“Turkey is not bluffing, it is ready for war”!

“In fact, Turkey had already proven that it would afford any conflict for its rights in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, and it was not bluffing.” wrote the well-known Turkish journalist Murat Yetkin on his blog. Yetkin is considered an influential journalist-blogger in Turkey, having been director of Hurriyet for many years.

Through his article he makes a brief analysis of the latest developments in the Greek-Turkish crisis and the possibility of conflict. Murat τetkin is appreciated in both Turkey and Greece by some journalistic circles. A Greek journalist even considers Murat Yetkin “a rare example of a journalist with a sharp mind, smiling and extremely capable of popularizing complex political or international issues.” Yetkin may be “smiling”, but in this article we have identified truths, inaccuracies, and skilful intimidating propaganda. So we read the key points:

“In fact, Turkey had already proven that it would afford any conflict for its rights in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, and it was not bluffing. In 1964, Prime Minister metsmet İnönü responded to the remarks by U.S. “President Lyndon Johnson on Cyprus, saying that Turkey would quit NATO if necessary.”

“When a fascist junta overthrew the government in Cyprus in 1974, some interpreted Turkey ‘s warnings as a bluff, but then came its military intervention. In 1996, the U.S. was forced to step in when it was realized that isles of Kardak / Imia, which were armed by Greece despite an agreement, and the Greek warships in the region were within the reach of Turkish artillery fire and could be targeted without a need for Turkish fighter jets or warships. ”

“There is enough proof to show that Turkey is always ready to burn the bridges if the issue is about Cyprus or the eastern Mediterranean, regardless of the government in charge… With this perspective, an unconditional call for dialogue may come out of the Berlin meeting. Otherwise, it seems that the tension will continue. ”

“And just keep in mind that all these started with Abdul Hamid II (1842-1918, an Ottoman Sultan generally praised by the conservative politicians in Turkey) handing over Cyprus to the U.K. without firing a single bullet but as a present for saving his throne from the Russians. That also happened with an agreement in Berlin in 1878, Those who try to despise Turkey’s founding father Atatürk and his successor metsmet İnönü, who saved the country from occupation and founded the Republic, of course, would not want us to remember this. ”

Truths and inaccuracies

Attention should be paid to the point where the journalist says that Turkey is ready “regardless of the government in charge. This is true. Whether Erdogan is at the helm today or someone else, Turkish policy does not change along its main axes. The problems with Turkey are a structural creation of the Turkish establishment and not the result of a “crazy man”.

It is of course true that Erdogan upgraded them catalytically, surpassing previous Turkish rulers in “skill”. The claims of New Democracy MP and academic expert on Greek-Turkish issues Dimitris Kairidis that “there is a comically tragic situation in Ankara” and that “Turkey is embarrassed” are untrue, if we believe at least the facts and not the varioustheories in Athens that have been refuted.

What Yetkin says about the 1964 episode (the threatening letter to Lyndon Johnson) does not correspond to the truth. At that critical juncture in US-Turkish relations, the Turks certainly could not leave NATO given the Soviet threat. When the Soviets entered Czechoslovakia, we did not see the Turks pick up their hat and leave NATO. This means that Turkey is proud, but at the same time it makes its own narratives. That’s what Yetkin does.

It is not true whether Turkey was always ready to “burn bridges”. Despite the fact that the EU has repeatedly rejected Turkey’s accession to the EEC / EU, Ankara insists on knocking on its door, while knowing that the Cyprus issue is where matters snag. Of course, he does it extremely cleverly and to its benefit, but what the journalist says is not true. These are Turkish “tricks”, which are known to all diplomatic circles.

Whether Turkey can escalate an armed conflict over Cyprus or the Eastern Mediterranean is up to Athens. Yetkin looks very optimistic without a trace of restraint. So the fact that Yetkin mentions this so comfortably is because he sees the situation clearly. Greece, being weaker – through its own responsibility – has not moved quickly to the next step: the creation of a military alliance with other states in the region. In this case, Yetkin would certainly be much more restrained as he would realize that Turkey would take the possibility of an unprecedented military clash seriously.

But the journalist’s main point, related to the fact that Turkey does not bluff, is problematic. It is questionable how an independent and anti-Erdogan journalist can be so sure that his government is not bluffing. Who can know this, except certain Turkish officials and Erdogan’s staff?

One would expect a journalist, who is supposed to be democratically inclined and wants to contribute to the peaceful debate, to avoid such propaganda and coercive speech. But Yetkin does not do so and shows how deeply regime-minded he is when he handles dangerously negative nationalist rhetoric with a glove. But in reality, the “smiling” Yetkin is trying his hand at intimidation.