Turkey Contained ?

[Alienoz_TR]

S-19,

You are mixing religion with politics.
States would not have religions.
Individuals have religions.

And religions are divided into sect, tarikats and political groups.

You think An Arab with Sunni Background would want good for a Persian with Shia background, or vice versa. Ambitions come first before righteousness.

 

[King Solomon]

S-19,

You are mixing religion with politics.
States would not have religions.
Individuals have religions.

And religions are divided into sect, tarikats and political groups.

You think An Arab with Sunni Background would want good for a Persian with Shia background, or vice versa. Ambitions come first before righteousness.

I do agree that ambitions come before righteousness. Then again, Turkey (and Ottoman empire) has been trying to imitate Europe for the last 300 years. As far as I know, the Ottoman sultan at the time was very amazed at French culture during Napoleon's conquests, so amazed that he blindly started to induce European culture in their society, while forgetting to imitate the real thing: industrialization.

All this attempt at imitating Europe for the last 300 years have been met with little success, nevertheless. GB and rest of Europe industrialized at a very rapid pace but Ottoman empire was left far behind them. When Ottoman empire met its dissolution, the Kemalists came to power. They introduced secularism again, in an attempt to imitate Europe. However, forcing down Atheism in the minds of 97% Muslim Turkish population is no easy task and hence we saw numerous coup d'etats and political destabilization of Turkey. They failed a big one at that again.

Only in the last decade we saw some political stability when an Islam-sympathetic party came to power. I repeat, not secular sympathetic, or trying to imitate Europe. In history, when Ottomans adopted their own identity instead of trying to imitate Europe, they were great powers, enough to take on the whole of Europe by themselves.

Therefore, as I see it, Turkey would be far better assuming its own identity instead of trying to imitate Europe, which it has done for the most part of its history.

Here comes the question of NATO. Do you really think NATO would save Turkey if Russia retaliates? As I see it, Europeans and other members of NATO harbour a deep-rooted hatred for Turkey within themselves, whether you admit it or not. This is why they did not allow Turkey in EU, this is why they pass laws making it crime to deny armenian genocide. You see, they are conscious of their history and rivalry with Ottomans. They are only using Turkey as their proxy and a buffer against Russia. I assure you, even if it sounds a bit crude, Turkey would be the first one to get destroyed and wiped out in case of any major conflict. It would be far better for Turkey to get out of NATO and ally itself with the regional superpower, Russia and possibly China. I cannot see how Turkey's industrialization process would get affected by that? Or would the west impost sanctions on Turkey if that happens?

 

[Alienoz_TR]

M.Kemal was intellectually a student of Ziya Gokalp. When I say student, I mean Ziya Gokalp influenced him.

There were Ziya Gokalp half Turk, Yusuf Akchura a Volga Tatar, Zeki Velidi Togan a Bashkir, these were scholars.

These men influenced greatly Turkey.

Ziya Gokalp was a synthesis of Turkism, Islamism and Westernism. Take good from everything a bit.

Yusuf Akchura was Turkist, peaceful Turkist, like Turkish literature, Turkish culture.

Velidi Togan was a Pan Turkist, former rebel in Russia, great historician as well. Good and bad were together in him. He discovered also old scriptures regarding to Turkic history. So he is useful.

So was Kemalism a western type? I say no. Westernism started with 2nd president Ismet Inonu who jailed Turkists, started westernism, opposing again islamism.

 

[Developereo]

It would be far better for Turkey to get out of NATO and ally itself with the regional superpower, Russia and possibly China.

I agree with the rest of your post -- Western politics is deeply influenced by their religion -- but I don't think Turkey should form an alliance with Russia. It should remain neutral between the big powers.

 

[mehmeTcc]

M.Kemal was intellectually a student of Ziya Gokalp. When I say student, I mean Ziya Gokalp influenced him.

There were Ziya Gokalp half Turk, Yusuf Akchura a Volga Tatar, Zeki Velidi Togan a Bashkir, these were scholars.

These men influenced greatly Turkey.

Ziya Gokalp was a synthesis of Turkism, Islamism and Westernism. Take good from everything a bit.

Yusuf Akchura was Turkist, peaceful Turkist, like Turkish literature, Turkish culture.

Velidi Togan was a Pan Turkist, former rebel in Russia, great historician as well. Good and bad were together in him. He discovered also old scriptures regarding to Turkic history. So he is useful.

So was Kemalism a western type? I say no. Westernism started with 2nd president Ismet Inonu who jailed Turkists, started westernism, opposing again islamism.

Ziya Gökalp was a genious. I feel sorry for him because our people just couldn't understand him.

BTW you can add Namık Kemal too.

 

[King Solomon]

I agree with the rest of your post -- Western politics is deeply influenced by their religion -- but I don't think Turkey should form an alliance with Russia. It should remain neutral between the big powers.

Maybe but that is not possible as long as they are an active member of NATO. My point was, if Turkey gets out of NATO, an agreement can be reached between Turkey and Russia where Turkey will grant Russia unrestricted military and civilian access to the Mediterranean via the Bosphorous (also a division of Black sea oil fields between Turkey and Russia). This is a very important objective of Russia and also the reason why Turkey would be targeted first of all in case of any major conflict. This would effectively ally Turkey with Russia in a harmonious relationship, which is a regional superpower. Any immediate threat to Turkey would be neutralized as no country close to its proximity can dare to take on Turkey anymore and Turkey is in a harmonious relationship with Russia.

The above should not hamper Turkey's relation with EU or its current industrialization process. Or would the west impose sanctions on Turkey ? If so, this will just go on to prove the deep-rooted hatred that the rest of NATO have for Turkey.

It is always better to ally with the superpower closest in proximity. An example is that of India which allied with USSR, not US. Whereas Pakistan tried to ally with a superpower 10000 miles away and as a result, got betrayed numerous times and was not nearly as fruitful as India's alliance with USSR.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Maybe but that is not possible as long as they are an active member of NATO. My point was, if Turkey gets out of NATO, an agreement can be reached between Turkey and Russia where Turkey will grant Russia unrestricted military and civilian access to the Mediterranean via the Bosphorous (also a division of Black sea oil fields between Turkey and Russia). This is a very important objective of Russia and also the reason why Turkey would be targeted first of all in case of any major conflict. This would effectively ally Turkey with Russia in a harmonious relationship, which is a regional superpower. Any immediate threat to Turkey would be neutralized as no country close to its proximity can dare to take on Turkey anymore and Turkey is in a harmonious relationship with ..

It is always better to ally with the superpower closest in proximity. An example is that of India which allied with USSR, not US. Whereas Pakistan tried to ally with a superpower 10000 miles away and as a result, got betrayed numerous times and was not nearly as fruitful as India's alliance with USSR.

Why did Turkey enter NATO at first place?

Stalin wanted access to Bosphorus, also wanted to take eastern vilayets like Kars and Ardahan. Tsarist Russia took these vilayets in 1878 war. We retook them in WW1.

During WW2, Turkey and CCCP relations got worse. Stalin show enmity, whether right or wrong, I don't care. Turkey decided western side in 1947.

 

[King Solomon]

Why did Turkey enter NATO at first place?

Stalin wanted access to Bosphorus, also wanted to take eastern vilayets like Kars and Ardahan. Tsarist Russia took these vilayets in 1878 war. We retook them in WW1.

During WW2, Turkey and CCCP relations got worse. Stalin show enmity, whether right or wrong, I don't care. Turkey decided western side in 1947.

Today's Russia is far, very far from the Stalinist model. If you still think Russia is communist then I think you should visit Russia. Taking into account the continuous attempt of NATO to encircle Russia, Russia would be more than pleased to welcome Turkey and provide for any security needs of it. Yes, we do want unrestricted access to the Bosphorous because that would give a means to maintain Naval presence in Mediterranean. But we do not want it by force as Stalin did. Atm the only means for Russia to maintain presence in Mediterranean is via the naval port in Syria.

Isn't it better for Turkey to ensure all immediate threat is neutralized considering the fact that NATO is just using Turkey as a buffer? Russian access to Mediterranean + Division of black sea resources = complete neutralization of all threats of Turkey. Or are you fearing that EU+West would impose sanctions on Turkey if Turkey gets out of NATO?

In WW1, Russia was in a very poor condition due to civil war with Bolsheviks. Russia had to give up all of its conquered territories in Europe in a humiliating treaty to the central powers (Germany, Ottoman) in exchange for a guarantee of not attacking Russia.

 

[Alienoz_TR]

Today's Russia is far, very far from the Stalinist model. If you still think Russia is communist then I think you should visit Russia. Taking into account the continuous attempt of NATO to encircle Russia, Russia would be more than pleased to welcome Turkey and provide for any security needs of it. Yes, we do want unrestricted access to the Bosphorous because that would give a means to maintain Naval presence in Mediterranean. But we do not want it by force as Stalin did. Atm the only means for Russia to maintain presence in Mediterranean is via the naval port in Syria.

Isn't it better for Turkey to ensure all immediate threat is neutralized considering the fact that NATO is just using Turkey as a buffer? Russian access to Mediterranean + Division of black sea resources = complete neutralization of all threats of Turkey. Or are you fearing that EU+West would impose sanctions on Turkey if Turkey gets out of NATO?

Russia.

That is beyond my capabilities. I can't decide.

Our military hardware is western. What if we change side?

Our businessmen are well integrated into west, what if we change side?

Questions that came to my mind recently. Many more to come.

 

[Quasar]

Turkey Contained ?

part of the answer; Turkish economy grew by 8.5 percent last year (2011)!!! guess this simple fact can provide a point of departure for this discussion! therefore, just please before putting forward some silly arguments, just remind yourselfs that you are talking about a country which has one of the fastest growth rates in the world next to China!

 

[Developereo]

Maybe but that is not possible as long as they are an active member of NATO. My point was, if Turkey gets out of NATO, an agreement can be reached between Turkey and Russia where Turkey will grant Russia unrestricted military and civilian access to the Mediterranean via the Bosphorous (also a division of Black sea oil fields between Turkey and Russia). This is a very important objective of Russia and also the reason why Turkey would be targeted first of all in case of any major conflict. This would effectively ally Turkey with Russia in a harmonious relationship, which is a regional superpower. Any immediate threat to Turkey would be neutralized as no country close to its proximity can dare to take on Turkey anymore and Turkey is in a harmonious relationship with Russia.

The above should not hamper Turkey's relation with EU or its current industrialization process. Or would the west impose sanctions on Turkey ? If so, this will just go on to prove the deep-rooted hatred that the rest of NATO have for Turkey.

It is always better to ally with the superpower closest in proximity. An example is that of India which allied with USSR, not US. Whereas Pakistan tried to ally with a superpower 10000 miles away and as a result, got betrayed numerous times and was not nearly as fruitful as India's alliance with USSR.

Russia will always, always, ALWAYS favor their slavic cousins over Turkey in any conflict. Turkey should not be fooled by another alliance; it should remain neutral.

 

[King Solomon]

That is beyond my capabilities. I can't decide.

Our military hardware is western. What if we change side?

Our businessmen are well integrated into west, what if we change side?

Questions that came to my mind recently. Many more to come.

Exactly. That is what you fear: Western retaliation in the form of sanctions and restriction on Turkish citizens living in the west? There are good reasons for you to fear that.

If Turkey continues in its present stance of actively participating in NATO, the thing is it will be the first country to be targeted by eastern powers (Russia+China) in case of any major conflict. The ones who call shots in NATO recognised this, so included Turkey in NATO. They would never have included Turkey in NATO if not for this strategic advantage, just like they did not include Turkey in EU even though Turkey is a vibrant democracy and much more progressive and capable than some current EU members. You see, they are conscious of their history and their rivalry with Ottoman empire. They share a deep-rooted hatred for Turkey deep down in their hearts.

Russia will always, always, ALWAYS favor their slavic cousins over Turkey in any conflict. Turkey should not be fooled by another alliance; it should remain neutral.

I tend to disagree because such an alliance with Turkey would be very beneficial for Russian influence. As I said before this is not Stalin's russia. NATO members like Georgia are like de-facto states of Russia, Russia can occupy them anytime it wants. It is Turkey and its strategic location that really matters to Russia.

 

[mehmeTcc]

I tend to disagree because such an alliance with Turkey would be very beneficial for Russian influence. As I said before this is not Stalin's russia. NATO members like Georgia are like de-facto states of Russia, Russia can occupy them anytime it wants. It is Turkey and its strategic location that really matters to Russia.

Hold your horses there! If Russians try to enter the city of Batum, things will be little complicated.

 

[Zulkarneyn]

Economy- Foreign Policy - Industries. Three things why i like Erdogan , Turkey is evolving very very fast , if Turkey is not the example then give me one.

Try to Understand the AKP model of Turkey.
"Democracy is a tram which gets you to your destination , then you get off: Rajib Tayyab Erdogan 1990"

At last someone who can actually see AKP for who they are. When analyzing parties and their ideologies look at their history and the driving force behind their motivation. I know sharia as we know in KSA won't come to Turkey (fortunately), but i am also pretty sure Islam will experience a revival in Turkey.

 

[Quasar]

Exactly. That is what you fear: Western retaliation in the form of sanctions and restriction on Turkish citizens living in the west? There are good reasons for you to fear that.

If Turkey continues in its present stance of actively participating in NATO, the thing is it will be the first country to be targeted by eastern powers (Russia+China) in case of any major conflict. The ones who call shots in NATO recognised this, so included Turkey in NATO. They would never have included Turkey in NATO if not for this strategic advantage, just like they did not include Turkey in EU even though Turkey is a vibrant democracy and much more progressive and capable than some current EU members. You see, they are conscious of their history and their rivalry with Ottoman empire. They share a deep-rooted hatred for Turkey deep down in their hearts.



I tend to disagree because such an alliance with Turkey would be very beneficial for Russian influence. As I said before this is not Stalin's russia. NATO members like Georgia are like de-facto states of Russia, Russia can occupy them anytime it wants. It is Turkey and its strategic location that really matters to Russia.

I am sure you have good intensions! However, we already have good relations with Russia (already our bigest economic partner) , China ( we start talking about 100 billion $ trade potantial with in 5 years , US and EU! simply, Turkey is a country with many options unlike many others! and it is in our interst to keep it like this!

finaly, russia or china attacting us..... forgive me but its just childish!