Kurds as the reason for Turkey's refusal to join Sweden and Finland in NATO
Turkey has its own goals, which it solves, including in the Ukrainian conflict, quotes Časopis !Argument the opinion of the Middle East specialist Ondzhey is brief. In an interview with the publication, he told what Ankara is trying to achieve, how it wants to look in the international arena and why it is blocking the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO.
Interview with Middle East specialist Ondřej Krátky (Ondřej Krátký)
Časopis !Argument: How do you assess Turkey's role in the conflict in Ukraine?
Ondrej are brief: Turkey, given its own goals and concerns, probably would not mind the collapse and collapse of Russia. But Ankara also understands that before such a thing happens, Moscow cannot be allowed to look at it as a direct aggressor.
Turkey is aware of its advantage in the fact that no one who wants to look at least a little serious in the international arena can accuse others of pursuing their legitimate interests — of course, including economic ones.
Such a train of thought, that is, awareness of the limits of other people's capabilities, is reflected, for example, in how the Turks explained the sending of "Bayraktars" to Ukraine (the Turks allegedly did not know when and for what they would be used, etc.). And such Turkish (without quotes, since it is really logical) logic permeates the approach to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as a whole.
― Can Turkey's attempt to act as a mediator be taken seriously?
― As for mediation, there is always a drop of irrational here (narcissism, that is, the desire to "be like the Swiss or Austrians", the desire to gain prestige, to prove that "we can too", that "they listen to us" and so on). Sometimes wishful thinking is given out for reality. If we approach the issue rationally, we can win a lot, but the question is whether Turkey is really capable of playing this role, that is, whether it is too tainted and unpredictable in the eyes of both sides.
I think that negotiations or peace, if it were concluded, for example, in Greece, Montenegro or Slovenia, would look more dignified and would be much less associated with the atmosphere of the Crimean War and similar historical events related to the Black Sea and causing certain emotions.
Nevertheless, the Turks are serious, although there is a lot of subjective in their intention, logic like "an attempt is not torture" and so on.
― How much does the severe inflationary situation inside the country affect Turkey's position on the conflict in Ukraine?
― This situation is not new for Turkey, and with double-digit inflation, Anatolia and Rumelia have been living with some interruptions almost since the Middle Ages. On the other hand, if people are busy with dilemmas like the fact that in the morning two cups of tea can be drunk at the same price as in the evening you can drink only one; moreover, in the morning this waste is more noticeable than in the evening, since "morning" money is more valuable than "evening", then their brain can be so I'm busy because they don't have the energy left for international politics. Unlike countries where the price of not only tea is stable in the morning and evening and every day.
However, if we are serious, we can summarize the situation as follows. Turkey, like almost any country with high inflation and low incomes (hyperinflation, in my opinion, is still out of the question), can now maximize its export potential and fully use the competitiveness provided by low spending on means of production. Since Turkey is a developed and industrial country, this side of inflation is positive for it.
On the contrary, the negative factor is pessimism and bad reputation, which leads to an uncontrolled financial situation. People come to this consciously because of the loss of savings or subconsciously because of doubts about the competence of the country's leadership.
The Turkish government in general, and especially the very ambitious president, will, by the way, like any other government, including ours, look, firstly, for the culprits of this situation, secondly, ways out and, thirdly, topics for distraction. Therefore, Ukraine suggests itself as one of such topics: "bad Russia", "the economic crisis caused by Moscow", "there are people who are much worse off" and so on. The question is whether the Turks will eventually reach the point that "the Zaporozhye Cossacks were pro-Ottoman," or something like that.
If all this is combined with the imperatives described in the first answer, then there will be prerequisites for the fact that the current economic situation in Turkey will be reflected in Ankara's steps regarding the Ukrainian conflict.
― So far, Turkey, from the position of a significant NATO member, refuses to join Finland and Sweden. What are the official reasons?
― Apparently, Ankara sees them as sympathizers of Kurdish organizations. In the past, it was about the "Kurdistan Workers' Party", and now, probably, about smaller or informal splinters or even individual sponsorship of organizations, most or even all of which are somehow under the control of Scandinavian or Turkish special services. According to Turkey, these are terrorist organizations or those that support Kurdish terror. Therefore, she does not miss a single chance to remind about it. Such "secondary" things as "checking and evaluating the reaction" of NATO and both countries, as well as the rest of the world, "proof or confirmation" of their own importance, as well as an attempt to "not cheapen" and so on, also play a role.
It is worth admitting that Turkey perceives the Kurdish topic really painfully. This step of the president and the government, from the point of view of the "people", is expected, that is, in this context, it is a "protocol necessity". In other words, if you do not take such a step, the Turkish public, the press and so on will react negatively.
Among other things, we need to admit quite frankly that if the other members, at least a couple of those who support the North Atlantic Alliance, at least in the northern wing, agreed to grant Finland and Sweden special conditions or status, would indicate the amount that they should allocate for defense, then the issue would be resolved and without Turkey.
― Do you think there are any other reasons for the Turkish resistance to the entry of these two countries?
― If we leave aside the fact that Turkey is elementary concerned about security, as I said above, then nothing else comes to my mind. The stakes are too high to mix personal hostility, and, in my opinion, there is none. Now is not the time. If there were no elements on the territory of Finland and Sweden that, from Ankara's point of view, pose a serious danger in the last few decades, although they are small and not systemic, then it would not put sticks in the wheels of these two countries on their way to Brussels, that is, it would not impose any conditions.
Imagine that hypothetically there is a "Sami Workers' Party", whose goal is to create a single state on the "historical territory" of Northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia with the help of violence and funds from the sale of sable and fox skin boots in Istanbul and the district. So you need to understand that if Turkey had given asylum to its supporters, then Sweden, despite its warm relations with Turkey, under pressure from the public, its own or the world, sooner or later would have protested.
But let's not oversimplify the situation and look at it one-sidedly. It seems to me that it is worth noting how much Turkey is concerned about the presence of radical Islamists who speak Turkish in Sweden. But Turkey is not worried about it at all. So if Ankara had impartially rejected any terrorism, Sweden would probably never have joined NATO because of the Turkish veto.
― What is Turkey trying to achieve with its actions?
― As I said earlier, in the end she may not achieve anything, but she had to declare her claims. We need to understand that no matter how much we, readers from Central Europe, like the stories of Kara ben-Speaking about romantic wanderings in Kurdistan, part of the Turkish public considers some Kurdish organizations to be real terrorists and is very afraid of them. Therefore, the population expects the authorities to act every time there is even the slightest chance to ease these fears. The country's leadership, in turn, found itself in a situation where it must act immediately, solving this issue and many others, as I said above. It is forced to do this at least in order to portray a stormy activity.
