Why Erdogan's imperial ambitions are doomed


One of the greatest leaders and historical figures of the Turkish people, without a doubt, political world-famous figure in his time period, Kemal Ataturk once said: "Turkey will not demand a single centimeter of foreign territory, but it will not give up a single centimeter." He personally participated in many wars, both right at the front and as a commander, saw with his own eyes what it was, as well as how they ended for his country. Therefore, the founder of the modern Turkish state - a legal secular republic, was against the conquest of new territories.


Along the path he created, the Turkish Republic from the rather backward disintegrating Middle Eastern sultanate reached what it is now - a developed modern national democratic state, with a strong industry, army and the economy, with his weighty word in world politics.

Turkey is even somewhat similar to Russia - the country is located simultaneously in Europe and Asia, and thus at the crossroads of cultures, religions and ways of state development, has a strong imperial past, its development has always been strongly influenced by specific historical figures. Atatürk understood this, and in accordance with this he determined the path of building a successful state. Correctly, I must say, determined. And history has confirmed this.

I don’t presume to judge how much Recep Tayyip Erdogan can equal with Kemal Ataturk, but during his time in power in Turkey, he clearly wants to move away from all the principles established by his great predecessor, and turn the country in a different direction of development, to return back to something. type of the new Ottoman Empire. And this, without a doubt, means the Islamization of the state (which is also already actively underway), in many respects a departure from democratic principles within the country, and presupposes the seizure of new territories. That is, everything that Ataturk warned his compatriots against.

We hear many times that the Turkish armed forces are the second most powerful and efficient NATO after the United States. Nominally, this is so - in terms of numbers and weapons, and also if we omit the factor of the presence / absence of nuclear weapons, which the Turks do not have. That is, for the first time they "stumbled" - the second in NATO, if ...

Further. Yes, Turkey has a really large army, if we compare it with the armed forces of European countries in their current, rather deplorable state, both in number and in combat technology... But practically all this equipment from the Turks, in contrast to the same developed European countries, is either bought abroad or produced under foreign licenses. That is, the Turks do not have their own developed modern technologies for the production of weapons. Again, there is production, not technology. But it is also at the level of small arms, armored vehicles, some missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, again, with someone else's "stuffing", and this "stuffing", as we know, plays a decisive role in everything. This means a strong dependence on external players - a big minus # 2.

The Turkish army is said to have real combat experience. Yes, but in battles with whom? If we consider further, it turns out that the strength of the "second" army in NATO for the last 100 years, no one really tested - the Turks did not fight for exactly so long with anyone at the state level. The last war, ironically, was with the Armenian Republic, ended in 1920 with the defeat of the last and the loss of part of its territory, after which the Red Army entered the Armenian land, and independent Armenia ceased to exist for its short (about 2 years) existence, soon becoming part of the USSR.

Yes, the Turks have had and are taking place to have various military actions against various rebel movements - the Kurds, for example, intervention in various conflicts, such as the Libyan one. But in the second case, participation is limited to military advisers and small forces such as our MTR, and in the first case, the enemy of the Turks is by no means a regular army, has neither aviation, nor armored vehicles, nor air defense systems, as well as a built system of internal coordination of "troops". In fact, these are various insurgents, terrorists or Kurdish self-defense units, whose heavy weapons are modern "carts" - pickups with machine guns, mortars, and elderly American Humvees with or without light armor. Is it possible to really test the functionality of a modern army in the fight against such an enemy? In my opinion, hardly. Moreover, in these operations the Turks are using the most "primitive" military equipment today - short-range attack aircraft, classical artillery, sometimes tanks and armored vehicles, which are not opposed by anything like that on the other side.

In contrast, the Russian Armed Forces in Syria, for example, openly tested various types of their own new weapons and equipment on terrorists, although they were not adequate in confrontation with groups of lightly armed people, but they went through a full combat "run-in", as well as their service staff. And here we are talking about the fleet and about medium-range missiles, and about aviation equipment, and about air defense systems, as well as about testing the possibilities of building up army logistics and communications. And all this was done purposefully, including the rotation of personnel to maximize the opportunity to engage and gain experience in the "hot conflict". No such experience can be obtained in Turkish, in fact, local anti-terrorist operations. Yes, this is also hostilities, but fundamentally different. The Israeli army, for example, which cannot be compared in size with the Turkish army, also has real combat experience, both in CTOs and in battles with regular armies, as well as its own weapons technologies. So, about the real strength and combat effectiveness of the Turkish army, this is still an open question.

If you look at where the practical and even theoretical Turkish expansion is directed, then truly huge territories will open: the Eastern Mediterranean, Eastern Syria, Eastern Iran, the South Caucasus, and then even the eastern coast of the Caspian, Central Asia and Central, regions of the Russian Federation inhabited by Turkic peoples. Some people designate Crimea in this sphere of interests, but I will leave it “out of brackets” for now, as an unscientific fantasy. Is Turkey capable, with all its ambitions, in its current state to really control such territories as a kind of "metropolis"? Does she have something to "offer" to all these peoples and territories? I think no. Are the Turkish Armed Forces really capable of participating simultaneously in armed conflicts in Africa, on their eastern borders and in the South Caucasus? Maybe, but only if they continue to fight exclusively with the "barmaley". If a regular army of a state enters into a conflict, then the Turks will definitely have to choose a direction - the country will definitely not pull such a war on two or even three fronts, neither economically nor military. This is still despite the fact that the interests of major regional players will have to be taken into account.

If Russia, perhaps, benefits from the confrontation between the Turks and other NATO members in the Mediterranean, and those, on their part, would really like to bind the Russian Federation with the Caucasian conflict, or even direct Turkish attention even further into Asia, then the West is also in their zones of interests, and the Russian Federation and Iran, for example, will definitely hinder Turkish expansion in every possible way. So Erdogan will obviously have to choose again - even Hitler's Germany could not stand the war on two fronts. And its strength, technology (at that time) and potential, as well as the combat capability of the army, with all due respect, cannot be compared with Turkey. In addition, the Turkish economy today is also strongly "tied" both to the West - the USA and Europe, and to the East - the Russian Federation and China. Another consequence of the "multi-vector" policy. So in case of a real conflict with any of these sides, even in the version of a "cold" confrontation, Turkey is threatened, if not an economic collapse, then very big problems. And all this in the modern world usually leads to massive discontent of the population with the government, with all that it implies. Turkey is not the most stable country in the world, so the options for revolutions are not ruled out there, especially if the process is "helped" from the outside ... I am already silent about the implementation of various "neo-Ottoman" ambitions. "Not to fat, to be alive ...", as they say.

If I were Mr. Erdogan, I would think about these things seriously before waving my flags near the Russian borders or pointing guns at French warships in the Mediterranean. Once again, with all due respect to Turkey and its achievements, she, sorry, will not pull the new Ottoman Empire. And the greatest Turk in history, the founder of this country, as we now know it, also held the same opinion. And Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was clearly not a stupid person, certainly not stupider than Recep Erdogan ...
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 15 October 2020 08: 57
    0
    For 5 years now, everyone has been persistently seeking imperial ambitions from Putin's friend Endogan.

    Here, literally the day before yesterday, Lavrov was quoted as saying about strategic partnership in many areas.

    But no, everything is itching. Everyone is worried about the Amers, the French ships, or the Maidan in Yerevan ...
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 15 October 2020 11: 59
      +1
      ... you can't go anywhere - we are the imperial people. wink and there are such ambitions that no one hides. So we think in global categories.
  2. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 15 October 2020 09: 52
    +2
    ... to move away, and turn the country in a different direction of development, to return back to something like a new Ottoman Empire.

    Nothing else remains for Turkey - NATO increasingly plays a secondary role as a springboard for promoting the interests of others, the EU does not accept it but does use it, they not only do not provide support in promoting their interests, but also, if possible, slow down because of fears of the Islamization of Europe and, most importantly, no prospects in relations with the west.
    In such a situation, Turkey's decision to independently solve its problems looks logical, but, if necessary, rely on the same NATO and the EU, which under no circumstances can allow the loss of such a geostrategically important ally.
    Erdogan understands and tries to use - if you don’t want to be admitted to the EU, then you will get a “stone on the road” to Central Asia and the Middle East, energy suppliers to the EU, which, at the suggestion of the US, seeks to reduce dependence on the Russian Federation in order to undermine its economy and cause social instability followed by “defragmentation” into specific “democratic” ones, i.e. controlled principalities.
    Erdogan's policy clearly raises the status of Turkey and its authority with which everyone, including the Russian Federation, the United States and the EU, has to reckon with.
  3. Alexzn Online Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 15 October 2020 09: 57
    -2
    ..You have to be realistic! Erdogan is a brilliant politician and this cannot be taken away from him! He may agitate, we may not love him, but within the framework of the changing world order, he quite rationally determines the place of Turkey. Turkey is gaining strength, it is clearly stronger than Iran, stronger than the Arabs. So much so that Erdogan no longer needs a military-technological alliance with Israel, he returns to the idea of ​​leadership in the Islamic world. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are languidly resisting, but Egypt does not have an appropriate economy, and the SA has an army. Iran has no time for problems in this direction. Each side of the square (Arabs, Persians, Turks, Jews) is able to play only against 2 rivals, and perhaps Turkey plays the best today.
    I really do not like Erdogan, I am very afraid of him, but I would finish the title of the note - .... doomed to success.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 15 October 2020 11: 56
      +2
      I agree in many ways, BUT ... the success of the Turks in all this is possible and would be if they had to play with countries such as Egypt, Iran, Saudis or Israelis. And here and abruptly there are those interested. so, with all due respect to Erdogan, he will not become an emir. Unless, of course, he is supported in this by one of the superpowers, and they do not yet have such a desire, no one ...
  4. Bitter Offline Bitter
    Bitter (Gleb) 15 October 2020 10: 44
    +1
    So, about the real strength and combat effectiveness of the Turkish army, this is still an open question.

    But for some reason no one wants to "try it out" this real power. laughing
    Apparently it's not that simple. Since having said "A", you will have to say "B", and this can be costly and the opponent is simply "not economically expedient." It's easier to express your concerns and, for example, to arrange some sort of "tomato-apple embargo", leveling its effect somewhere else. One side

    The sheep are safe and the wolves are fed

    and on the other

    Vaska (Erdogan) listens and eats.

    recourse
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 15 October 2020 12: 31
      +2
      But for some reason no one wants to "try it out" this real power.

      - no one wants to fight, if it's serious. Turkey's army is really strong. But the question is why is it strong? To repel the attack of one of the neighbors is unconditional. All neighbors are simply without a chance. But for what Erdogan is trying to claim, this power is definitely not enough. In addition, in NATO, such plans of the Turks are unlikely to be liked by anyone ...
      1. Bitter Offline Bitter
        Bitter (Gleb) 16 October 2020 10: 57
        +1
        ...if serious. Turkey's army is really strong.

        So.

        To repel the attack of one of the neighbors is unconditional.

        May be. But now, Azerbaijan will not attack the Turks. But the Turks can and do to promote their policy with their help. So it may be in other places, on the one hand, a revolver in the form of an army, and on the other, jam and cookies in barrels and wagons, for "volunteers". In addition, Erdogan has solid support within the country and not only, so there is no point in belittling his capabilities.

        ... that power is definitely not enough.

        I think that he, with his like-minded people, also understands this, and by the number of appearance of various groups in the Caucasus, and in Russia too, it is clear that they are working on this.
        The mere fact that, for example, "Syrian" mercenary fighters are fighting in Karabakh, for example, already causes a smile. Why not call things by their proper names, because almost everyone knows whose they are and how they got there with all their equipment.

        NATO is unlikely to like such plans of the Turks ...

        If you do not like it, they will be immediately stopped. And so far, grimaces, concerns and fears. There it seems, for now, they just want to see what will come of it all and whether it is possible to extract something from this and benefit from it.
        1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
          Pishenkov (Alexey) 16 October 2020 12: 31
          +1
          NATO, like us, is interested in a conflict with the enemy, but far from them and closer to us. We are the opposite, respectively. .They, whenever possible, sharply suppress us at home (Cyprus, Greece). That is, it is a priori impossible to expand Turkey's interests in all directions where it wants to - it means to quarrel with all the powerful at once. But in each direction separately it is also difficult - for this you will have to abandon inclinations to the other side altogether, and ideally accept from the sides (Russia or NATO). But in this case, it threatens the globalization of a conflict in which Turkey has no chance - it will simply fall the first victim. Erdogan, being one of the smartest politicians of our time, cannot fail to understand this. Therefore, I don’t think that any real imperial ambitions lie behind all this, but rather this desire to take a more advantageous position for bargaining is a typical Turkish tactic.
          And flirting with terrorists is a double-edged weapon. Here Erdogan has already stood on very shaky ground ... These snakes bite anyone, including their owners ... Sometimes deadly ...
  5. Alexzn Online Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 15 October 2020 14: 08
    -1
    Quote: Pyshenkov
    I agree in many ways, BUT ... the success of the Turks in all this is possible and would be if they had to play with countries such as Egypt, Iran, Saudis or Israelis. And here and abruptly there are those interested. so, with all due respect to Erdogan, he will not become an emir. Unless, of course, he is supported in this by one of the superpowers, and they do not yet have such a desire, no one ...

    The great powers are butting in the D. East; they surrender the B. East. Yes, their presence will be there, but it is losing importance. And in these conditions, Turkey has excellent prospects. It is clear that the greats can slap their hands, but if you behave correctly ... and Turkey learns quickly, then ...
    There is one real competitor in the region - Iran, but it, unlike Turkey, decided to butt the West, with all that it implies. So far, everything speaks in favor of Turkey.
    PS Recently I flew in transit through Istanbul (Sabiha) - huge areas of new buildings are striking. In Europe, wherever you spit ... Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan - the presence of Turkish capital is everywhere.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 16 October 2020 15: 49
      +1
      In terms of the number of troops and participating countries, it is somehow imperceptible to "butt" on the Far East and hand over the BV to someone. And to whom? Turks or what? And what are they butting for in the Far East? For the Chinese bulk islands? Something there conflicts between the "great" is not particularly visible yet ....
      And on the BV and Syria, and Iraq, and Israel, and Yemen, and Iran, and Afghanistan, and North Africa, so the Caucasus is connected .... Well, just calm and quiet! And vaasche no one from the outside participates! belay
  6. Alexzn Online Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 16 October 2020 16: 11
    -1
    Quote: Pyshenkov
    In terms of the number of troops and participating countries, it is somehow imperceptible to "butt" on the Far East and hand over the BV to someone. And to whom? Turks or what? And what are they butting for in the Far East? For the Chinese bulk islands? Something there conflicts between the "great" is not particularly visible yet ....
    And on the BV and Syria, and Iraq, and Israel, and Yemen, and Iran, and Afghanistan, and North Africa, so the Caucasus is connected .... Well, just calm and quiet! And vaasche no one from the outside participates! belay

    You're not right. Armies are not always butted. The Asia-Pacific region already produces half of the world's GDP; all the rapidly developing economies are located there. Major US military bases are slowly targeting the region to control communications and put pressure on these most dynamic countries. We are not talking about specific tiny islands, we are talking about a global confrontation in solving the problems of the South. Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, Singapore. Vietnam.
    And, yes - BV is losing its significance, along with oil. This, in many respects, explains how easily the Americans surrendered Iraq and Syria. They do not prevent Turkey from strengthening. Globally, the United States is only interested in Iran, all the other problems of BV, albeit geopolitical, are of the second level.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 16 October 2020 16: 48
      +1
      And, yes - BV is losing its significance, along with oil. This, in many respects, explains how easily the Americans surrendered Iraq and Syria.

      - to whom did they pass? Something they are not going from there yet. And for some reason it is oil that is kept there. And they are butting with the Russian Federation for the opportunity to become the main "gas station" for Europe. And in Azerbaijan, what if not oil and oil and gas pipelines to the same Turkey, Israel and Europe. As for the fact that oil is losing its meaning, you tell Greta Thunberg, she will probably assent to you ... And those who see the real economy are unlikely. Until the end of this century, oil and gas will not go anywhere - there is no alternative. "Green" energy is still too expensive and the existing methods of obtaining are weak and ineffective, and atomic energy is not available to everyone in the world ...
      Yes, in the Asia-Pacific region now the most rapid development of economies and production, and do you think that there all this will grow on energy from solar panels or wind turbines? Don't tell my slippers!
      And the US bases were there all the time, nothing new. But there are no hot spots with the participation of world players, fortunately .....
      1. Alexzn Online Alexzn
        Alexzn (Alexander) 16 October 2020 18: 23
        -1
        Quote: Pyshenkov
        And, yes - BV is losing its significance, along with oil. This, in many respects, explains how easily the Americans surrendered Iraq and Syria.

        - to whom did they pass? Something they are not going from there yet. And for some reason it is oil that is kept there. And they are butting with the Russian Federation for the opportunity to become the main "gas station" for Europe. And in Azerbaijan, what if not oil and oil and gas pipelines to the same Turkey, Israel and Europe. As for the fact that oil is losing its meaning, you tell Greta Thunberg, she will probably assent to you ... And those who see the real economy are unlikely. Until the end of this century, oil and gas will not go anywhere - there is no alternative. "Green" energy is still too expensive and the existing methods of obtaining are weak and ineffective, and atomic energy is not available to everyone in the world ...
        Yes, in the Asia-Pacific region now the most rapid development of economies and production, and do you think that there all this will grow on energy from solar panels or wind turbines? Don't tell my slippers!
        And the US bases were there all the time, nothing new. But there are no hot spots with the participation of world players, fortunately .....

        I explain. Oil for the Americans is losing its former value in the sense that they have ceased to be an importer, and Europe is now solving the problem of providing itself with oil without the Americans. The Americans did not even try to grab the oil from Iraq and Libya, even the Russians are present there much more than the Americans. They are also not interested in Syrian oil (except to ensure operational tasks in the controlled regions).
        To gore for the ranks of the gas station, the Americans are reducing their presence in BV and there is no contradiction in this. The Americans decided long ago that the Arabs should pay for their own safety.
        About Thunberg. The importance of hydrocarbons will remain, but their deficit will disappear, and all countries will try to monetize faster due to fears of new energy technologies, which will lead to a prolonged period of low prices.
        Hot spots with the participation of world players have long been in the Asia-Pacific region, it is surprising that you did not notice this.
        1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
          Pishenkov (Alexey) 17 October 2020 00: 42
          0
          ...And where???
  7. Alexzn Online Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 17 October 2020 09: 11
    0
    Quote: Pyshenkov
    ...And where???

    ALL (!!!) countries on the periphery of China. This is where the permanent danger of nuclear conflicts really exists. PRC - India, USA-DPRK-South. Korea-PRC-Japan, India-Pakistan, PRC-Vietnam, PRC-Philippines. I am silent about all sorts of Myanmar and explosive Indonesia and Malaysia.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 17 October 2020 12: 11
      +1
      ALL the conflicts you have listed, those that are really conflicts - the territorial PRC-India, India-Pakistan, PRC-Vietnam or the Philippines, this is a showdown, first of all, between the two sides exclusively, where no one else will let anyone else. Like a conflict over the territories of the USSR with China. And at times the "hot" ones are only Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani. And no external players participate there, unlike the BV, where everyone and everyone has entered ... So where are the superpowers butting in the APR ??? Trump calls Kim names, is this what can be compared with the introduction of troops into Iraq or the destruction of an Iranian general? Or with the defeat of Libya? In the APR, so far the conflicts are maximally economic or political, such as the PRC-Taiwan, there are no hot ones Even the periodic incidents of the PRC-India or India-Pakistan are in no way comparable in scale with the same Karabakh or Yemen, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. and so forth What are you talking about? Where in the Far East is there something like that?
      Is oil and gas losing importance to the US? Why? Is that why they reopened their fields? So looking for new ways of mining? Will everyone change to Tesla? And even if, then, where will the energy come from in the sockets for charging? From the same power plants. And they work on what ??? On coal, oil products and uranium - 95%.
      And Europe, it turns out, used to solve its oil issues through the United States? What is it like? From the Texas fields or from Alaska? Almost all European oil products are from three sources - our own (the North Sea, Norway and small MRs), Russia and the former CIS, the Middle East.
      And as for oil prices - today, unfortunately, they are set by the “hand of the market” - exchange speculations, so they are often not adequate. Nevertheless, it has a real price, consisting of production, exploration, delivery, processing, etc., and below that, it will not fall anywhere for a long time, although it may fluctuate.
  8. Alexzn Online Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 17 October 2020 13: 42
    0
    Quote: Pyshenkov
    ALL the conflicts you have listed, those that are really conflicts - the territorial PRC-India, India-Pakistan, PRC-Vietnam or the Philippines, this is a showdown, first of all, between the two sides exclusively, where no one else will let anyone else. Like a conflict over the territories of the USSR with China. And at times the "hot" ones are only Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani. And no external players participate there, unlike the BV, where everyone and everyone has entered ... So where are the superpowers butting in the APR ??? Trump calls Kim names, is this what can be compared with the introduction of troops into Iraq or the destruction of an Iranian general? Or with the defeat of Libya? In the APR, so far the conflicts are maximally economic or political, such as the PRC-Taiwan, there are no hot ones Even the periodic incidents of the PRC-India or India-Pakistan are in no way comparable in scale with the same Karabakh or Yemen, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. and so forth What are you talking about? Where in the Far East is there something like that?
    Is oil and gas losing importance to the US? Why? Is that why they reopened their fields? So looking for new ways of mining? Will everyone change to Tesla? And even if, then, where will the energy come from in the sockets for charging? From the same power plants. And they work on what ??? On coal, oil products and uranium - 95%.
    And Europe, it turns out, used to solve its oil issues through the United States? What is it like? From the Texas fields or from Alaska? Almost all European oil products are from three sources - our own (the North Sea, Norway and small MRs), Russia and the former CIS, the Middle East.
    And as for oil prices - today, unfortunately, they are set by the “hand of the market” - exchange speculations, so they are often not adequate. Nevertheless, it has a real price, consisting of production, exploration, delivery, processing, etc., and below that, it will not fall anywhere for a long time, although it may fluctuate.

    99% of all real-life conflicts can be reduced to territorial
    Unlike the BV, in the APR the great powers are not only involved, they are direct participants.
    The assertion that Karabakh is more dangerous than the potential of China-DPRK-South Korea-Japan-USA raises a smile. Karabakh to one place for everyone, which is what the stock exchange shows (the best thermometer of problems). It is always necessary to take into account the amount of capitalization of property that may suffer in a conflict. This is how a geopolitical strategy is built. This is the basics. How many Houthis will slaughter Hashids and vice versa, no one cares deeply! The world is only interested in threats to SA's oil infrastructure, not the massacre itself.
    With electricity, you got excited, not 95% but 85%, in addition, it is worth understanding the difference in efficiency with centralized production and individual consumption, comparing with individual production and consumption. Over time, there will certainly be a shift towards sustainable sources.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 17 October 2020 14: 52
      +1
      The assertion that Karabakh is more dangerous than the potential of China-DPRK-South Korea-Japan-USA raises a smile.

      - and you do not smile, no one spoke to you about a certain potential, they talked about what is. And then, you know, there is potential in the RF-US conflict, and some other ...

      With electricity, you got excited, not 95% but 85%, in addition, it is worth understanding the difference in efficiency with centralized production and individual consumption, comparing with individual production and consumption. Over time, there will certainly be a shift towards sustainable sources.

      - what is this? After autumn, spring, and after it summer? There will certainly be a shift over time ... The question is with what time.
  9. Alexzn Online Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 17 October 2020 13: 50
    0
    Quote: Pyshenkov
    ALL the conflicts you have listed, those that are really conflicts - the territorial PRC-India, India-Pakistan, PRC-Vietnam or the Philippines, this is a showdown, first of all, between the two sides exclusively, where no one else will let anyone else. Like a conflict over the territories of the USSR with China. And at times the "hot" ones are only Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani. And no external players participate there, unlike the BV, where everyone and everyone has entered ... So where are the superpowers butting in the APR ??? Trump calls Kim names, is this what can be compared with the introduction of troops into Iraq or the destruction of an Iranian general? Or with the defeat of Libya? In the APR, so far the conflicts are maximally economic or political, such as the PRC-Taiwan, there are no hot ones Even the periodic incidents of the PRC-India or India-Pakistan are in no way comparable in scale with the same Karabakh or Yemen, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. and so forth What are you talking about? Where in the Far East is there something like that?
    Is oil and gas losing importance to the US? Why? Is that why they reopened their fields? So looking for new ways of mining? Will everyone change to Tesla? And even if, then, where will the energy come from in the sockets for charging? From the same power plants. And they work on what ??? On coal, oil products and uranium - 95%.
    And Europe, it turns out, used to solve its oil issues through the United States? What is it like? From the Texas fields or from Alaska? Almost all European oil products are from three sources - our own (the North Sea, Norway and small MRs), Russia and the former CIS, the Middle East.
    And as for oil prices - today, unfortunately, they are set by the “hand of the market” - exchange speculations, so they are often not adequate. Nevertheless, it has a real price, consisting of production, exploration, delivery, processing, etc., and below that, it will not fall anywhere for a long time, although it may fluctuate.

    And ischo! Why build a garden? For at least 10 years in the American foreign policy doctrine, the APR has been officially declared as the main direction in US foreign policy. Accordingly, in military doctrine.
  10. Alexzn Online Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 17 October 2020 13: 53
    0
    Quote: Pyshenkov
    And Europe, it turns out, used to solve its oil issues through the United States? What is it like?

    Why exaggerate? Supply routes, oil pipelines, production, pricing and even the petrodollar - all this as a unified system was created by the United States in the post-war period and was perfectly controlled.
  11. Tramp1812 Offline Tramp1812
    Tramp1812 (Tramp 1812) 17 October 2020 16: 42
    +1
    Well done, it's time to shorten it. These words of A.V. Suvorov, are quite applicable to Erdogan. The author of the publication compares two Turkish leaders: Ataturk and Erdogan. Despite the fact that these are completely different types, there are common features. Both are unambiguously dictators. Both had one goal: the greatness of Turkey. Only Atatürk raised the country from its knees, while Erdogan took a developed state off the wheels and began to openly revise the legacy of his predecessor. Of the six principles of Kemalism, laicism has come under attack. The secular nationalism of Mustafa Kemal is now openly replaced by the return of Islamic values, which ultimately objectively undermines the semblance of the Swiss model of state built by Ataturk. The army has ceased to be the traditional guarantor of Ataturk's reforms. I repeat: the Turkish pope was also not a particular lover of democracy. What does the concentration in his hands of the legislative and executive branches of power indicate? In spite of Rousseau and Montesquieu, whose ideas he seems to have implemented. Nevertheless, secular Turkey has taken place. This is a fact. And Ataturk was its symbol. Therefore, Erdogan, before laying his hands on the laurels of A. Macedon, would not hurt to enlist the support of his entire population inside the country. Especially urban youth and industrial areas. It doesn't matter with allies either, frankly. In fact, apart from Azerbaijan, they simply do not exist. And the Arabs are so negative about Ankara that they reached out in a united Arab impulse to their favorite protector - Israel. In the rear there are 40 million Kurds who openly hate the Turks. Yes, and to call Iran an ally of Turkey, the language does not turn. I am sure that the Russian Federation, to put it mildly, is not enthusiastic about Erdogan's desire to gain a foothold in the Caspian and the Caucasus. The army has been weakened by repression. The economy is not on the rise: Ankara, opening one front after another, is straining. Israel with interest and very closely follows the body movements of the newly-minted sultan. Will not let you take a walk. Moreover, in alliance with the Arabs and with the support of Russia. Least. And if Trump wins, the Turks will perform solo on the sax. So the Count of Monte Cristo, like O. Bender in his time, will not work from Erdogan. We'll have to retrain as a house manager. Somewhere, like in Syria, he snatched, already snatched - 8200 sq. Km. territory. Perhaps that's all. It seems to me that he is trying to strengthen his power within the country. And he presents it as a project of the Ottoman Empire. Bluff.
  12. lena.buylova.49mail.ru (Elena Builova) 9 November 2020 13: 46
    0
    The pike is needed so that the crucian does not doze

    - so Erdogan is needed, Russia relaxed believing that the "underbelly" will always be dreams, Erdogan showed that no, it is worth beckoning them and they will forget that they could acquire and preserve their identity and statehood thanks to us.
  13. Hugo Ferreus Offline Hugo Ferreus
    Hugo Ferreus (Hugo Ferreus and Guillaume Porkus Ismailov) 15 November 2020 20: 45
    +1
    Author, Russia fought for the last time ... in 1941. And now the Russian army has combat experience only with barmels. The Afghan war was overslept, the Chechen campaigns were simply shameful - suffice it to recall the battle at Hill 776, the complete extermination of the Pskov paratroopers by the odious commander Khattab. So before you roll the barrel at Erdogan, you need to look at yourself. And Turkey is great. Erdogan does not give a damn about the liberal world of all sorts of macarons, pasta, trudeau-mrudeau. The country knows that all these years the West has been trivially leading it by the nose and fulfills the assigned tasks itself.