over the Eastern Mediterranean energy map. Let us hope that Turkey will not intensify its efforts to establish a fait accomplis in the Aegean.


  1. Let's make a short incursion in history.
    "The Treaty of Hünkâr İskelesi (once commonly spelled Unkiar Skelessi, and translating to The Treaty of "the Royal Pier" or "the Sultan's Pier") was a treaty signed between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire on July 8, 1833, following the military aid of Russia against Mehmed Ali that same year. The treaty brought about an alliance between the two powers, as well as a guarantee that the Ottomans would close the Dardanelles to any foreign warships if the Russians requested such action. The treaty would have significant consequences regarding the Ottoman Empire’s foreign relations, especially with Great Britain and Ireland, as the terms of the treaty worried the other great powers of Europe."
    The panic in Western capitals was so great that they sent the Navies to the Dardanelles, threatening the Turks. The efforts to nullify the treaty led in the long run to the Crimean War (the first salvo in the series of wars against Russia: I&II WW).
    But it looks that geopolitical realities reassert themselves. The 'Pontic' space is a geopolitical unit

    1. thanks wizoz

      I do like the short incursions into history :)

      "The treaty brought about an alliance between the two powers, as well as a guarantee that the Ottomans would close the Dardanelles to any foreign warships if the Russians requested such action. The treaty would have significant consequences regarding the Ottoman Empire’s foreign relations, especially with Great Britain and Ireland, as the terms of the treaty worried the other great powers of Europe."

      History repeats.
      I had a rather large article bookmarked on Russia and Turkey's previous alliances. Perhaps it had to do with this topic you are mentioning? Can't recall exactly but your comment is reminiscent of the the contents. I read it a few weeks back, bookmarked it with the intention of using it and then never had the opportunity- I'll find it and post it because your comment has just provided me with a reason to get it posted..

      Same scenario Europe being in such a kerfuffle over the alliance and one can understand the reasoning why they began immediately interfering and undermining- especially Britain

    2. Watch this very closely

      2 article son the crown prince with the nyt openly calling out the DCP challenge to NAyef.

      MEE floaitng the rumors about nayef beng on his deathbed.

      Nayef in turkey with Erdogan talking about 'them'

      Russian airborne into Sinai? Israel strike routes foreclosed by Russian sams and S400.

      IRan S3000 deliveries complete

      Iran just deployed navala ships to patrol souther PG and Yemen

      US took out radars in Yemen - whose where they and why the use of tomohawks?

      Saudi coup alert?

    3. thanks anonymous:
      I started reading the article, but, it's a bit longer then I have time for at this moment

      DCP? stands for?

    4. I love the history bits also. That one is interesting indeed.

      I'm not sure I can find it, I thought it was maybe toward the end of the CIA video of Kemal, but I can't be sure.
      Anyway.. one of the teasers that Stalin got in WWII end, was he could have Russia's territory back from Turkey, after a battle the allies (especially Britain ) agreed to.
      The night before said battle was to ensue, Britain called it off. There was no battle, and no land back.


    1. 100,000 refugees could be heading to Turkey

    2. Saw reports Turkey is going to try to stem the stampede?

      Realizing more refugees would be a burden to them, which is why the UN completely fell down on making arrangements for these soon to be displaced people

  3. Penny, I tried reading this back when it was posted at Voltaire ( where I rarely go these days ) but I didn't have the background knowledge than to 'get it'.
    I've read alot since then, and a gal in Japan tweeted it to me yesterday, going to try to find time to read it this evening.

    A French fellow I like Laurent Guyénot
    “The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives”

    just sharing, in case someone might be interested. :)

    1. Guyénot is good especially his layered conspiracy approach i.e. manipulation within manipulation. Playing plotters to take the fall in case something goes wrong. The only issue I have with him is that he fell for the "new chronology (Fomenko)" bs. Well nobody's perfect.
      At least it's nice that voltairenet translated some of his 911 zionist stuff a subject where he really brought something original to the fray.

    2. gallier2- the new chronology? related to?
      can you dish a bit more?

      I still have to read the article that karin left, but, I will read it karin, I will :)

    3. The new chronology "historians" state that several centuries of the middle age do not exist and have been invented. You can read on wikipedia a detailed explanation. The main problem with these theories is the same as with the Apollo hoax theories, they are all over the place, i.e. that there are several a lot of different contradictory variations of them and are mainly un-falsifiable. Propositions made by them that are falsifiable (and that have been thoroughly falsified) are never revised. It's like nailing pudding to the wall.
      As for Guyénot, he's not a fanatical promoter of these theories but thinks they have merit. E&R even had a video where he played "defence lawyer" them against the real historians Marion Sigaut and Claire Forlani who publish regularly on E&R.