"An international agreement to defuse the crisis in Ukraine was all but shredded on Sunday after a shootout in the separatist town of Slavyansk," an article by Luke Harding publsihed by the Guardian reads.
"Three days after the Geneva deal brought modest hopes for a resolution to the gravest east-west stand-off since the end of the cold war, the midnight incident at a checkpoint – in which reports said as many as five people were killed – unleashed a torrent of accusations and counter-accusations that bodes ill for international peacemakers," the author writes.
"Russia claimed that far-right Ukrainian nationalists opened fire at the checkpoint just outside the town, seized by an armed pro-Russian militia two weeks ago. The foreign ministry in Moscow accused Kiev of failing to disarm "extremists and terrorists" and blamed the clash on the Right Sector, a nationalist Ukrainian group that has supported the pro-Western interim government in Ukraine," the article reads.
"The authorities in Kiev described the incident in the early hours of Sunday as a "crude provocation", made for Russian TV. They said some of the details of the shootout were so implausible as to be ridiculous," the author informs.
Hürriyet Daily News published an article by Nuray Mert headlined "Presidential elections and Kurds."
"It is not clear yet if President Abdullah Gül will truly decline to play any part in the game of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Nevertheless, Gül recently made it clear that he will not duly agree to become Erdoğan’s Medvedev. He seems reluctant not only to become a minor politician under the hegemonic power of Erdoğan, but he also may be concerned about the gloomy prospects of Turkish politics," the article begins.
"There are good reasons to think that he does not want to be identified with Erdoğan’s current politics as Turkey slides toward becoming a non-democratic country and a problematic ally for the West. One may think that it is still too early to elaborate on that topic, yet Erdoğan’s circle seems content with the idea that Erdoğan can go it alone. Erdoğan also may think that it is better to have an absolute loyalist as prime minister when he becomes the president since he still considers constructing some sort of presidential system and may be planning to realize his dream after he becomes the president even if he could not do it before. In this case, absolute loyalty will be more important since Gül has declared his preference for the parliamentary system," the author writes.
"Another major issue concerning Erdoğan’s presidency is his willingness to do a deal with the Kurdish political movement to ensure their support. So far, Kurdish politicians have exposed either diverse or ambiguous attitudes concerning the issue. In fact, it is very difficult for Kurds both to decline and to accept the deal. On one hand, it is perfectly understandable for Kurds to consider such a deal as a “historical chance.” On the other, if Kurds incline to make such a deal, it will mean they do not care for the prospects of democracy for the rest of the country and it will ruin their democratic and moral credibility not only in the eyes of their democratic Turkish supporters, but also create a split within the Kurdish movement. The best solution would be “to engage in implicit rather than explicit ways” with the governing party. It may be what the Kurds and AKP have in mind, since the so-called “peace process” has worked along these lines. Erdoğan is a master of manipulation; so far he has not only managed to reinvent himself as “the only man who can solve the Kurdish issue,” but also managed to keep Kurdish expectations alive without satisfying most of their demands," the article reads.
"Turkey failed to see the risks of replacing “military hegemony over civil politics” with that of civil political hegemony over society. It is assumed that the empowerment of civil politics will automatically lead to democratization. Now, we should not fail to see the risks of replacing a centralized authoritarian political system with decentralized authoritarian and corrupt politics by assuming that decentralization automatically leads to democratization," Mert concludes.
