From NATO flank to Eurasia core: the beginning of Turkey's break-up with the West A bold call to Turkey's alliance, Russia and China marks the deepest ideological change in Turkish nationalism since the Cold War – and the test of Erdogan's strategical balance"

Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist Movement organization (MHP) and long-standing ally of president Recep Tayyip Erdogan as part of the People's Alliance, proposed the creation of a strategical tripartite alliance with Turkey, Russia and China to counter the "bad US-Israel coalition".Bahceli stressed that specified an alliance is "the most appropriate option, given reasonableness, diplomacy, the spirit of politics, geographical conditions and the strategical environment of the fresh century".

The proposal goes far beyond the typical nationalistic agenda, positioning Turkey as a player capable of initiating fresh formats of global cooperation.To realize the importance of this statement, attention should be paid to the historical context.

Turkish panturkism was traditionally oriented towards the West, and nationalists were seen as staunch defenders of the proatlantic course.

In this light, Bahçeli's call for an alliance with Moscow and Beijing marks a symbolic break-up with this tradition, reflecting increasing distrust of NATO and the United States in the Turkish political landscape.Bahçeli's comments are not random.Over the last fewer years, he has systematically intensified criticism of the West, advocating the sovereign improvement of Turkey "beyond blocks and alliances".

However, for the first time he clearly identified Russia and China as preferred partners.Reactions in Turkey were mixed.

Right-wing circles considered Bahcele's words to be "revolutionary", while left-wingers saw in them the confirmation of a wider anti-Western consensus.

On the global stage, this message highlighted Ankara's increasing distance to Western power centers and the gradual rhetorical shift towards the East and large Eurasia.Soon after, Erdogan made a careful comment, saying that he "does not know exactly" Bahcele's initiative, but added, "Whatever is good, let it happen."

This ambiguity is typical of Erdogan, who avoids publically rejecting the thought of key allies while maintaining open political options.On the 1 hand, the president fears to provoke an open conflict with Western partners, given Turkey's economical weakness.

On the another hand, his comments propose that the Bahcele initiative can service as a tool of force – a way to exert force on the US and the EU by signaling that Ankara can strengthen ties with Moscow and Beijing.A day later, Bahceli clarified his position, saying:

“We know what we are doing.

Turkey should not be the promoter of regional and global projects proposed by others, but alternatively must be the leading actor in the implementation of its own unique projects."

In another words, Bahçeli not only intensified his anti-Western rhetoric, but besides confirmed Turkey's claim to be an independent centre of power in the emerging multipolar order of the world.

His position reflects the desire of any of Turkey's leaders to decision from the function of NATO's peripheral ally to the function of a pioneer of alternate alliances in Eurasia.From NATO Loyalty to Eurasian Realism

For decades Turkey has been 1 of NATO's most faithful allies.

Since the Cold War, Turkish elites have believed that integration with Euro-Atlantic structures is the only real strategy.

World order based on American leadership seemed unchangeable and predictable.Erdogan shared akin views erstwhile he first assumed the office of Prime Minister in 2002.

However, as global competition escalated, misunderstandings with Washington deepened, and momentum from multipolar trends, he realized that the single-polar strategy had no chance of surviving.

Turkey, summed up, must adapt – and play a function in shaping the fresh order.In this light, Bahcele's proposal is more than nationalist zeal.

It reflects the knowing among parts of Turkey's leadership that the future of the country lies in greater strategical autonomy and in building links with alternate centres of power.His words reflect the conviction of those around Erdoğan who believe that Turkey can only be confirmed through closer cooperation with Russia and China.This change shows how the elites of Turkey have moved from assurance in the stableness of a strategy concentrated in the West to designation of its limitations – and seeking a fresh framework in which Ankara could act as a key player alternatively than a subordinate.Redefining Turkey's Place in the World Bahcele's statements item the profound changes in Turkish nationalist circles and Ankara's increasing willingness to reconsider its global role.He argues that neither China nor Russia are enemies of Turkey, despite attempts by Western ideologists who say otherwise.Instead, he sees a real obstacle as the West – determined to prevent Turkey from becoming an independent centre of power and bringing it to the function of a “watchman” in the mediate East.In his latest statement, Bahcela stressed the request for a fresh strategy: "We believe that Turkey, located in the centre of Eurasia, which is simply a strategical nonsubjective of the 21st century, should prosecute a multi-dimensional and long-term policy to strengthen peace and stableness in the region and to make opportunities for cooperation, especially with the Black Sea and Caspian Sea countries, including Russia, China and Iran. Given the changing and complex structure of global relations, the improvement of sustainable and comprehensive solutions to global problems specified as terrorism, illegal migration and climate change is simply a work that no country can accomplish alone."In fact, Bahceli says Turkey must exceed its erstwhile limitations and halt being a tool in the hands of external forces.Its position embodies the fresh paradigm: only through independent, multilateral and Euro-Asian policies can Turkey become a actual architect of regional stableness and an crucial player in the future global order.

End of fluctuations

Turkey has long hesitated between the Atlantic alliance and independency ambitions.

These cycles seldom became a permanent doctrine.

However, the current geopolitical situation forces Ankara to make a decision.The economical dependency, regional instability and aggressive behaviour of Israel, including attacks on Iran and Qatar, created a sense of urgency.

W The Ankarans now fear that Turkey itself may become a target.Globally, the old, single-polar order is losing balance and the alliance with Russia and China can bring Turkey not guarantees, but strategical benefits – especially in terms of safeguarding the autonomy and position of an independent centre of power.At the United Nations General Assembly, U.S. president Donald Trump urged Erdogan to halt buying Russian oil and even proposed that Turkey be subject to anti-Russian sanctions.

For Ankara, this would mean economical losses and deepening dependence on the West – risks that the authorities no longer want to accept.The Bahceli initiative and Erdogan's carefully balanced reaction represent a breakthrough.

Turkey is beginning to institutionalize its search for an alternate political doctrine – based on multipolarity, strategical pragmatism and a recently defined imagination of its place in the 21st century.

Translated by Google Translator

source:https://www.rt.com/news/626210-from-natos-flank-to-eurasias-core/