“Game balance” around the new Turkey

The growing interest and intensive diplomatic traffic around Turkey not escape everyone’s attention. The visit of Chancellor Merkel immediately after the visit of the Prime Minister may, as well as statements from the flank of the US — Russia cannot but raise the question: what is happening? In the end, we have a historical memory that one way or another from time to time arises in our minds.

The first thing to note, if you think positively: after that Ankara, which until recently forced to act as “depressed” and “depressed” after 27 June 2016 (Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sent Vladimir Putin a message in which he expressed interest in resolving the situation related to the destruction of the su-24 is 24 November 2015 — approx. TRANS.) again, together with Russia focused on the factor of balance in foreign policy, and August 24, came to the battlefield with the operation in Jerablus and proved their strength, these States were forced to change their approach and attempt negotiations and deals to persuade Turkey to their side. For example, one holds a carrot in the form of s-400 and the other says, “let’s create a plane.”

Thus, at this stage, Turkey’s position in foreign policy seems to be stronger than before, and her agility is higher. Ankara is in the position of the player, which East and West can not divide among themselves, and seem intent on at full strength to use it…

But whether East and West can not divide Turkey? And how this situation can be taken as a good sign? To what extent this is a reliable policy for Turkey and how long it can last? In other words, how long we can save this policy balance, which is trying to carry out between East and West, and which is gradually shifting towards “active neutrality”?

Our “policy of balance” that helped to win the UK

First of all answer the first question. Turkey — “rising force”, which can not divide among themselves not only “growing East” and “cometh to the decline of the West” but the West itself. More specifically, it is an active power struggle between the Anglo-Saxon West (USA — UK) and continental Europe (Germany — France). In the same way as, for example, in the XIX century, during the Second world war and before it, in the so-called interwar period.

As you know, from the point of view of Germany, which appeared in the field of view mainly in the nineteenth century, the way to do away with the British Empire, was through the strategically important railway “Berlin — Baghdad”. In other words, through the promotion of the rule over the Ottoman Empire and therefore Istanbul. While Germany believed that she would be able to do it directly with Istanbul, Britain tried to act the part, together with other players. As a result, the UK won.

This happened for several reasons:

1) an approach in which an attempt was made to revive the Empire, not based on the elements of national power, and on the promise of Germany;

2) some “naive leaders” who, relying on the promises of great Britain, believed that after the Ottoman Empire will create their large Empire;

3) “restructuring” in the Ottoman Empire, which did not make the way out of the situation and anti-national system, which therefore tried to impose on the Istanbul;

4) external dependency in financial, economic and political spheres;

5) the failure of the Ottoman Empire to continue the policy of balance and doomed to dependence on one power.

Thus, there is the answer to our question about how this policy is reliable for Turkey and how long it can continue to save us. Answer: as long as the parties allow it! When the parties agree between themselves on the division of the world and decide to disconnect you from the power you are so much you can do. Balance policy which you pursue, is falling apart, and you find yourself defeated.

Does not balance, and crash!

From this point of view, the experience of the Ottoman Empire is extremely important! So, I guess, because of this experience Ankara during the Second world war chose a policy of active neutrality to the last minute, tried to apply it. (The question of how successful was this policy, which can also be called the attempt to control all sides, I will try to examine in one of my next articles.)

Okay, but why am I writing about all this. Now through Turkey to play a similar game. This time in the “game balance” is at the forefront of the following players: USA, UK, Germany and Russia! In other words, come into play, the same actors, and about a century ago.

A hundred years ago, the United States remained in the shadow of the UK, and now UK — in the shadow of the United States. The Russian Federation plays the role of tsarist Russia in the period before 1833 and the Soviet Union 1918-1945 years, while nobody can confidently say whether there will be a new Stalin, when these four agree.

So, trump seems to be trying to Putin to try the same trick, which Churchill used the Duo of Turkey — Russia during the Second world war and which was caught on the hook of Stalin. Although the course trump against Russia, it seems, is focused on the Russian-Chinese relations, it becomes clear that his priority is the two major powers of Eurasia. This is a must see!

Ankara must understand the dangers of this game and, on this basis, to develop a different policy balance. If you develop such a policy, which can be called “balance within balance,” we will fail — we can be in a state of loneliness / alienation, like a hundred years ago.