Are the days when Türkiye was persuaded using simple diplomatic maneuvers history, or have a few word plays once again revealed the limits of our power? It can be said that in terms of our mindset, which has been shaped based on the contradiction between the ground and the negotiation table, the new developments are highly complicated. Negotiations pertaining to Sweden and Finland’s invitation to NATO membership have also exposed that recent history will continue to haunt us.
Those following the negotiations from a U.S. and Europe-based perspective saw the memorandum as a result that will allow them room to feel relief. It was long obvious that they couldn’t care less about the tensions rising from the contradiction between the ground and the negotiation table metaphor. Hence, they naturally followed with great concern the developments regarding Türkiye's placement of Sweden and Finland in the category of pro-terrorist countries. So, when the result came out, they thought they would be relieved. In fact, they displayed their delight with statements along the lines of, “If Türkiye was eventually going to say yes to Sweden and Finland, then why did it cause so much trouble.” According to them, Türkiye had supposedly taken a conflicting approach – it was shameful towards the U.S. and Europe.
There is no need to say that those who see the developments from the U.S. and Europe’s perspectives are misinterpreting Türkiye's decision regarding Sweden and Finland. As can be easily seen by the careful eye, the real tension between the ground and the table applies to this group. They have shown how critical it is to feel relief with the delusion that they won at the table what they lost on the ground. Yes, in the home stretch, Türkiye removed the obstacles preventing Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership, but it was revealed that these countries have no morality regarding primary ideas and concepts. They were compelled to say they supported terrorists due to their fear of Russia, and that they will take a new position against terrorism. This means the end of support for those in our midst. Surely the developments in the last decade need to be analyzed from a different perspective. They intervened simultaneously in Egypt and Türkiye, and they supported the new administration that openly disregarded democracy. Then, as of that day, those in our midst accused President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of acting “irrationally,” showing that they are truly pro-Atlantic. Hence, there is no harm in them feeling relief today.
However, it can be said that the current period is quite confusing with respect to the groups besides the pro-Atlantic, whose minds are shaped in accordance with the contradictions between the ground and the table. The process reached was stopped at a certain point with the deals made despite all the efforts made to collapse the terror corridor in northern Syria, giving the sense that we reached a permanent solution. This applied to Nagorno-Karabakh as well. It is no surprise that having to pause for a moment recalled the ground and table metaphor. But because Türkiye continues its pursuits in the north of both Syria and Iraq, as well as other regions, we are not talking about any setbacks or losses. Therefore, it has been revealed that the days when Türkiye could be persuaded through diplomatic maneuvers at the table have become history. Thanks to its power on the ground, Türkiye is able to progress to a further point in matters it is involved as a party, and this brings to the forefront time-dependent issues.
The major and permanent changes that are taking place in the Atlantic-based world in the last decade need to be acknowledged. Sweden and Finland’s promise that they will take a position against the terrorist organizations dooming the Turkish and Islamic region to a deadlock is quite important. This is implicit acceptance of their support of terrorist organizations. The question about what legal outcomes will emerge going back from this will be answered by the relevant groups, but it can be said that this process will have an ideological effect from this point onward. The intelligentsia of the Atlantic world needs to answer “based on what grounds the terrorist organizations were embraced and supported.” This is also a question that needs to be answered by the intelligentsia in our midst, who have no agenda other than to focus on the reasons behind the Islamic world’s regression. There is an opinion they accept and they too need to deal with this “question.”
So, why did they support terrorist organizations? They need to provide a moral answer to this question. But besides this, they at least need to answer “how?” as well. After all this, they still need to answer for their own terrorism.