Blog

Turkey's stance over the last two years has rightly come as a surprise to most of us. It now appears as a country that is constantly seeking to create new "fronts" in contrast perhaps to common sense, which would favor the gradual resolution, by any means, of the existing ones.

Indeed, Ankara has been involved in the Syrian adventure while for a long time it has been "entering and exiting" the borders of Iraq. At the same time, for decades it has maintained occupation troops in Cyprus and created provocations and frictions in the Aegean. At the same time, it is experiencing a very harsh and ineffective guerrilla war against Kurdish separatists while recently it has also caused an unprecedented outbreak of Islamist terrorism. In this unstable environment, it did not hesitate to provoke the wrath of Russia, mainly with the shooting down of the Russian fighter jet in November 2015 but also with other actions. The recent warming of relations and the synergy on certain issues does not seem capable of removing the deep mutual suspicion nor the deeply conflicting goals and interests of the two countries. Even the strategic relationship with Israel, which dates back to the 1990s, has been shaken, although today, under the specter of other threats and mutual interests, a relative rapprochement has returned. The attitude towards Tehran is also cautious, with the two powers having quarreled for centuries over control of the region. Relations with Egypt, the leading power in the Sunni Arab world, are also tense.

Relations with Armenia are also problematic, while of all its neighbors, only Azerbaijan maintains close relations and multilateral cooperation, although Baku also takes care to maintain similar connections with Moscow. However, the mutual distrust between Ankara and European capitals is very deep, but Washington is also significantly concerned by the Turkish choices. In this turbulent atmosphere, the failed coup of July comes to cast its shadow heavily, having brought the country to the brink of civil war and revealing a deeply divided society, but also a powerful Islamic movement that has popular support, control of the state, and at the same time has established collateral mechanisms.

The policy of "zero problems" of the theorist of the new "Turkish Islamic Republic", professor and former prime minister Davutoglu, seems to have failed miserably. However, Turkey does not hesitate to constantly cause problems and friction with neighbors, friends, allies, opponents, at home and abroad. Ultimately, behind all these actions lies a complex plan, the arrogance of one person, the impetuous dynamics of a society that feels trapped and threatened, "grandiose" dreams of reviving an empire, foreign interests that push them to take action, or a combination of the above? The answer to this question may make it easier for us to understand Ankara's behavior and to better identify the type of threat, hoping to ensure the best strategy for dealing with its expansionist and revisionist policy.

Turkish policy gives the impression of a country that believes it has now escaped the limits of medium-range regional powers and can claim to actively participate in the "game" of the great powers, shouldering the associated risks and seeking corresponding gains. Turkey today, with its current leadership, represents a dangerous mixture of Islamic fanaticism and Turkish nationalism ("Islamofascism" according to some analysts). These two elements, if added to the rapid increase in the country's power factors in recent years, signal the search for a new role for Ankara.

The country's leadership, under the absolute control of Erdogan, believes that the current international situation favors Turkey to fill the gap created by the uncertainty of the US choices and the audacity of the European Union. They estimate that a unique "window of opportunity" is opening for Turkey and that exploiting it is an obligation and a duty as they anticipate an upcoming general reshaping of the map of the region that will make their country equal to the other great powers. Their thoughts are partially justified and are fully consistent with the expected behaviors of international actors who show excessive increase in power in unstable environments and are eager to seize the opportunity. The success or failure of this "leap" will depend on many factors, but mainly on the determination of the people and the attitude of the leadership. The reaction of the existing great powers, who probably do not wish to see their small club increase in numbers, is also significant. However, the reaction of the potential victims of Turkish aggression and their will to resist are also decisive. Perhaps the opponent (Turkey) seems all-powerful to some, but it has profound weaknesses, which it itself knows and is secretly constantly haunted by the syndrome of encirclement and the Treaty of Sèvres.

The situation today is dangerous. The "beast" realizes its power, it has been overcome by bulimia but at the same time it understands that it is still vulnerable. Found in such a vortex, any reaction in any direction is possible. The recipe for dealing with it is simple and timeless. A firm and decisive confrontation in all sectors and fronts, without phobic syndromes, without pointless "lionisms", with a plan, with cunning and imagination and with full exploitation of its vulnerabilities. Containment, as Kennan would recommend, at all levels and points. However, this option has risks and costs, political, economic, social, individual, are we ready to undertake it or do we prefer a policy of "Finlandization" leaving our hopes, once again, in the "God of machines" or in our allies and partners?