The West hypnotized by Erdogan
For months now, tough negotiations have being under way between Turkey and the United States in an atmosphere of mutual mistrust but also of mutual understanding that a rupture in their relations is not in the interest of either party. The fact that Turkey is about to enter an election year, the difficulties faced by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan mainly due to the state of the economy, and his need to win the elections at all costs create problems as well as limitations in their consultations.
The problems exist because Ankara is irked about Washington’s actions which it considers to be demonstrably against Turkey’s interests. This is intensified by the belief that Americans don’t like Erdogan – hence the alleged attempt to “get rid of him” with the failed coup in 2016 – and that the US continues to undermine him by supporting the Syrian Kurds and a change of policy in relation to Greece. In Erdogan’s domestic narrative, the US is usually demonized and accused of attempting to destabilize the regime in order to rally a mainly nationalist audience and justify a departure from Western norms.
Besides, Erdogan does not want to be held captive to the decisions and choices of third parties, and because of the war in Ukraine he is trying to a gain a greater degree of flexibility, even in aggressive actions such as those against the Syrian Kurds. He also wants to be allowed to lash out against Greece without cost, cultivating an anti-Greek climate in his country, embellishing the agenda of Turkish claims, burdening relations with a country that is supposed to be an ally, and threatening to “come suddenly one night.”
These threats, which until recently had been unheard of, are now being made in front of the European counterparts of Turkish Foreign Minister Mavlut Cavusoglu, who, with their silence, even if they do not accept them, do not condemn them either. Have we not learned our lesson from what is happening in Ukraine? When various Western leaders argue that a possible Russian victory means that the aggressor will prevail, disregarding basic concepts of international law such as territorial integrity and sovereignty, why do they downplay the obvious analogy in actions and methods between Russia and Turkey?
Or where exactly do they think they differ, when Ankara is creating the conditions for an armed confrontation with Greece, directly threatening it with invasion, citing the rejection of its absurd demands, as Moscow did? How has the West sobered up since the start of the war in Ukraine, when in the name of unity against Russia – which Turkey openly undermines – it rewards Ankara, turning a blind eye to the contempt the latter often holds for it?
It is now obvious that many Westerners are giving Turkey room to blackmail them. Of course, due to the loss of its credibility, the Turkish leadership is also being blackmailed
It is now obvious that many Westerners are giving Turkey room to blackmail them. Of course, due to the loss of its credibility, the Turkish leadership is being blackmailed equally, if not more. Much more so since Erdogan cannot afford to lose the elections. However, we cannot be pleased with the way Turkey is being handled, because our partners’ red lines are clearly drawn at a different point to ours. And so they are satisfied that Turkey is not taking the ultimate step of an armed confrontation with Greece, which Ankara wants to avoid anyway, tricking them into thinking that it is thanks to them that it is holding back, while our partners do not realize that by testing their tolerance for aggressive tactics, Turkey sees that it weakens every time its role is upgraded – currently because of Ukraine.
Even more problematic is the fact that while behind closed doors our partners realize that Turkey often plays Russia’s game, they allow it to do so out of fear of losing it. In a discussion a few weeks ago, I was surprised to hear European and American officials justifying Ankara’s exemption from the obligation to impose sanctions, on the grounds that its participation will destroy the Turkish economy! And I honestly wonder how much stronger NATO is against Russia when a key partner wavers and raises unrealistic claims to consent to the accession of Sweden and Finland, which in practice not only undermines the Alliance’s cohesion but also reveals its inability to impose its decisions.
Ultimately, this hesitancy toward Turkey (indicative of the confusion with the possible sale of the US-made F-16s) is a result of the general stagnation displayed by the West in the production of new ideas, especially in how to deal with emerging and revisionist forces. So, following the well-trodden path of past decades in a rapidly changing environment, a significant part of the West is unaware that Turkey has a different identity and an ambiguous orientation that wants to break free.
Constantinos Filis is the director of the Institute of Global Affairs and associate professor at the American College of Greece. A new book in Greek titled “The Future of History,” edited by Filis, is currently in stores.
