By Vestnik Kavkaza
The Russian diplomat and historian, ex-ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Turkey (2003-2007), member of the Russian Council on International Affairs (RCIA) Petr Stegniy shared his vision of the Turkish crisis due to events in other countries of the Middle East region, particularly in Syria.
Speaking about the Turkish-American relations, Petr Stegnyi said that this has always been a strategic partnership: “Turkey is a member of NATO, it operates under the strategy of Euro-Atlantic security. Of course, functionally, its role has changed. Prior to 1991, Turkey was an outpost of the Euro-Atlantic alliance against... in connection to the Soviet threat. After 1991, the situation has changed, and Turkey supports a lot of trends for which we stand. The development of active relations with Turkey in the 2000s, between Russia and Turkey, the huge increase in turnover up to $38 billion a year, and now the aim has been set to $100 billion. It, of course, raises questions among the Western allies of Turkey. And this is also one of the manifestations of such slightly paradoxical dual identity of Turkey. On the one hand, it is a European country, on the other hand, it is an Asian country. On the one hand, it is a member of NATO, on the other hand, it has very important interests with Iran, which is its very important, and with the Arab world. And so here. Whatever you take, as regards Turkey, everything is this way. Hence, it seems to me, some tactical differences that arise between the Turks and the Americans. Why do I say "tactical"? Because when it comes to strategy, the contacts in the field of missile defense, the Turks agreed to put U.S. missiles on its territory, although it was accompanied by a number of conditions that take into account Turkey's relations with both Russia and Iran.
As for the Gulen factor in the Turkish-American relations, I do not think he is playing a special role now. During the last visit of Erdogan to Washington, DC, as recently as last month, one of his deputies met with Gulen, according to newspaper reports. I would not draw a direct link here, there are more serious, more long-lasting things than this. As for Gulen as a kind of a conductor from Houston, here I also think that all the comparisons with and memories of Erbakan, do not have grounds. Because firstly, the ruling party has gone far ahead, and it is very interesting for the whole region and even in a global sense, the search for the real co-existence of democracy and Islamic culture. And it certainly remains on a secular position, so here to put together somehow artificially Erdogan and Erbakan, I think it is a politically flawed position, and we should not go into this direction.
As for the overall work with the media, here, too, the question has been asked. We all remember what blew up the situation, that little detail that CNN Turk, one of the most popular TV stations, broadcasted a culinary duel during the peak of the events at Taksim, and this has raised a questions in the community. There began to emerge some amateur webcasts, live TV broadcasts, and radio stations such as T-24, which is very popular in Turkey at the moment, even the Nobel Prize winner, Orhan Pamuk, appeared on it and shared his assessment of Taksim”, he said.
As for the Syrian issue, the Russian diplomat does not see any practical turns in Turkish policies concerning Syria. “it was quite obvious for a long time that the Syrian policy direction of Davutoglu does not enjoy popular support in Turkey. An opinion poll was published by the newspaper "Zaman", the authenticity is not provided here, because it's still not an official poll. But according to this survey, which no one, by the way, has denied, 54% of Turks opposed the government's Syrian policy. As far as I know, about 23% were willing to support it. The Syrian line has always been at odds with Turkey's official foreign policy concept, the concept of strategic depth, in which Davutoglu proceeded from the fact that Turkey should have zero problems with neighbors. In the context of the "Arab Spring" it has turned out that there are growing problems with many neighbors, and with Syria this policy of support for the opposition against the regime, first, brings tension on the border, and since then there are refugees, and they are actively interacting with combat groups, not all of which fit the normal standards of opposition. In Syria there are many structures associated with Al-Qaeda and international terrorism as a whole. These, I think, are the elements that make the Turks keep a little distance from all this very diverse company. Let's see how things will develop, especially in the context of, I think, a very successful G8 summit in Ireland, where a program of 7 points on Syria was adopted. Frankly, I'm a specialist, who is somehow directly or indirectly involved in many activities in this line, and I was very pleasantly surprised by a number of, I would like to believe, good breakthrough elements that, at least, will provide an opportunity to hold "Geneva-2".
