Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'eu'.
And while Ankara does not want to lose its position as a significant geopolitical player in the near future, acting as a kind of bridge between the West and the East In recent years, Ankara has intended to pursue a strong independent policy based on the balancing act between West and East, which Turkey's geographic position traditionally favors. However, Washington's decision to kick Turkey out of the American F-35 fighter jet production program in connection with Ankara's purchase of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft systems undermined the spirit of mutual understanding between the two countries. The United States is terribly afraid that someone will have actual evidence that the S-400 can effectively counteract the F-35, which is why they are trying to force Turkey to abandon Russian anti-aircraft systems, which will have a catastrophic effect on the defense of the latter. Turkish separation can take years American political scientists continue to be guided by the logic of the Cold War, while Turkish think in the context of an emerging multipolar world, where Turkey can take a good position. This difference in mindset, plus Washington's continued military support for Kurdish fighters in Syria, makes real dialogue between the US and Turkey impossible. As a result, the United States is ready to move its Incirlik air base to the island of Crete, which will only accelerate the geopolitical separation between Ankara and Washington, giving a free hand to Turkey to pursue an independent foreign policy without regard to "colleagues from across the ocean." While Turkish-American relations have become tense over the past few years and a strategic separation is no longer completely unrealistic, Turkey's foreign policy continues to revolve around the issue of striking a balance between West and East. Although its geographic position on the borders of Asia and Europe seems to largely determine its broader foreign policy orientation, Turkey under Erdogan has also acquired or is at least trying to acquire the status of a major power, thanks to which it can act as a "balancer" between the two major world poles of power. But Turkey's strategic positioning, inspired by the desire to re-establish itself as a 'neo-Ottoman' empire capable of pursuing a truly independent foreign policy and operating as a major power, has most of all led to a rift between Turkey and its NATO allies, especially the US. Erdogan isn't in any hurry to break all ties with Washington, but in vain. The fact that Turkey has established strong political and military ties with Russia shows that the US and Turkey have fundamentally different threat perceptions. Accordingly, while Turkey appears to believe that the current international system is not as Western-oriented and US-dominated as it used to be, and that Turkey should pursue its interests through a more diverse geopolitical balance, Washington, hell-bent on resisting the fall of the United States as the only superpower, considers such a reading of international affairs by Turkey abnormal and unrealistic. For Erdogan and Turkish politicians, this is seen as an adjustment to the new normal in global politics. These differences have also led to certain political tensions, the most important manifestation of which is the prolonged crisis between Turkey and the US Central Command (CENTCOM) over the Syrian crisis and how the US continues to provide military support to the Kurdish militias, especially the YPG. In this context, the Biden administration, which has promised to work to restore US global dominance, is likely to resist Turkey's attempts to act as an independent player within NATO, an organization that remains trapped in a Cold War mindset. Washington does not like Erdogan a priori Now Turkey is demonstrating that it is a significant player in international politics and has nothing in common with Turkey, which was only the executor of the policy and ideas of senior allies. Ankara emphasizes: yes, it may need its old partners, but they need it even more. This is an increase in political subjectivity. On August 30, 2022, Turkey celebrated the 100th anniversary of the victory in the Battle of Dumlupinar, which marked a successful effort of the national liberation struggle against the Greeks. But who would have thought then that a whole century would not be enough for countries to find a compromise and make peace after the second Greco-Turkish war, the same one that Hemingway wrote about in The Snows of Kilimanjaro: “Later he had seen the things that he could never think of and later still he had seen much worse.“ Tempers between Ankara and Athens have flared lately. When it became known that a new NATO base would open in Greece, Ankara considered the actions of the Greek authorities a violation of the “principles of alliance” and called for a symmetrical response and the deployment of Russian S-400 air defense systems in Western Anatolia. The situation was also exacerbated by the "unfair", according to the Turkish press, attitude of NATO, which openly supports Athens and bills Ankara for cooperation with Moscow. However, if the Turkish media only admit the possibility of a new war in the Aegean, the Greek ones write with confidence that the war is inevitable. For Turkey, which has the second largest army in NATO, Greece does not pose a serious danger. If at sea the forces of the two countries are almost equal (Turkey is significantly superior to Hellas only in the number of landing ships), then on land and in the air the Turkish army has an advantage of almost 3.5 times. However, Athens is not afraid. The beneficiary in the aggravation of Turkish-Greek relations, of course, is Washington with its long-standing inferiority complex. In conclusion… When the AKP, founded by Erdogan, came to power in the early 2000s, Ankara pursued a foreign policy oriented towards Europe and America. Ankara advocated rapprochement with NATO partners, rapprochement with the EU, etc. defined itself as part of of the collective West. However, then Turkey began to go in the other direction - to turn to the East. Some call the starting point 2014 (when Erdogan moved from the prime minister's chair to the presidential throne, thereby, according to the West, violating the principle of change of power), while others talk about 2016. The year of an unsuccessful coup attempt, when the US did not support Erdogan and refused to extradite Fethullah Gülen (a preacher living in Pennsylvania, whom Ankara named as one of the organizers of the coup) to Turkey. As a result, the Turkish elites became disillusioned with their Western partners, and Ankara changed its vector of foreign policy development and began to pursue a foreign policy independent of the West. After that, Erdogan's behavior and ambitions ceased to please his overseas colleagues. America needs either a completely obedient Turkey, subordinate to American interests, or Turkey as a zone of chaos and part of an arc of instability.
Since the first days of March EU and NATO have begun execution of their plan of global isolating Russia. Putin’s invasion to Ukraine was used as an excellent reason. This plan contained several actions which should have destroyed Russian economic and technological sectors and included strong sanctions, ban of the Russian energy import, including natural gas, oil and coal, declining Russian cooperation with the biggest world companies, cutting off their main banks form SWIFT, etc. Moreover, European countries began to intensify arms supply to Ukraine to withstand Russian aggression. At least 21 countries sent their weapon systems and supplies to the fighting zone, including tanks, helicopters, MLRS, UAVs and so on. NATO instructors were appointed to provide combat training to Ukrainian armed forces. One of the main goals of European leaders was to support Ukrainian refugees. To achieve this aim several actions were taken – simplifying border policies, creating all possible conditions for accommodation. It looked like Europe while being involved in escalating conflict would unite and follow one way together. But while European leaders are busy in dealing with foreign policy questions, Europe have begun to divide inside. Natural gas & inflation When the war began, democratic world responded with far-reaching sanctions against Moscow. In response to that Putin declared that “unfriendly” countries would pay for Russian natural gas in rubles, and if not import would be stopped for them. Of course this demand caused great indignation of European leaders, which unanimously rejected it on the G7 meeting saying that “all G-7 ministers agreed completely that this (would be) a one-sided and clear branch of the existing contracts”. That moment can be called the beginning of the European crisis. It’s important to point out that the EU depends on Russia for about 40% of its natural gas. So, if Europe admired to stop using it they should be able to find something that could be an equal alternative. As for now they could not deal with it. It’s undeniable that the gas prices had been already high before the war started. But when Europe refused to pay for natural gas in Russian national currency the “inflation bomb” finally exploded. As it’s presented in the graphics, inflation in Europe hits its celling for the first time in 40 years. Moreover, it’s not even a limit as experts make their predictions that CPI will be higher than nowadays. It’s not a secret that high inflation has an influence on a price of at least everything – from similar goods to high technologies and energy resources. It’s interesting to note that European leaders’ attempts to make an excuse for this serious fail looked very humiliating. Moreover, all their actions which were taken to stabilize the situation make the crisis in Europe more and more visible. For example, Romanian Deputy Prime Minister Hunor Kelemen said: “First of all, we, the European Union, will have to pay for the sanctions against Russia… Truth be told, we will all pay the price this winter while, unfortunately, there are no signs that the end of war is near… It well be a harsh winter, perhaps the harshest one in the last 40-50-60 years.” What’s the reason of such an aggravation of the problem? Despite the fact that G7 leaders decided not to pay for natural gas in rubles, some countries took a step back and did completely the opposite. And it was the key moment when national interests collided with alliance direction. This map shows which countries agreed (green) and refused (red) to pay for natural gas in rubles. Russia has already cut off supplies to Poland, Bulgaria and Finland. Countries which are highlighted by green are said to accept Russian demand and open ruble accounts at Gazprombank. At the beginning of July the European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen said: “Energy prices are high. People – rightly so – expect us to do something about it.” So what’s the announced decision? Not so long ago EU Commission revealed their emergency plan which calls for public, commercial buildings and offices to be heated to a maximum of 19 degrees from autumn. EU does not want to pay Russia for natural gas but in fact they have got no choice. They should deal with this winter and then develop the plan what to do next. And it feels like European lives doesn’t matter because it’s clear that EU Arms supply Since the conflict broke out, European countries had begun to actively supply Ukraine with amount of weapons. But how was declared earlier, everything has got its limit and when it was clear that war would be long and slow, arms supply strongly reduced. The first country which was criticized for it became Germany for its decision not to send heavy weapons to war zone. While Ukraine strongly needs this kind of weapons not so many countries are ready to give it to them while being aware of potential escalation of conflict with Russia. Germany is not an exception. Now their government is catching critics not only from EU/NATO partners but from opposition parties inside the country. It’s truly disappointing for German chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose approval rating sinks lower and lower every month. One more European country which refused to send weapons to Ukraine was Bulgaria. Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov confirmed that his government has no plans to send heavy weapons to Ukraine, saying that Bulgaria has “done enough” to help Kyiv with humanitarian relief. “We’ve done enough and we’ll continue to support Ukraine,” he said. Moreover, Switzerland also didn’t allow the re-export of Swiss war material to Ukraine. Following their policy of military neutrality it was declared that Bern rejected Berlin’s request to send around 12400 rounds of 35-millimetre Swiss ammunition for self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, and for Piranha III wheeled APCs to Kyiv. Similarly, Switzerland denied Denmark’s request to send 22 Swiss-made Piranha III wheeled APCs to Ukraine. Switzerland also vetoed Poland’s request to send Swiss-made war material to Ukraine. Hungary Decision-making inside the coalition is not as simple as it looks. There are a lot of examples when representatives from different countries cannot deal with each other discussing various types of questions. But Hungary made a significant step aside if we consider cooperation with EU and NATO. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban during his race for election to a fourth consecutive term said that Hungary would stay out of Ukrainian war. “Russia looks at Russian interests, while Ukraine looks at Ukrainian interests. Neither the United States, nor Brussels would think with Hungarians’ mind and feel with Hungarians’ hearts. We must stand up for our own interests,” Orbans said. “We must stay out of this war… therefore we will not send any troops or weapons to the battlegrounds.” As a result, Hungary not only doesn’t support Ukraine by weapons but doesn’t allow the transit through its territory. It’s the whole opposite position in comparison with EU/NATO members. For example, nobody was surprised when Serbia declared that they would not join overall sanctions against Russia and its government while being considered one of the Russian allies; however, when EU and NATO member concludes that participation in the conflict even by supplying Ukrainian army would be harmful for the country interests, it feels at least unusual. This opinion can be a little bit controversial but at least it deserves some respect. When the interests of alliance contradict national interests and nation’s leader is brave enough not to blindly follow EU/NATO recommendations but stand on his way to improve lives of his country’s citizens – it’s kind of question for European leaders to think about. Who orders the music? It’s not a secret that armed conflict has got some visible reasons of its escalation and it serves for the people who are interested in it. On the one hand, it could be quite logical to find one to blame in conflict’s escalation but the complexity of this situation mean that it should be viewed not only from one side. If we are going to suggest that this war will end with Russia achieving all its goals – the so-called “release” of Ukraine and annexation of its territories as it was with Crimea – the last guy who laughs will be exactly Putin. But it’s not the only way possible. It’s important to find out who makes profit from the situation that armed conflict in Ukraine hasn’t any tendency to end soon. Anybody quickly can think about the United States, who has got their own interests in this war. US government is fighting for saving US dollar as a main world currency. The reason is that some countries including China and Russia are step-by-step refusing from mutual payments in dollar and beginning to make payments in national currency. This fact of weakening dollar of course is confusing US when they are fighting for its strengthening and, as a result, for stability of their economy. Moreover, Russian energy ban opens doors for the increased energy import from the US. The US will send 15 billion cubic meters of natural gas to the European countries. As a result, US economy will feel safer and Europe will depend on US stronger. In addition to that, also Russia in the last 20 years developed their economy as well as their armed forces. Putin declared that time for mono-polar world was over. It’s doubtful that US will agree with this statement so easy, and it’s indirectly confirmed by US enormous arms supply to Ukraine, including HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) which made a significant shift in this war. If we talk about arms supply - war in Ukraine is a good chance for some countries including US to send Ukrainians their old weapons and equipment. While it’s off to Ukraine, US supposedly will update their weapon systems. It will be wrong to admit that only US is making significant contribution to the Ukrainian conflict continuation. But it’s a matter of fact that US are trying to strengthen their position as a world leader by way of supporting the prolongation of this war. It’s not a secret that the large part of the above-mentioned problems – natural gas prices, inflation, pro-Russian governments – had existed long before the Ukrainian war escalated. Unfortunately, at this moment actions of the European countries’ governments and Russian counteractions have leaded only to negative consequences concerning EU citizens’ wellbeing. It’s the stalemate situation – on the one hand if EU/NATO countries follow US requests and approve economic sanctions against Russia it causes financial losses not only for Putin’s government but for themselves (for example, not so long ago dollar for the first time in 20 years exchanged for euro equally) and without any doubt makes their citizens angry. As a result British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Prime Minister of Italy Mario Draghi have decided to leave their posts because of their lack of ability to handle the situation. On the other hand if European leaders refuse to take measures against Russia which is based on their desire not to leave their citizens without cheap gas and fuel, - they are going through tough critics form their colleagues form EU and NATO. We can suppose how the situation in Europe will develop in the upcoming months. First variant – Europe follows its way of absolute support of Ukraine, refusing the cooperation with Russia, what makes a great advantage for US but not for Europeans. Second way is to stop confrontation with Russia and search for peaceful decisions of existing problems with Putin as well as between European leaders. Why is this variant look quite acceptable? Everything depends on the war ending and timing; analysts are making the different predictions, European leaders strongly hope that everything would be solved before the winter begins, but nobody truly believes it. Moreover, they don’t approach the end of the war while giving Ukraine enormous amount of weapons. What we have for now – Europe is frozen in waiting for the winter and its consequences, searching for US and Middle East natural gas and it is not clear now how long they could live using only their resources. Anyways, the majority of European governments would have decided to buy natural gas in Russia despite the fact that it would strengthen Russia’s economy. In a short-term perspective a lot of these problems could be solved by way of compromise and restarting the dialogue with Russian government. Can Europe follow this way? Without a doubt. Will they have a chance to do it? Probably not, because Europe depends on US as well as it depends on Russia. How can they find a decision which would be acceptable for anyone? It’s kind of question which can’t be answered for 5 months. It’s clear that Europe will soon collide with very cold winter. How is it justified and what will be Europeans attitude for these events, – upcoming half of the year will show us that. We can only wait what decision will be made by the leaders of “free” and “independent” Europe.
EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini urged the international community to press ahead with Syria peace talks at the Syrian aid conference in Brussels. According to her statement, it has become even more urgent after a suspected chemical weapons attack left more than 70 dead in a rebel-held town. “We need to give a push, a strong push to the political talks in Geneva. We have to unite the international community behind these negotiations,” Mogherini said as she went into the Syrian aid conference in Brussels. || What do you think of this statement and the current situation around Syria?