July 2016 Military Coup in Turkey

The Erdogan government tries to follow a "balance" policy between the Western and the Eastern forces while at the same time it wants to grow into an Ottoman-like new super power. I think it also tries to use the Western and the Eastern alliances against each other to maximize its benefits from both sides. Sometimes this creates an ugly picture, I suppose. Like Perinçek of the VP (the Patriotic Party, which is both Ataturkist and, unlike the CHP, also strongly supports siding with the Russian-led alliance) I personally believe that the Government must strongly commit to side with the Eastern alliance. Eventually, perhaps, it will have to. The reasons that I can think of as to why the Government doesn't immediately do this include:
Yes, especially with what happened in Syria. But as there's these many factions inside Turkey you mention and Nato presence, they are likely being reflected in Turkey's geopolitical decisions. Though sitting between two stools is not good strategy in the long run. I think Erdogan had good moment to align more clearly with Russia after 2016 coup when he consolidated his power, but I suppose Erdogan likes his current position where tries maintain leverage by playing both sides. And as Alexander Mercouris says, Erdogan is the devil that they know (Russians and others dealing with Turkey), where as his successor might bring geopolitical instability.

Turkey's economy has had problems with hyperinflation which must be reflected in popular opinion, and now with Erdogan arresting his main rival might boomerang back with uncertain consequences, if there's enough legitimite widespread support for Imamoglu in the country (i.e surppressing free will of the population is not a good idea). But apparently Erdogan is still widely popular so we'll see.


The Duran guys discussed these developments today. Here's ChatGPT's summary of the video:

This conversation presents an in-depth analysis of the political situation in Turkey, focusing on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the popular mayor of Istanbul, and the broader implications for Turkish politics. Here are some of the key points discussed:

Erdogan’s Political Control: Erdogan’s extended political dominance is a central theme. He is portrayed as a leader who does not tolerate rivals, viewing İmamoğlu's success as a personal affront, especially since Istanbul was once Erdogan's political base. Despite the arrests and ongoing protests, Erdogan is confident that he can maintain control and ride out the discontent.

Istanbul’s Significance: Istanbul, being Turkey's largest city, carries immense political weight. Losing control of it to İmamoğlu, a popular figure, would undermine Erdogan’s authority, prompting him to act decisively against his rival.

Internal Politics in Turkey: The Turkish economy is struggling, and there is a sense that the political system is fragile. However, Erdogan has managed to consolidate power, making the institutions in Turkey, including the judiciary and military, loyal to him. Despite facing protests and discontent, he continues to have a loyal base that supports him, including from sectors like the Islamic clergy.

Erdogan’s Strategy: Erdogan’s focus on maintaining stability within Turkey, despite its challenges, is seen as key to his continued survival. The country’s history of political instability and his control over the political apparatus mean that his opponents face significant difficulties in challenging his rule.

International Relations: The international community’s reaction to Erdogan’s rule is mixed. While the EU criticizes his authoritarian approach, other global players, like Russia and the United States, maintain pragmatic relationships with him, which Erdogan is able to leverage for his benefit. His strategic positioning also allows him to secure financial resources, such as from the EU, through his management of migrant flows.

Risks and Stability: There’s a recognition that while Erdogan’s grip on power seems secure for now, there are always risks associated with his authoritarian style. If he were to lose control or die in office, the lack of strong institutions in Turkey could lead to instability. However, for now, it’s suggested that Erdogan will likely manage to survive this crisis as well.

The Future of Turkish Politics: The conversation ends with a reflection on the uncertainty of Turkey’s future, especially when Erdogan eventually steps down or dies. With Turkey’s political system built around his personality and leadership, the transition to a post-Erdogan era could be chaotic, with no clear successor in sight.

In summary, Erdogan’s ability to consolidate power and navigate both domestic and international challenges has kept him in control despite protests and mounting criticism. His popularity, manipulation of institutions, and strategic international relations make him a formidable figure, though his long-term viability remains uncertain, particularly in the face of his physical decline and the underlying fragility of Turkey’s political system.
 
Yes, especially with what happened in Syria.
Being pro-Assad, I was shocked and saddened by his fall, trying to understand what really happened and why for several weeks.

I don't claim utter objectivity but now I think some people, including Erdogan, desired so deep and deserved to see a Syria not ruled by an Alawite dictator. Assad's rising victoriously out of the demonically escalated "civil war" with the help of powerful friends was probably the greatest finale for him. I was very happy for his safe transfer to Russia. If it was not for his family, he'd probably die fighting until the last moment rather than escape.

I guess Assad's quitting the scene is supposed to be a step towards whatever will follow in that region. Obviously this is closely related to Israel. Although al-Sharaa (Julani) is a terrorist puppet of Israel and the US, Erdogan won't probably allow him to act completely as he (or the puppeteer) likes. I even wonder if al-Sharaa might get somewhat independent of his masters. The relations between Turkey and Israel got even more tense now.

I also wonder how the new Syrian reality will influence Iran. For some reason, I suspect that Iran's military presence in Syria might have been a significant nuisance for both Assad's Syria and Russia. It allowed Israel to uninterruptedly harass Syria with bombings. We know that Iran's administration has been into a lot of dirty double play. Roaring a lot but biting little. A significant falsity is smelled. I don't know and I don't think that Iran is completely false but it probably has been suffering great existential diseases. The recent heavy Israeli blows on Hezbollah were probably a tragic result of this. Some claimed that Nasrallah's death was "allowed" by Iran, just like in the case of Qasem Soleimani. Also some significant losses suffered by Hamas, such as the murder of Haniyeh, were also closely related to Iran. I think these all have been forcing Iran to face its deep existential problems.

The new situation in Syria might mean some new movement and progress for all the players on the field.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom