NATO is ready to protect Turkey, but is Turkey ready to protect NATO? - NEDRET ERSANEL

NATO is ready to protect Turkey, but is Turkey ready to protect NATO?

We are in the first days in which a fabricated cease-fire is being established using made-up language way above the US-Russian alliance's qualified diplomacy development ethics.

It is unknown whether this cease-fire will collapse or be maintained, but at least it is evident that Ankara, which in principle supports the cease-fire, does not trust the Kremlin or Damascus-centered powers.

Fundamentally, the Minsk-2 agreement made before Syria (the metastasis of Ukraine) was set off by the Kremlin in Kiev with a “cessation of hostilities” agreement. US President Barack Obama's “plan B” statement refers to this too.

On the other hand, there are two indications that Russia will adhere to the agreement this time: 1. The volume of attacks increasing on Friday just before the start of the agreement at midnight. More importantly, 2. Philip Breedlove, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe general, indicating that they would attack Russia if need be.


Surely everyone knows that statements are “written as NATO, but read as US.” US generals often say that Russia is their “number one enemy,” as the Pentagon is worried about Russia's nuclear weapons.

The general's words were perceived from this point of view by Turkish media outlets. However, the general has made other statements: “The US army should be restructured in Europe,” The US should be freed from zone defense,” “There is no need to display a military stance like that of the Cold War,” but “There is no longer any need to put effort into seeing Russia as an ally,” and so forth.

We should know the conditions under which the general made these statements. He is retiring next year, he wants the yearly $3.5 billion military expenditures to continue in Europe and he makes these statements while answering questions in the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. Meaning these are not statements he made independently.


The General is asked, “How are relations with Turkey from the NATO perspective?” The answer is: “There is an evil civil war in the south of Turkey. The north of the Black Sea has once again become the fortress of Russia. Turkey has difficult problems surrounding it. But I can assure you about this: We have strong military relations with our ally Turkey.”

If only the general had said something about Chief of Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar, with whom he said he had “an unbelievable cooperation and personal relationship,” and his visits to certain countries, the coordinates and reasons. (There is an issue we can reassure him about; Gen. Akar does not like statements like “an unbelievable cooperation and personal relationship.”)

Let's take a look at the US Secretary of State John Kerry's responses to the House of Representatives during another committee, since we have discussed the statements of the Commander of Allied Forces in Europe.

Kerry: “We are very sensitive to Turkey's worries on the connection between the PKK and the YPG. We are discussing the issue with them. We should respect Turkey's concerns, we do, and believe we do.”

But we do not believe this.

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook: “The US's attitude towards the YPG will not change. We will continue to think differently from Turkey on this issue.” (“Pentagon: We will continue to think differently from Turkey on this issue,” February 24, Hürriyet.)

I would like to underline a statement Kerry made, which was probably overlooked by our Kurdish “friends” in the region and country: “It is important that the short-term cooperation with Kurds makes progress without creating other problems, as these will cause long-term difficulties in the region for all of us.”


Not much emphasis was placed on complications created by the Tehran influence in Damascus. Do you think Kerry is trying to touch on the following: “A great number of soldiers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Forces has withdrawn from Syria. Ayatollah Khamenei withdrew his soldiers, thus their presence has decreased.”

Interesting... I wonder who booted them from Syria? Another Iran within Iran?

Kerry was asked about the Muslim Brotherhood being listed as a terror organization. His answer was: “It is hard to put everyone in the same equation, but some of the Muslim Brotherhood members are engaged in violence.”

Whatever he says about the People's Protection Units (YPG), he says the same things about the Muslim Brotherhood. This tells us something about the US.

Again on Friday, an unnamed US official said, “The US is concerned about the PYD's land reclamation and the support it gives the PKK. If Turkey provides concrete information about the PKK-PYD relation, then the support given to the PYD can be re-assessed.”

This is another lie. Is it possible not to know the relationship between the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the Democratic Union Party (PYD)? (“This relationship has been recorded in their own intelligence reports.”) If one day the US decides to discard the PYD, it will be because they no longer need them. As a matter of fact, the above statement is like a piece of advice for the PYD/YPG: “Do not enter parts of Syria which will upset Turkey, do not be seen with the PKK.”

It is best to think about a statement President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's spokesman İbrahim Kalın made in his latest press conference: “Those who insist on not seeing the relationship between the PKK and the YPG have other plans.”


Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.