Tweet
WILL RUSSIA REALLY MODIFY ITS TRADITIONAL POLICY TOWARDS TURKEY?
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=858:-will-russia-really-modify-its-traditional-policy-towards-turkey&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Friday, 30 November 2012 15:17
Recently, well-known Russian political analyst Michael Alexandrov has
issued an article titled `Turkish gambit: will the Russian leadership
repeat the Bolsheviks' error?', in which he analyzed the
Russian-Turkish relations as of the Soviet Union creation up today and
concluded that continuation of the traditional policy by the Russian
Federation's current leadership would contradict the interests of
Russia. It should be noted that the political analyst's emphases are
of special interest for the Armenian party in the sense that they are
directly related to the events in the Armenian people's life taken
place in the second decade of the last century and to their
consequences.
Also worthy of attention are the observations on the neo-Ottoman
policy of the Turkish leadership and the need to oppose it.
What is today's Turkey in the Middle East? It is no secret that within
the region this country claims to be a superpower backed by the U.S.
and NATO power. One of the main directions of the American policy is
implementation of the program `Great Middle East', which can be
realized with the increase of Turkey's role and influence in the
region. Russian political scientist M. Alexandrov refers to the
current military-political realities associated with the blockade of
Iran. The Americans deployed a radar station in Turkey, which is
considered a component of the U.S. missile defense system. With the
beginning of the 'Arab spring', Ankara enthusiastically joined the
West's efforts to change the regimes in the North Africa countries.
According to the political analyst, restoring its influence in the
Arab world, Turkey will be able to restore the Ottoman Empire, in its
new form. In the foreign policy, this course was called
`neo-Ottomanism'. There is a nuance in this process - while in the
past Turkey played this role exclusively alone, nowadays it is
represented as a carrier of Western powers' interests in the region.
It is needless to note that the Bolshevism period put its black stamp
on the Armenian people's history. Basing its foreign policy on the
socialist revolution ideology, in the 20s of the last century, Russia
deprived the Armenian people of its historical homeland, sacrificing
an entire nation for its own geopolitical ambitions. `Leader of the
world proletariat' Vladimir Lenin strongly wished to make Turkey its
strategic ally to struggle against the Western imperialism. The 1921
Moscow Treaty is a bright evidence of it. By the way, Russians say
that Moscow made great territorial concessions to Turkey by the
treaty. But, it is not a correct definition for us Armenians: the
truth is that the Bolsheviks simply gifted Armenian territories to
Turkey - the country, which was defeated in the World War I and which
was threatened with the danger of disappearing from the world map.
Among the Soviet figures, only Chicherin opposed the defeatist policy,
but his position did not play a significant role. Kemal Atatürk sent a
letter to the Soviet Government, which, in particular, read: «We
pledge to join all our works and military operations with the efforts
of the Russian Bolsheviks in order to fight against imperialist
governments and to liberate all the oppressed». This was not a simple
application - Ataturk won a diplomatic victory over the Russians, or
rather deceived «all the oppressed». It deceived the leader, which was
naïve enough to believe that Turkey's Communist Party can become a
political support for it. But, the father of the Turks planned another
scenario for this party. The Armenian people greatly suffered from the
Moscow Treaty, while the Russians began to provide economic aid to
Turkey, as Kemal Ataturk had pledged to join the efforts of the
Russian Bolsheviks. Michael Alexandrov refers to Russia's assistance
to Turkey in a large number of weapons and ammunition for creating a
basis for the military industry in 1920-1922s.
The political analyst notes that as of today the Moscow Treaty is
evaluated by the Russian Foreign Ministry as an important diplomatic
achievement and even on March 16, 2006, Russia and Turkey marked the
85th anniversary of the Treaty. The parties exchanged congratulatory
telegrams. Meanwhile, the Russians had the greatest chance to collapse
the Turkish state by the Brest Treaty. The Armenian historiography
assessment is that the Russians did not only help Turkey recover, but
also gifted it entire Western Armenia. We should note that with
Russia's support this country turned into a predatory state in the
whole Middle East region. So, it was a victory for Turkey, and Turkey
will always celebrate this victory.
And what about Russia?... And here, M. Alexandrov, without sparing his
own country's rating, states: «With whom else could the Turks sign
such an unprecedented and successful treaty?' Perhaps no country in
the world would make such a shameful deal. And why should Turkey be
against developing relations with Moscow, basing on the same
principles? The economic cooperation between the two countries is
increasing with time - the indexes testify to the growth in the volume
of the commodity circulation.
We should pay attention to some emphases in the article. On a series
of important issues, the Turkish foreign policy does not coincide with
the Russian interests, and moreover, it contradicts them. It concerns,
first of all, the Karabakh conflict, in which Ankara actually
encourages Baku in displaying intransigence. Turkey maintains the
economic and transport blockade of Russia's strategic ally Armenia,
denying the idea of establishing diplomatic relations and opening the
border with it. On the other hand, Turkey is an active participant of
NABUCCO project, which also runs counter to Russian interests. Ankara
has set its control over the Black Sea straits, limiting the volumes
of the Russian oil exports via sea. Turkey has also joined the
American Air Defense system. Today, Turkey's aggressive policy towards
Russia's ally Syria is obvious. The only compromise between the RF and
Turkey is that Ankara has refused to support the Chechen terrorists,
and in response to this, the Russians have refused to support the
Kurdish Workers' Party of Turkey. But, Turkey in no way refuses to
cooperate with the Cherkess separatists in the North Caucasus, in
spite of Russia's request.
Michael Alexandrov concludes that in this case President Putin should
seriously think over the prospects of the Russian-Turkish relations,
because there is a danger that the RF President can repeat the Russian
Bolsheviks' wrong policy conducted in 1920s.
I think we can make some additions to Russian political scientist's
analysis related to Yeltsin-period Russia's foreign policy in the
West, which allows us to state that the post-Soviet diplomacy towards
Turkey in no way differs from the Soviet one. After the collapse of
the USSR, Boris Yeltsin visited Bulgaria. At an event within the
visit, Bulgaria's President stated that his country was oriented
towards the West, and the regulation of the Russian-Bulgarian
relations did not mean a return to the past. The RF President voiced
no sentence in response to this statement. Then, long discussions took
place on this visit: Moscow's political circles openly stated that
Yeltsin actually dealt a great blow to his own and his country's
reputation. The post-Soviet events in the Balkans also allowed
understanding the directions of the Russian-Turkish relations -
Russia's new leadership continued supporting the West in attacking its
traditional bases. The situation in the Middle East and the Syrian
crisis in particular are obvious manifestations of this policy. The
USA, being Turkey's major ally and strategic partner, restrains its
appetite, if necessary. It turns out that only the USA is able to
release Turkey's hands, or, if necessary, to put pressure on it. As
they say, the control panel is in Washington.
In this case, the Russians really have only to sing 'chastushka' under
the Turkish mugham. But, as Russia will thus lose its influence in the
Middle East, the political mind suggests Vladimir Putin that Russia
can play an active role in a series of issues, using its levers of
influence; particularly in the Armenian Genocide issue, it should
demonstrate that the policy of Ottomanism, from which the Armenian
people suffered, is a great threat to humanity.
Ruzan ISHKHANIAN
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=858:-will-russia-really-modify-its-traditional-policy-towards-turkey&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Friday, 30 November 2012 15:17
Recently, well-known Russian political analyst Michael Alexandrov has
issued an article titled `Turkish gambit: will the Russian leadership
repeat the Bolsheviks' error?', in which he analyzed the
Russian-Turkish relations as of the Soviet Union creation up today and
concluded that continuation of the traditional policy by the Russian
Federation's current leadership would contradict the interests of
Russia. It should be noted that the political analyst's emphases are
of special interest for the Armenian party in the sense that they are
directly related to the events in the Armenian people's life taken
place in the second decade of the last century and to their
consequences.
Also worthy of attention are the observations on the neo-Ottoman
policy of the Turkish leadership and the need to oppose it.
What is today's Turkey in the Middle East? It is no secret that within
the region this country claims to be a superpower backed by the U.S.
and NATO power. One of the main directions of the American policy is
implementation of the program `Great Middle East', which can be
realized with the increase of Turkey's role and influence in the
region. Russian political scientist M. Alexandrov refers to the
current military-political realities associated with the blockade of
Iran. The Americans deployed a radar station in Turkey, which is
considered a component of the U.S. missile defense system. With the
beginning of the 'Arab spring', Ankara enthusiastically joined the
West's efforts to change the regimes in the North Africa countries.
According to the political analyst, restoring its influence in the
Arab world, Turkey will be able to restore the Ottoman Empire, in its
new form. In the foreign policy, this course was called
`neo-Ottomanism'. There is a nuance in this process - while in the
past Turkey played this role exclusively alone, nowadays it is
represented as a carrier of Western powers' interests in the region.
It is needless to note that the Bolshevism period put its black stamp
on the Armenian people's history. Basing its foreign policy on the
socialist revolution ideology, in the 20s of the last century, Russia
deprived the Armenian people of its historical homeland, sacrificing
an entire nation for its own geopolitical ambitions. `Leader of the
world proletariat' Vladimir Lenin strongly wished to make Turkey its
strategic ally to struggle against the Western imperialism. The 1921
Moscow Treaty is a bright evidence of it. By the way, Russians say
that Moscow made great territorial concessions to Turkey by the
treaty. But, it is not a correct definition for us Armenians: the
truth is that the Bolsheviks simply gifted Armenian territories to
Turkey - the country, which was defeated in the World War I and which
was threatened with the danger of disappearing from the world map.
Among the Soviet figures, only Chicherin opposed the defeatist policy,
but his position did not play a significant role. Kemal Atatürk sent a
letter to the Soviet Government, which, in particular, read: «We
pledge to join all our works and military operations with the efforts
of the Russian Bolsheviks in order to fight against imperialist
governments and to liberate all the oppressed». This was not a simple
application - Ataturk won a diplomatic victory over the Russians, or
rather deceived «all the oppressed». It deceived the leader, which was
naïve enough to believe that Turkey's Communist Party can become a
political support for it. But, the father of the Turks planned another
scenario for this party. The Armenian people greatly suffered from the
Moscow Treaty, while the Russians began to provide economic aid to
Turkey, as Kemal Ataturk had pledged to join the efforts of the
Russian Bolsheviks. Michael Alexandrov refers to Russia's assistance
to Turkey in a large number of weapons and ammunition for creating a
basis for the military industry in 1920-1922s.
The political analyst notes that as of today the Moscow Treaty is
evaluated by the Russian Foreign Ministry as an important diplomatic
achievement and even on March 16, 2006, Russia and Turkey marked the
85th anniversary of the Treaty. The parties exchanged congratulatory
telegrams. Meanwhile, the Russians had the greatest chance to collapse
the Turkish state by the Brest Treaty. The Armenian historiography
assessment is that the Russians did not only help Turkey recover, but
also gifted it entire Western Armenia. We should note that with
Russia's support this country turned into a predatory state in the
whole Middle East region. So, it was a victory for Turkey, and Turkey
will always celebrate this victory.
And what about Russia?... And here, M. Alexandrov, without sparing his
own country's rating, states: «With whom else could the Turks sign
such an unprecedented and successful treaty?' Perhaps no country in
the world would make such a shameful deal. And why should Turkey be
against developing relations with Moscow, basing on the same
principles? The economic cooperation between the two countries is
increasing with time - the indexes testify to the growth in the volume
of the commodity circulation.
We should pay attention to some emphases in the article. On a series
of important issues, the Turkish foreign policy does not coincide with
the Russian interests, and moreover, it contradicts them. It concerns,
first of all, the Karabakh conflict, in which Ankara actually
encourages Baku in displaying intransigence. Turkey maintains the
economic and transport blockade of Russia's strategic ally Armenia,
denying the idea of establishing diplomatic relations and opening the
border with it. On the other hand, Turkey is an active participant of
NABUCCO project, which also runs counter to Russian interests. Ankara
has set its control over the Black Sea straits, limiting the volumes
of the Russian oil exports via sea. Turkey has also joined the
American Air Defense system. Today, Turkey's aggressive policy towards
Russia's ally Syria is obvious. The only compromise between the RF and
Turkey is that Ankara has refused to support the Chechen terrorists,
and in response to this, the Russians have refused to support the
Kurdish Workers' Party of Turkey. But, Turkey in no way refuses to
cooperate with the Cherkess separatists in the North Caucasus, in
spite of Russia's request.
Michael Alexandrov concludes that in this case President Putin should
seriously think over the prospects of the Russian-Turkish relations,
because there is a danger that the RF President can repeat the Russian
Bolsheviks' wrong policy conducted in 1920s.
I think we can make some additions to Russian political scientist's
analysis related to Yeltsin-period Russia's foreign policy in the
West, which allows us to state that the post-Soviet diplomacy towards
Turkey in no way differs from the Soviet one. After the collapse of
the USSR, Boris Yeltsin visited Bulgaria. At an event within the
visit, Bulgaria's President stated that his country was oriented
towards the West, and the regulation of the Russian-Bulgarian
relations did not mean a return to the past. The RF President voiced
no sentence in response to this statement. Then, long discussions took
place on this visit: Moscow's political circles openly stated that
Yeltsin actually dealt a great blow to his own and his country's
reputation. The post-Soviet events in the Balkans also allowed
understanding the directions of the Russian-Turkish relations -
Russia's new leadership continued supporting the West in attacking its
traditional bases. The situation in the Middle East and the Syrian
crisis in particular are obvious manifestations of this policy. The
USA, being Turkey's major ally and strategic partner, restrains its
appetite, if necessary. It turns out that only the USA is able to
release Turkey's hands, or, if necessary, to put pressure on it. As
they say, the control panel is in Washington.
In this case, the Russians really have only to sing 'chastushka' under
the Turkish mugham. But, as Russia will thus lose its influence in the
Middle East, the political mind suggests Vladimir Putin that Russia
can play an active role in a series of issues, using its levers of
influence; particularly in the Armenian Genocide issue, it should
demonstrate that the policy of Ottomanism, from which the Armenian
people suffered, is a great threat to humanity.
Ruzan ISHKHANIAN