“Türkiye’s divergence from the powers steering NATO will likely deepen”

We conducted an interview with Turkish journalist Ceyhun Bozkurt on Türkiye-US relations, Türkiye’s position in NATO and Türkiye’s alternatives to the alliance.
In order to evaluate these properly, we looked at the situation in a wide geography from Iraq to Syria, from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean.

The US continues to support the PKK/PYD terrorist organization. Washington recently announced that it had provided the PKK with an air defense system. Türkiye’s relations with NATO and Ukraine? Could Türkiye, in response, support Russia and withdraw from NATO?

As you pointed out, the US has indeed provided the PKK/PYD with an air defense system. This comes in addition to the thousands of truckloads of weapons, ammunition and military equipment they had previously delivered. However, providing an air defense system marks another stage. To clarify, the system in question is the Avenger, an air defense system mounted on a vehicle that carries eight Stinger missiles in two launchers along with an anti-aircraft machine gun.

The US claims that it arms the PKK/PYD to combat ISIS, yet ISIS does not possess such advanced weaponry. So, it is evident that this system is intended to target states fighting the US-backed terrorist organization in the region.

Not an easy duty: Breaking free from NATO dependencies

At this point, we can see that relations between Türkiye and the US are highly strained. Of course, this is not easy for Türkiye since joining NATO, Türkiye has been deeply infiltrated by American and British influences and interests. Breaking free from these dependencies is not easy. For instance, despite thwarting the coup attempt on July 15, 2016, by the Fethullah Gülen Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) with American backing, Türkiye still has to fight this organization. FETÖ still acts against the Turkish Republic. Similarly, the PKK continues to receive support from our so-called NATO allies.

The US also pressured Türkiye to join the sanctions on Russia. Although Türkiye has aligned with the US on some specific issues, it has generally refrained from participating in sanctions on Russia. Regarding relations with Ukraine, Türkiye made it clear to the US that it would maintain its relations with both Russia and the Kyiv administration in line with its national interests and would not conform to American policies. Türkiye has continued its long-standing military defense agreements with Ukraine while at the same time engaging in diplomacy and cooperation with Russia, especially in areas like economics, Syria, Libya, the Eastern Mediterranean and the South Caucasus.

I believe Türkiye will sever these dependency ties once it establishes alternatives. To achieve true independence, yes, we must consider withdrawing from NATO. The agreements we have signed under NATO impose many dependencies on Türkiye.

I think this issue will become one of the most significant topics of debate in Türkiye’s near future. In areas like defense, economics, politics, media, and civil society, as well as in regions such as the Eastern Mediterranean, the South Caucasus, the Aegean, the Black Sea, Africa and Eurasia, Türkiye’s divergence from the powers steering NATO will likely deepen. Consequently, I foresee that the discourse on full independence will gain more prominence in Türkiye.

Polish General Waldemar Skrzypczak expressed the opinion that a direct conflict between Türkiye and Greece over Cyprus could lead to NATO’s dissolution. The escalation point was an incident in July when an Italian ship was conducting research near Greece’s Kos Island to lay cables between Crete, Cyprus and Israel. Shortly afterward, Ankara dispatched three warships to the scene and the Greek Navy responded.

It seems that tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean are rising. Is there a possibility of a military conflict between Türkiye and Greece, and will this involve only the two countries, or will Türkiye face major powers?

Greece violates the Lausanne Treaty

At this stage, a conflict seems unlikely. But is there a risk? Yes, there is. The disputes between Türkiye and Greece have deep historical roots. For example, there are Greece’s illegal moves concerning islands, islets, and rocks whose sovereignty was not transferred to Greece under the Lausanne Treaty. Additionally, there is the issue of the militarization of islands that were not designated as military zones in the Lausanne Treaty. Moreover, Greece is violating the Treaty by exerting pressure on the Turkish minority in Western Thrace, banning their association activities and imposing restrictions on their schools. Then there’s the Cyprus issue: Greece is pursuing policies aimed at annexing the island under the dream of a Hellenic Empire, potentially relegating Turkish Cypriots to a status similar to that of Palestinians today.

The US military buildup in Greece

Adding to this tension, there came the US’s military buildup in Greece. The official reason for this buildup given by the Americans is to control the corridor from the Black Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean against Russia. However, when viewed in the broader context of US’s policies, it is clear that this buildup targets not only Russia, but also Türkiye. The US is trying to enter the Black Sea through the Aegean, bypassing the Montreux Convention, to encircle Russia from the south and Türkiye from the north. Support for Armenia in the South Caucasus, American-backed terrorism in Syria and Iraq; all these aim to encircle Türkiye.

 “NATO’s Article 5 protects Greece against Türkiye”

Interestingly, the previous US ambassador to Greece made a revealing statement in the Greek press: “NATO’s Article 5 protects Greece against Türkiye.” Both Türkiye and Greece are NATO members, so one would expect the leading countries in NATO to work to prevent tensions between the two allies from escalating into war. However, the American ambassador disclosed their policy of “protecting Greece”.

The US ambassador’s remarks also reveal who Greece is relying on to challenge Türkiye in the Eastern Mediterranean and Cyprus. We should also consider the role of the UK here. Although the UK, as a guarantor of Cyprus, appeared to follow a balanced policy for a while, it has been quietly aligning with Greece. Germany, too, leans towards Greece, we know Germany’s financial aid to Greece.

It’s also important to note the Annan Plan, which proposed the establishment of a single state in Cyprus. At that time, Turks were told that if the Greeks rejects the plan, the EU would not be admitted to the Union. The Turks said yes to the plan, the Greeks said no, yet the Greeks were still admitted to the EU. Today, the EU continues to support Greece against Türkiye. So, in reality, Türkiye is facing the US and the EU leadership in this region.

In terms of power balance, while the recent damage inflicted by FETÖ has seemingly shifted the military balance in favor of Greece in terms of air power, when you compare the overall strength of the Turkish military with that of Greece, it is clear that the balance is actually in Türkiye’s favor. But why is Greece making such bold moves? The answer lies in the backing it receives from the world powers I mentioned.

The US against Türkiye’s Blue Homeland

In the Eastern Mediterranean, Türkiye rightly seeks to establish maritime boundaries in a way that protects the rights and interests of all parties. Türkiye coined the term “Blue Homeland” to describe its maritime borders. This has greatly unsettled both Greece and the US. Recently, we have also seen some figures in Türkiye controlled by the US, speaking against Türkiye’s Blue Homeland policy. For example, Namık Tan, a former ambassador to Washington and Tel Aviv and a prominent figure in the opposition Republican People’s Party’s foreign policy, recently targeted the Blue Homeland concept.

So, will this confrontation lead to war? I believe that war would only be a last resort. The US does not want to lose Türkiye, and a war would result in exactly that. Instead, the US aims to control Türkiye because the US knows that failing to do so in this region would cost the imperialist powers defeat against Asia and oppressed nations. That’s why the US attacks Türkiye: the coup attempt on July 15, 2016, terrorist attacks, economic operations, and efforts to control and manipulate domestic politics. However, I believe Türkiye is now showing resistance and will not easily back down from this stance.

There are criticisms of the government’s stance on the Eastern Mediterranean within Türkiye being too passive. Historically, when we look at Türkiye’s approach to such issues, we see that when Türkiye adopts a policy, it advances when it has the power, and if not, it does not back down but rather wait for the right time to advance further.

Türkiye’s alternatives and beginning of the end for the imperialists

In Cyprus, for instance, there were intense attacks on Turks in 1962-63. Türkiye did not immediately intervene but signaled its right to do so by sending jets. Türkiye intervened only in 1974, 11 years later, when all conditions were ripe. I do not believe Türkiye will back down from its positions on the Blue Homeland and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

I don’t believe that imperialism could prevail in Türkiye. Türkiye has alternatives. It has communication channels with Russia, Iran, and China. The Turkic world is also a significant ally. Türkiye’s maritime and land connections are robust. I think, at this point, this means the beginning of the end for the imperialists and their collaborators like Greece.