Global Research

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March

***

Although April 1 is a day of practical jokes, what it brought to Turkey is anything but.

The recent defeat of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in local elections, when the opposition effectively won, particularly the Republican People’s Party (CHP) that got the most support (37.7% of the overall vote, compared to AKP’s 35.5%), may soon bring about tectonic changes in Turkish domestic affairs. However, perhaps not all is lost for Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country’s incumbent.

Namely, the AKP has been losing influence in big cities for quite some time, which is why it refocused most of its attention to the rural areas, trying to double down on drawing support where it exists or is strong enough to keep the current government in power at least a bit longer.

This is why Erdogan’s main cards boil down to a volatile mix of Neo-Ottomanism, political Islam and pan-Turkism, none of which he can really implement. However, all three are very useful for domestic consumption, particularly as the Turkish economy has been struggling for years.

The problem for Erdogan and the ruling AKP is that the ideological, nationalist and religious approach is beginning to lose momentum as the electorate is switching priorities to the less idealistic realm. Realizing that this could cost him power and understanding that Turkey’s economic (and, by extension, societal) problems stem from its dependence on the political West, Erdogan might soon start changing his previously (at least somewhat) balanced position to a more pro-NATO one.

This isn’t to say that Erdogan changed his opinion, but it simply boils down to realpolitik. In simpler terms, if he doesn’t change his (geo)political approach, the opposition definitely will, so if somebody has to do it, it might as well be him and the AKP. It seems we’re already seeing this and the United States plans to capitalize on it to the maximum.

Namely, Washington DC is set to significantly expand the import of military-grade explosives from Ankara, all in order to support the expansion of the fledgling American and NATO artillery shells production, a field in which Russia dominates with a production capacity that’s around three times larger. The US hopes this could help replenish its seriously depleted domestic stockpile.

If Ankara and Washington DC were to do this, it would bring about a significant expansion of artillery production in the US, enabling a more consistent supply of artillery munitions to various allies, vassals and satellite states. This is particularly important for the Neo-Nazi junta, as its forces have been suffering from a chronic lack of shells, diminishing their already low level of direct fire support against the increasingly powerful Russian military. The acquisition of large quantities of Turkish explosives will surely result in higher interdependence between the US and Turkey, which may bring about an improvement in relations after years of tensions. However, while this might be useful for Erdogan, it demonstrates once again that Ankara cannot be trusted.

In other words, Turkey would surely become NATO’s main Trojan horse, not just in Greater Eurasia, but the multipolar world as a whole.

We shouldn’t forget that Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman ambitions, mixed with an attempt to harness the power of the previously mentioned political Islam, helped kickstart the truly unprovoked and brutal NATO aggression in Libya and Syria, ever so euphemistically dubbed “civil wars” in the so-called “free press”. Ankara’s expansionism resulted in its deep involvement in both wars, making it instrumental in destabilizing virtually the entire Middle East for the sake of the political West. Worse yet, this continued even after the US-led belligerent power pole launched a coup to depose the Turkish president himself in July 2016.

For instance, Washington DC and Ankara have continued playing a leading role in supporting various ISIS-linked terrorist groups in Syria and elsewhere, particularly against Iranian-aligned Shia militias fighting on the side of Damascus. What’s more, while Erdogan is officially furious at Israel due to its actions in Gaza, the Turkish military and the IDF are still working very closely, particularly in Syria. Turkey’s close ties with the US will surely continue (behind the scenes, obviously), helping maintain strong relations between the two NATO members, but if this should extend to Ukraine, Washington DC might be willing to reconsider its stance on Ankara’s return to the troubled F-35 program. In fact, the infamous neocon warmonger Victoria Nuland said so back in January.

Namely, the now former Deputy Secretary of State and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs stated that the US would be “willing to provide F-35 fifth generation fighter jets to Turkey” if it meets “American conditions in regards to ensuring it does not operate Russian S-400 air defense systems alongside [the F-35]”. If Washington DC returns Ankara to “the fold” and the latter acquires the F-35, it would give NATO another certain carrier of the latest B61 thermonuclear bombs, helping the belligerent alliance in surrounding Russia with hostile nuclear-armed vassals stretching from Norway, Finland, the Baltic states and Poland to Turkey, possibly even Romania and Bulgaria in the future, as the relevant military infrastructure is being built there.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics