Showing posts with label turkey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label turkey. Show all posts

Sunday, 18 September 2011

Turkey wants to revive Ottoman Empire against Russia

A hundred years after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey is re-emerging on the international arena. Furthermore, it intends to regain the ground lost in the 19th-20th centuries, which is a direct threat to the interests of all the neighboring countries, including Russia.
 Consider the actions of the Turkish leadership during the past weeks that have caused serious concerns in Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the EU.


Particularly noteworthy are the frictions of Ankara and Tel Aviv, which raise questions about preservation of the Alliance between the two. The Turkish leadership provides a strong support to the Palestinians, and threatened to appeal to the international authorities with a demand to monitor the Israeli nuclear program and promised to prevent the development of Israeli-rich gas fields in the Mediterranean.

Finally, a serious concern in Israel was caused by the fact that on September 7, Turkey announced its intention to sign an important military agreement with Egypt during a corresponding visit of the Turkish government. Of course, this is a historic day in the history of the entire Middle East. Given the sharp rise in anti-Israel sentiment in Turkey and in Egypt, as well as the ongoing processes of evolution of power in several North African countries, the concerns of Israelis about the activity of Ankara on the Egyptian direction are quite understandable.


Worst case scenarios should be considered as one of the options for the future development in the Middle East. One possibility is the return to the days of the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel was virtually in the siege of hostile neighbors.
However, at this time the situation in Tel Aviv will be much worse, because Ankara can turn from an ally into an enemy more dangerous than all the Arab countries put together.

Some experts call manifestations of military activity in Turkey an additional concern. Turkey threatens Israel to send a new "freedom flotilla" to Gaza under the protection of the Turkish Navy warships, as well as equip the squadron that will be on duty in the Red Sea. If we take into account the fact that Erdogan sent another squadron to the Israeli Mediterranean coast, it seems that the Turks are threatening Israel with a full naval blockade.


It should be remembered that the Israeli-Turkish complications did not occur in 2010. Gradual cooling has been observed since 2008 in parallel with strengthening of foreign policy activity of Turkish Islamists in power. In the last six months the efforts of Erdogan in this area have been more obvious.
However, anti-Israel rhetoric of the Turkish leadership cannot hide his true intentions, which extend far beyond the desire to defy Israel.

First, the emergence of the Turkish Navy in the Red Sea is largely a reaction to the appearance of the Iranian fleet in the area. In addition, Turkey intends to demonstrate a desire to show its power in the region strategically important for the West, where the oil routes from the Persian Gulf run.
Second, attention should be paid to Turkey's policy in respect of all Arab countries. Turkey openly threatened Syria to send troops to northern Iraq, and participated in the NATO operation against Libya.

As for Egypt, under Murambak Cairo considered Ankara a dangerous competitor in terms of influence on the Middle East and Arab countries.

Of course, they remain competitors today. But then Egypt used to rely on the full support of the West. Now the situation has changed: the revolutionary changes in the country are just beginning, and Islamist sentiment out there is much worse. Turkey would not mind to use the opportunity to try to expand its influence in this country through the development of the economic ties and military-technical cooperation.

Last but not least factor has to do with the events of "Arab spring" that led to the collapse of the former authoritarian regimes. In this regard, Turkey would not mind using the opportunity to, first, divert public attention from the purely Turkish reality and increase its influence in the region.


It is significant how Islamists Erdogan and Gul support Syrian and Egyptian "Muslim Brothers". This is mostly not an ideological affinity, but the intention to place a bet in the global game. The West supports the Liberals who have no influence on the masses of protesters who sympathize with the radicals like those "brothers." 
As for Israel itself, its attitude towards Turkey's behavior is rather unemotional. The Israeli leadership is well aware that strong statements by the Turkish leadership are in fact more focused on winning sympathy among Arabs.

In the discussion about the Israeli-Turkish verbal dispute, it should be emphasized that the actions of Ankara are aimed not so much against the interests of Tel Aviv, but at restoring its influence in the eastern Mediterranean and southern Europe.
The Turkish leadership is doing all it can to show that its activity is directed against Israel, to whose shores a few frigates and corvettes as well as dozens of missile boats and support vessels will soon rush.


However, it is sufficient to consider "a new naval strategy" with a great name "Operation Barbarossa - Aegean shield" adopted a few days earlier, which implies that Israeli ships would be placed between Cyprus and Israel. This will allow the latter to make an equal influence not only on the Tel-Aviv, but also Nicosia and Athens. Anti-Israel rhetoric in this case is more like a camouflage to conceal the true intentions of the South-European direction.

In the past six months, Ankara has been aggressively pursuing its policy towards Cyprus and has been trying to prevent the of oil and gas deposits at its shores going to Greek companies. Moreover, the Turkish Minister for EU Affairs Egemen Bagysh openly declared the possibility of using military force to prevent such a scenario.


But there is more to it. Turkey has also announced its plans to increase its Navy presence in the Adriatic Sea. It is known that in the near future a new "assignment" will be given to at least some of the 14 Turkish submarines. This way Ankara intends to strengthen its influence among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), openly declaring this to the European Union that had its own plans for the future of BiH.

In the middle of the 18th century the Ottoman Empire has steadily weakened and lost its influence in the world on all fronts, starting with the Maghreb and ending with the Balkan and Caucasus. It was evidenced by lost wars with its neighbors, including Russia.
Finally, in the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had the contemptuous name of a "sick man of Europe". Such a characterization was fully justified considering losses in a war with Russia (1877-1878), clashes with the Balkan states, and loss of its Italian possessions in Libya1912-1913.
The defeat in World War I meant not only the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, which had lost virtually all the Arab lands. The existence of Turkey in general as an independent state was at stake.

While in 1922 Kemal managed to beat Greece supported by the Entente, it seemed that the Turks have never recovered from the defeat of 1918. Yet, after 100 years of "gathering strength" Turkey seems to be going back to claim the lost. Inevitably, the Turkish activity will be more manifested in the Caucasian and Crimean directions, which cannot but worry Russia.

Wednesday, 5 August 2009

Deals Planned for Putin’s Turkey Trip

Inter RAO and Gazprom will sign agreements on energy projects with Turkish companies, Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said at a news conference Tuesday.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is expected to visit Turkey on Thursday to work out details of several energy projects, including an invitation to take part in Moscow’s pipeline project, South Stream.
Turkish and Russian energy ministers said on Tuesday that numerous energy projects were waiting for the private sectors of each country.
Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said Turkish companies would sign agreements to cooperate with Russian firms in the oil, natural gas and power sectors.
Gazprom and Turkey’s Calik Holding will sign an accord to build a pipeline between the northeastern port of Samsun and a terminal at Ceyhan on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, Shmatko said.
Increased oil output from the Caspian region as Kazakhstan’s Kashagan field plans to begin output will add additional tanker shipments via the Black Sea. Tankers have been delayed as much as a month in passing through the Bosphorus Straits because of weather and seasonal conditions.
Inter RAO, along with Atomstroiexport and Park Teknik were the sole bidders in a tender to build the nuclear power plant. Final approval of the deal has been delayed pending a price revision from the Turkish-Russian consortium.
The European Union and Turkey last month signed a transit deal for the Nabucco pipeline, which aims to reduce Europe’s energy dependence on Russia, introducing a new flow of gas from the Caspian and Middle East.
Putin is expected to promise that South Stream will be built quicker than Nabucco despite last month’s political fanfare and will seek to convince EU-candidate Turkey to allow Moscow’s 10 billion euro ($15 billion) project to carry gas from the Russian coast to Europe via Turkey’s Black Sea waters.
“These are rival projects, they’re not complementary. If one is successful, then the other should be postponed for 10 years. They are targeting the same customers, there is not enough resources and the funding is not there,” said Necdet Pamir, Turkish Committee member of the World Energy Council.
“And here, Russia needs Turkey to let the pipeline pass through its exclusive [territorial waters],” he said.
Turkish rejection of the project would force South Stream to go through the territorial waters of Ukraine, with which Russia has already experienced two gas feuds over the past three years.
Nabucco consortium members say their July accord has solved political problems and infighting that has slowed development of the pipeline, but Putin is likely to point out that the 31-bcm Nabucco has yet to secure any gas.
“Nabucco is a project for generations to come, we all know it has no gas at this time; South Stream has all the gas. For Nabucco, there are no upstream suppliers right now, it’s all lip service, and that is what Putin is likely to press,” independent energy analyst Haluk Direskeneli said.

Thursday, 16 April 2009

Ukraine, Turkey Not Rivals But Partners, Says Ambassador

ANKARA, Turkey -- After the Ukrainian government was forced to adopt austerity measures to tackle the economic crisis in a move aimed at restoring the flow of payments under a $16.4 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan, the country is looking for private equity funds and government loans to fund public infrastructure projects, a senior Ukrainian diplomat has said in Ankara.
Sergiy Korsunsky, the Ukrainian ambassador to Turkey, told Today’s Zaman that his government will finance major projects through private funds and is especially looking to Turkey for direct foreign investment to keep the economy going.Stressing that current investment by Turkish firms has reached $2 billion, Korsunsky finds Turkish investors to be in an upbeat mood. “None of them said they would be shelving expansion projects in the Ukraine,” he said, referring to a meeting with senior managers of Turkish firms in Ankara.Noting that Ukraine is an investor friendly country, the ambassador said the prime minister and legislators are working in tandem to improve regulations and the legal environment to attract foreign investment. “If you are patient and serious in your engagement with the Ukrainian economy, you will be welcome no matter which party is in government,” he assured.Turkey and Ukraine have no outstanding issues in bilateral relations and both countries are working together on many regional issues. “It is a problem-free relationship,” Korsunsky reported, adding, “I have an easy job here.” Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize Ukrainian independence. On many issues, both countries take a similar stance, ranging from energy transit to safety and security in the Black Sea which connects them.Ukraine joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) last year after 14 years of negotiations, increasing investors’ confidence and clearing the way for a valuable free trade agreement with the European Union. At the suggestion of Korsunsky, who helped broker the agreement with the WTO as part of the negotiating team, Ukraine also started negotiations with Turkey to establish a free trade agreement. “The agreement with Turkey will pave the way for immense opportunities for the Ukrainian economy as the goods will easily flow to the Turkish market,” he noted.The trade volume between Turkey and Ukraine stood at $8 billion annually as of 2008 -- up from $5 billion in 2007. The projection for 2009 is grim though. “I would be satisfied if we keep the same volume for this year,” he said, underscoring the difficulties in the economies of both countries because of the global economic crisis. Still, the volume represents a stark contrast when compared to Russia’s $38 billion trade volume with Turkey -- $26 billion in the energy trade alone, mostly gas and oil exports to Turkey. “When you subtract the energy portion from Russian trade, the Ukraine becomes far more important for Turkey, as trade consists of many commodities including steel, chemicals and agricultural products, making Turkey Kyiv’s second most important trading partner after Russia.Pipeline diplomacyKorsunsky pledged that his government has not and never will use transit pipelines carrying Russian natural gas through Ukrainian territory to Turkey and western European markets as a tool to pressure governments. “We have officially declared that we would like to have very good relations with our neighbors, especially with the West and EU member states,” he said. “The idea that we could use a pipeline to blackmail others goes right against this policy.” He added, “We would never think of harming our relations with strategic countries like Turkey just for gas.”Relations between Ukraine and Russia were strained in January over Russian gas supplies and resulted in Russian gas being cut off to Europe for more than two weeks. It ended after Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko struck a deal with Russia for a long-term supply deal. Korsunsky blames the Russians for the gas crisis and mentions the EU findings that laid the blame on Moscow. “I would not say I’m happy with the current deal but it is a deal anyway,” he acknowledged.Another rift recently occurred with Russia over the modernization of pipelines in Ukraine. Kyiv urged the EU to allocate $5.5 billion to improve the pipeline systeM, rather than embark on expensive alternative routes bypassing Ukraine. Moscow reacted negatively to the deal and claimed it had not been consulted on the plan, resulting in a threat by Russian Gazprom to issue fines to its Ukrainian client for failing to buy enough gas as directed by the contract -- a reversal of the previous announcement by Gazprom, which had said it wouldn’t impose fines in recognition of Ukraine’s dire financial plight.The ambassador dismissed the accusations and said the deal is for the benefit of Russia as well. Korsunsky argued that the Russian alternative -- the 900-kilometer-long South Stream pipeline going through the continental shelf of Ukraine in the Black Sea, thus requiring Kyiv’s approval -- is environmentally dangerous. “It comes with a large bill as well,” he said, noting that the 25 billion euro price tag for a 31 billion cubic meter annual gas flow simply does not add up. “What we are saying to Russia is that if you invest $5 billion in our existing pipeline for upgrades, you can increase the pumping capacity to 60 billion cubic meters annually,” he underlined, adding “I would be very happy if I were in Russia’s shoes.”NATO membershipThe Ukrainian diplomat says he appreciates Turkey’s full support on the membership of his country in NATO -- a strategic goal reaffirmed by successive Ukrainian governments and staunchly opposed by Moscow. Korsunsky says the alliance is much more than a military pact, rather a security bloc dealing with energy and other nonmilitary issues as well. “As such we need to be in NATO to maintain our safety,” he emphasized. Ukraine is currently the only non-member state of NATO that participates in all of the alliance’s operations.He concedes that Ukraine has many issues to deal with before it can be considered in full compliance with NATO standards. “We need to upgrade our military forces, stabilize our economy and work harder to get increased public support for membership,” he said. Around 30 percent of the public rallies behind NATO -- an increase of 10 points over last year -- and 50 percent remain uncommitted while the remainder is opposed. Korsunsky cites NATO’s operations in Bosnia and Kosovo as the reason for low public support but largely blames Russian propaganda. “We need to do a much better job informing our citizens about what NATO means for our future,” he added.