Offener Brief an den MDR: Schluss mit der Hetze gegen Russland!

11.07.2016 • 10:52 Uhr

Quelle: Screenshot MDR

Anja Böttcher hat genug. Nachdem der MDR abermals russische Medien - darunter auch RT Deutsch - verunglimpfte, verfasste die Lehrerin einen überaus deutlichen Offenen Brief an den öffentlich-rechtlichen Sender. RT Deutsch dokumentiert das Schreiben im Wortlaut.

Sehr geehrte MDR-Redaktion,

als seit über zwanzig Jahren im Schuldienst tätige Lehrkraft mit medienwissenschaftlichem Arbeitsschwerpunkt, die während ihres Studiums auch diskursanalytisch und sprachsoziologisch zur Propaganda im Nationalsozialismus und im deutschen Kaiserreich gearbeitet hat, bin ich in hohem Grade über die unschwer erkennbare Degradierung unseres Mainstreamdiskurses zu einer aggressiv anti-russischen Feindpropaganda mit anscheinend unbegrenzter Eskalationsbereitschaft und eine an frühere Erscheinungsformen rassistischer Hetze erinnernde Reduktion des Russlandbildes hochgradig alarmiert.

Öffentliche Schulen, die dem Rechtsbestand des Grundgesetzes und der Schulgesetze ihres Bundeslandes verpflichtet sind, müssen in medienwissenschaftlichen Unterrichtsvorhaben Schülerinnen und Schülern das Handwerkzeug für die Analyse grundsätzlich jedes vorliegenden medialen Beitrags nach Kriterien vermitteln, die gänzlich unabhängig von der nationalen Herkunft des jeweiligen Senders sind. Für ein wertendes Urteil über einen Artikel oder Filmbeitrag ist von Belang, ob er eine solide Vermittlung sorgfältig recherchierter Fakten und Zusammenhänge leistet und ausgewogen begründende Kommentierungen von deskriptiven Sachdarstellungen trennt oder aber nur versucht, durch unsolide Vermengung von Vermutungen und selektiv gewählten und aus ihrem Kontext fragmentarisch herausgelösten Einzelfakten eine bloße Agenda zu propagieren.

Mehr lesen:Außer Spesen nix gewesen: ARD „fakt ab“ im PropagandakriegIm schlimmsten Falle erfolgt solches mit emotionalisierenden, auf die Konstruktion von Feindbildern zielendem Wording oder pejorativem Vokabular, um auf die Dämonisierung oder Dehumanisierung des thematisierten Darstellungsobjekts zu zielen, das dann nur noch als "target" herhalten muss.

Als schlimmstes Beispiel solcher Form der Propaganda dienen im Deutschunterricht öffentlicher Schulen Beispiele der gleichgeschalteten Presse im Nationalsozialismus.

Da Schulen zu Wissenschaftspropädeutik verpflichtet sind, empfehlen sich hierfür anerkannte Modelle wie etwa das Propagandamodell von Chomsky/Hermann, die strukturellen Beobachtungen aus Viktor Klemperers LTI zur Sprache des Nationalsozialismus oder an den Schriften des Freud-Neffen Edward Bernays orientierte Modelle, die maßgeblich für die PR von US-Konzernen wurden. Systematisch hat diese Modelle, die während des Kalten Kriegs in den USA unter tätiger Mitwirkung der CIA jahrzehntelang perfektioniert wurden, der Kognitionspsychologe Prof. Werner Mausfeld in seinem Vortrag "Warum schweigen die Lämmer? Techniken des Meinungs- und Empörungsmanagements" in anschaulichen Schaubildern dargelegt. Seine mit 380.000 Zuschauern auf Youtube wohl meist gesehene medienwissenschaftliche Vorlesung Deutschlands wird vermutlich inzwischen auch einer wachsenden Anzahl junger Menschen bekannt sein.

Umso erschreckender erscheint es zunehmend jungen wie älteren Menschen in unserem Land, dass die durch obligatorische Gebühren eigentlich dem Grundgesetz verpflichteten öffentlich-rechtlichen Sender gegen Russland eine Propaganda fahren, die strukturell der medialen Hetze gegen die Sowjetunion und "den russischen Untermenschen" im Nationalsozialismus auf frappierende Weise ähnelt.

Dies wird besonders zur Absurdität in solchen Beiträgen, die sich als Warnung vor Propaganda ausgeben, selbst aber alle Merkmale plumper Feindpropaganda aufweisen - wie etwa der folgende Beitrag auf „MDR aktuell“.

Hier werden ohne jede sachliche Argumentation oder empirische Untersuchungen pauschal mediale Beiträge des russischen Auslandssenders RT als "russische Propaganda" verschrien, was wohl einem generellen Verdammungsurteil gleichkommen soll. Nach Auffassung der verantwortlichen Redakteure erzeugt offensichtlich alleine der Ursprungsort „Russland“ einen moralischen Imperativ, jeden Versuch einer Rezeption dort publizierter Sichtweisen gefälligst zu unterlassen. Der in seiner Botschaft primitiv als "Alles Russische ist pfui!" daherkommende Kurzbeitrag gipfelt im Zitat eines deutschen Politikers, RT habe in deutschen Wohnzimmern nichts zu suchen. Ja, liebe Deutsche: Kauft bloß dem Russen nichts ab!

Dieser Tenor ist nicht nur unerträglich in seiner rassistisch-russophoben Verdammung einer Mitteilung allein wegen des russischen Ursprungs der Nachrichtenquelle (bzw. eigentlich nur ihrer Finanzierungsquelle, denn die meisten Verfasser und Moderatoren auf RT sind Mitglieder der deutschen Zivilgesellschaft), sondern auch in seinem anti-demokratischen Paternalismus gegenüber dem Zuschauer.

Weiß der MDR eigentlich noch, welcher Staatsform er zu dienen hat? Ist ihm klar, dass sich aus den mündigen Bürgern dieses Landes der Souverän unseres demokratischen Rechtsstaats konstituiert, von dem laut Artikel 20 des Grundgesetzes alle Macht ausgehen soll? Worauf beruht dann also das medial dekreditierte Wahrnehmungsverbot einer russischen Sicht auf die Welt? Nach dem Wertekodex des Grundgesetzes wären nur mediale Äußerungen zu beanstanden, die die Würde des Menschen missachten und Menschenhass aufgrund ethnischer, religiöser oder nationaler Zugehörigkeit sowie biologischer Eigenschaften verbreiten. Ich habe noch keinen RT-Beitrag mitbekommen, bei dem dies der Fall ist, oder gehört, dass irgendwer dem Sender solches vorgeworfen hat.

Mehr lesen:Der ultimative Mainstreammedien-Guide von RT Deutsch - Teil 3: Öffentlich-rechtliche SenderAngeprangert wird einzig, dass der Sender Interessen und Sichtweisen der russischen Regierung diene. Abgesehen davon, dass auch noch nie jemand nachgewiesen hat, dass dies in der Gänze für die dort veröffentlichten Beiträge gilt, wäre daran aber auch gar nichts verwerflich. Denn nach Maßstäben des Grundgesetzes darf sich jeder mündige Bürger über die Sichtwese jeder beliebigen Regierung zu jedem auf der Welt vorkommenden Problem informieren, ohne dass ein deutscher Politiker dies zu verhindern trachtet.

Gibt es also im Falle Russlands aus der Warte eines deutschen Rechtsstaats, welcher ja die Informationsfreiheit seiner Bürger und die Pressefreiheit zu seinen zentralen Säulen erhebt, ein grundgesetzlich belastbares Kriterium, ein solches Rezeptionsverbot zu propagieren? Das wäre schon merkwürdig! Denn immerhin ist Russland ein Land, das alle rechtlichen Kriterien erfüllt hat, dem Europäischen Rat anzugehören. Dies gilt weder für Saudi-Arabien noch für Katar, selbst nicht für die USA, deren Strafsystem Todesurteile kennt und die seit 15 Jahren weltweit Folterlager unterhalten, welche dem internationalen Recht widersprechen. Aber für keines dieser Länder wird mantrahaft gefordert, der gute deutsche Staatsbürger möge sich gegen deren mediale Erzeugnisse komplett immunisieren.  

Wie soll aber ein Land, nämlich Deutschland, als demokratischer Rechtsstaat funktionieren, wenn seine eigentlich öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien und seine seiner Verfassung verpflichteten Politiker sich ohne belastbare rechtliche Gründe von der Prämisse leiten lassen, ein einziger Staat, nämlich Russland, sei ein Pariah-Staat, für dessen Sicht auf die Belange der Welt ein Denkverbot für erwachsene deutsche Staatsbürger herrsche? Dass sich dies mit der pejorativen Begriffsprägung des "Russland-Verstehers" bereits vor zwei Jahren ankündigte, ändert nichts an der Tatsache, dass dieser Umstand für mündige deutsche Staatsbürger langsam hochgradig unheimlich ist. Das aber, was den Menschen da unheilvoll erscheint, ist nicht der geistige Zustand der Russischen Föderation, sondern der der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Die historisch unstrittige Tatsache, dass eine solche Dämonisierung Russlands in der deutschen Geschichte keineswegs originell ist, ist da alles andere als beruhigend. Schließlich mündete die letzte entfesselte mediale Russophobie in einem Vernichtungskrieg, der 55 Millionen Menschen das Leben kostete, davon zur Hälfte, nämlich 27,5 Millionen, Bürgern der Sowjetunion, deren größter Nachfolgestaat die Russische Föderation ist.

Auch ist es gar nicht beruhigend, dass der deutsche öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk, dessen "Alphajournalisten" zu außenpolitischen Themen nach der empirischen Untersuchung des Medienwissenschaftlers Uwe Krüger nahezu vollständig in transatlantischen Elitenetzwerken bestens organisiert sind, hierbei keinen „nationalen Alleingang“ betreibt.

Dies wird ja auch dadurch deutlich, dass, wie man unschwer an diversen Zeitungsmeldungen nachvollziehen kann, fleißig Steuergelder ausgegeben werden, um auf NATO- und EU-Ebene diverse „Taskforce“-Konstruktionen zu finanzieren, weil (alleine für den deutschsprachigen Raum) 28 öffentlich-rechtliche Fernsehsender nebst ebenso vieler öffentlich-rechtlichen Radiosender deutscher, österreichischer und schweizerischer Provenienz plus die US-amerikanischen Sender CBS und CNN zuzüglich der britischen BBC World anscheinend nicht ausreichen, um zwei bescheidene russische Internetportale, nämlich RT Deutsch und Sputniknews, an Einfluss auszugleichen.

Die mediale transatlantische Einheitsfront braucht offensichtlich, um ihre eigenen Bürger zu überzeugen (was an sich schon eine wenig auf die Mündigkeit der Bürger setzende Zielstellung ist), ernsthaft Unterstützung durch zusätzliche steuerfinanzierte Initiativen der EU und NATO, um ihre Bevölkerung davor zu schützen, nicht von der Wucht russischer Meinungsmacht hinweggespült zu werden.

Mehr lesen:"Eine Welt ohne RT wäre genau das, was sich die westlichen Kriegstreiber wünschen"Wenn ein derartig paranoider Wahn, der einer solch dramatisierenden Warnung vor „russischer Desinformation“ zugrunde liegt, in einer mit Atomwaffen bestückten Welt nicht so beängstigend wäre, müsste ein gescheiter Mensch hier eigentlich laut lachen.

Aber zum Lachen ist dem aufmerksamen mündigen Staatsbürger gar nicht mehr zumute, der bestürzt zur Kenntnis nehmen muss, dass Medienberichte und Politikeräußerungen inzwischen nach Kriterien zu funktionieren scheinen, die weder unserer Verfassung noch dem mit ihr übereinstimmenden Mehrheitswillen der deutschen Bevölkerung und schon gar nicht einem reifen Fazit aus unserer historischen Erfahrung entsprechen.

Ich möchte Sie hiermit auffordern, von dieser propagandistischen, menschen- wie friedensverachtenden Form eines feindseligen propagandistischen Kampagnenjournalismus abzusehen, der siebzig Jahre des Friedens in Europa ernsthaft zu gefährden droht.

Dafür gilt es nur folgenden Artikel des Grundgesetzes zu beachten:

Art. 26

(1) Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen werden, das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören, insbesondere die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten, sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen.

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich Ihnen gute Besserung!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Anja Böttcher

Trump and the End of NATO? By FINIAN CUNNINGHAM

| 26.07.2016 | WORLD

If Donald Trump is elected US president it will spell the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At least, that’s how a phalanx of US foreign policy pundits and establishment figures see it. Trump once again caused uproar recently with comments that were viewed as undermining a «cornerstone» of US foreign policy since the Second World War.

Ahead of accepting official nomination as the Republican party presidential candidate, the billionaire property magnate told the New York Times in an interview that, if elected, he would not automatically deploy American military forces to defend another member of NATO if it were attacked.

As the NYT noted Trump’s conditionality regarding NATO was the first time any senior American politician has uttered such a radical change in policy. It overturns «American cornerstone policy of the past 70 years».

Trump was asked whether he would defend Eastern European countries if they were attacked by Russia.

(Hypothetical, propagandistic nonsense, but let’s bear with the argument for the underlying logic that it exposes.)

Trump did not give the customary automatic, unconditional «yes» response. Rather, he said he would have to first review whether these countries had fulfilled their «obligations to us». If they had, then, he said, US forces would defend. If they hadn’t lived up to past financial commitments to NATO, then the inference was that a would-be President Trump would not order troops to defend.

The reaction to Trump’s comments was explosive. NATO’s civilian chief, Jens Stoltenberg, was evidently perplexed by Trump’s equivocal attitude. «Solidarity among allies is a key value for NATO», said the former Norwegian prime minister. «This is good for European security and good for US security. We defend one another».

Stoltenberg was just one of the many pro-NATO figures on both sides of the Atlantic who stampeded to slam Trump for his comments.

The rightwing American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations, and senior foreign policy makers within the Republican and Democrat parties all unanimously berated Trump over his views on NATO. Estonian and Latvian political leaders also expressed deep anxiety on what they saw as a withdrawal by the US from Europe’s security.

Reuters reported a joint letter from a US bi-partisan group of «national security» experts who condemned Trump’s «inflammatory remarks» for not representing the «core interests» of the United States.

«The strength of our alliances is at the core of those interests», said the group. «The United States must uphold the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s commitments to all of our allies, including Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania».

Reuters also quoted a former US ambassador to the alliance as saying that Trump’s policy means: «It’s the end of NATO».

Robert Hunter, who was NATO envoy under President Bill Clinton, added: «The essence of NATO, more than any other single factor, is the commitment of the United States of America to the security of the other 27 members».

The Los Angeles Times quoted former NATO supreme commander, US General Wesley Clark, as saying that Trump’s stance «undercuts NATO’s deterrence in Europe». Clark said that the comments showed that Trump has a fundamental misunderstanding of how the alliance works. «It will mean the end of the European Union and the collapse of the US’s largest trading partner».

The former NATO military chief also made the snide comment that Russian leader Vladimir Putin would be «happy» with Trump’s shift in defense policy. As did Hillary Clinton’s senior policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, who made the inane assertion that «Putin would be rooting for Trump» to win the November presidential election.

It is not the first time that Donald Trump has shown an irreverent disregard for NATO and other military partnerships which have been the hallmark of US foreign policy since World War Two. Previously, during the Republican primaries in March, the presidential contender told the Washington Post he would withdraw US troops from Japan, South Korea and the Middle East if regional allies did not shoulder more of the defense burden in terms of boosting financial contributions.

Trump says that his view of drawing down overseas American military forces is part of his «America First» policy. He told the New York Times this policy means: «We are going to take care of this country first before we worry about everyone else in the world».

In a certain sense, Trump’s worldview is laudable. Given the immense challenges for fixing the US economy, impoverished communities, post-industrial unemployment and crumbling infrastructure, of course it does not make sense for the US to maintain over 1,000 military bases overseas in over 100 countries.

And, as Trump has pointed out, it is the US that pays the lion’s share of the budget for its military partnerships. In the 28-member NATO alliance, the US pays 70-75 per cent of the entire budget.

But here is where Trump gets it fundamentally wrong. His premise of the United States functioning as a benevolent protector is misplaced. If that were the case then, yes, Trump’s point about the arrangement being «unfair» would be valid.

However, NATO and the US’s other military umbrellas in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, are not motivated primarily about maintaining security and peace. These military pacts are all about providing the US with a political, legal and moral rationale for intervening its forces in key geopolitical regions. The massive expenditure by the US on military alliances is really all about maintaining Washington’s hegemony over allies and perceived enemies alike. The reality is that America’s «defense» pacts are more a source of relentless tensions and conflicts. Europe and the South China Sea are testimony to that if we disabuse the notional pretensions otherwise.

In all the heated reaction to Trump’s latest comments on NATO the over-riding assumption is that the United States is a force for good, law and order and peace.

Under the headline «Trump NATO plan would be sharp break with decades-long US policy», this Reuters reportage belies the false indoctrination of what US and NATO’s purpose is actually about. It reports: «Republican foreign policy veterans and outside experts warned that the suggestion by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump that he might abandon NATO’s pledge to automatically defend all alliance members could destroy an organization that has helped keep the peace for 66 years and could invite Russian aggression».

Really? Maintaining peace for 66 years? Not if you live in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Ukraine and Syria where NATO powers have been covertly orchestrating and sponsoring conflicts.

Also note the unquestioned insinuation by Reuters that without NATO that would «invite Russian aggression».

If we return to the original question posed by the New York Times, which sparked the flurry of pro-NATO reaction, the newspaper put it to Trump like this:

«Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have fulfilled their obligations to us».

The NY Times, like so many NATO advocates who went apoplectic over Trump, is constructing its argument on an entirely false and illusory premise of «Russia’s threatening activities».

Unfortunately, it seems, Trump bought into this false premise by answering the question, even though his conditional answer has set off a firestorm among NATO and Western foreign policy establishments. Can you imagine the reaction if he had, instead, rebutted the false assertion about there even being Russian aggression?

But this fabrication of «Russian threat» is an essential part of the wider fabrication about what the US-led NATO alliance is really functioning for. It is not about defending «the free world» from Russian or Soviet «aggression», or, for that matter, from Iranian, Chinese, North Korean, or Islamic terrorist threats. In short, NATO and US military «protection» has got nothing to do with defense and peace. It is about protecting American corporate profits and hegemony.

Ever since its inception in 1949 by the US under President Truman, NATO is a construct that serves to project American presence and power around the world, as well as propping up its taxpayer-subsidized military-industrial complex. The most geopolitically vital theatre is Europe, where the European nations must be kept divided from any form of normal political and economic relations with Russia. If that were to happen, American hegemonic power, as we know it, is over. That’s what the alarmism among the NATO advocates over Trump is really about.

Trump’s declared aim of withdrawing US forces from overseas and of cutting down NATO is admirable, even if his reasoning is faulty and imbued with false notions of American benevolence.

If he were to implement such policies, then indeed the American facade of NATO might well collapse. Which would be an immeasurably good thing for restoring peaceful international relations, especially with regard to Europe and Russia, despite what the reactionary, rightwing Russophobic European states might say.

But here’s the thing. Trump does not seem to understand how deeply important NATO or US militarism elsewhere around the globe are to American hegemony under its corporate capitalist system. If and when he does actually try to implement his policy, he will encounter formidable forces that he probably isn’t aware of yet.

Without a massive popular mobilization, Trump will not be allowed to implement such a challenge to the foundational premise of modern American power. The US military-industrial-intelligence complex will see to that.

The last American president who tried to rein in the corporate power of US militarism was John F Kennedy. He was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in broad daylight by the CIA-Pentagon and their contract killers. And for 53 years, the entire American media and law enforcement establishments have brazenly covered up that shocking truth in the fashion of a «ministry of truth».

Potentially, Trump’s stance on NATO is damaging to the military alliance, and could even precipitate a terminal decline. That is why the reaction to his comments has been so fierce, and is also why he won’t be allowed to get away with such a policy if he is elected.

This is not mean, however, to sound defeatist. Of course, US militarism and its war-mongering imperialist foreign policy could be overturned. American hegemony is not divinely ordained. But such a radical, fundamental change in direction will require a massive popular movement among ordinary Americans. It will not be achieved on the basis of one fiery politician’s words.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/26/trump-and-the-end-of-nato.html

patrick cockburn: erdogan-shuts-huge-swathe-of-gulenist-institutions (The Independent)

http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/erdogan-shuts-huge-swathe-of-gulenist-institutions/

The Saker on Cup in Turkey

Syria and the Coup in Turkey THE SAKER

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 26.07.2016

[Last]  week has been marked by two major events: the USA and Russia agreed to a common plan for military cooridination in Syria and the failed coup in Turkey has been followed by a massive purge of the Turkish elites.

Syria:

The Russians had really no option but to accept working with the USA in Syria. The way in which they did this was very elegant, however: Lavrov and Kerry have agreed to a joint long-term ceasefire whose exact terms are to remain secret, which indicates to me that the Russians forced the US into concessions which the latter don’t want to be made public. How do we know that it was Russians who forced concessions on the USA and not the other way around? Simple – there was no US “leak” to the media and the Russian bombers have resumed their operation with a new intensity. Besides, it is pretty obvious that in Syria at least Moscow holds all the cards now and Kerry has therefore no means to put pressure on Russia even if he wanted to.

But the main development for Syria is still the coup in Turkey.

Turkey:

What happened in Turkey is huge. So big, in fact, that I even suspect that the numerous rumors about an Erdogan-orchestrated false flag could have been started by the US propaganda machine (since when have mainstream media outlets even discussed false flags?). Not everybody bought into the false flag theory, not Sibel Edmonds and not M. K. Bhadrakumar. Not only did these two reject the false flag theory, they also explained in detail the role of the USA in this coup. To their testimony I can only add that I have been contacted by several well-informed readers from countries neighboring Turkey who have also told me that at least a “faction” inside the USA has had advance knowledge of the coup.

There are now reports that Russia also had advanced warning and that Putin personally warned Erdogan. I won’t repost the full FARS article here, but I strongly recommend reading it: farsnews.com.

If all of the above is true, that might also explain why some have sincerely felt that this might have been a false flag. If the Russians really did warn Erdogan, then his best move would have been to let the coup begin in order to unmask all the conspirators and their sympathizers and only then to crack down on them.

The magnitude of the purge in Turkey is nothing short of amazing: Erdogan is clearly engaged on a massive and brutal campaign to ruthlessly purge entire social classes which he perceives, probably correctly, as hostile to his rule. So while we can rejoice that a US-backed coup has failed, we should have no illusions about who is now in power in Turkey: a ruthless and unpredictable megalomaniac who should never, ever, be trusted.

There are, however, objective reasons to also welcome these developments.

First and foremost, the Turkish military is now being decapitated and it will be in no condition whatsoever to try to crush the Kurdish resistance or, even less so, to invade northern Syria.

Second, Erdogan and Daesh are apparently on a collision course (the official Turkish version is that they did the airport bombing) and that means that Daesh lost a key supporter.

Third, now that the Turkish threat has been neutralized for the foreseeable future (5 years at least), Russia is in a much better position to deal with the Takfiri crazies in Syria and with their Wahabi backers in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

Fourth, there is a non-trivial possibility that Turkey will now openly declare the US/NATO/EU to be an enemy of the regime. Not only is the USA harboring the CIA-controlled Gulen, but it turns out that some of the aircraft involved in the coup took off from Incirlik. Considering that Incirlik is basically US-run, this means that the US fingerprints are all over the coup. Right now Erdogan is still too weak to take on the US and NATO, but if he succeeds in completely purging his enemies from the centers of power in Turkey, I would not put it past him to simply leave NATO completely. This is not likely, only possible, but should that happen that would be a formidable loss for the Empire.

Fifth, there are interesting conversations taking place in the public debate in Russia. Zhirinovsky, who is often used by the Kremlin to “test the waters” for various Kremlin-backed ideas, is now suggesting that Russia should form a trilateral military alliance with Iran and Turkey. Again, there are many formidable obstacles to overcome before anything like that happens but, again, this is now at least possible (maybe not an alliance, but some kind of cooperation is likely)

Sixth, for the Syrian government the failed coup is quite literally God-sent. Not that Assad and Erdogan will ever have a love-fest again, but Assad must now realize that his most formidable adversary has now been neutered and that this completely changes the strategic dynamic of the war for the liberation of Syria from the Takfiris. Add to this the agreement between Russia and the USA which, however insincere and temporary, at least precludes a direct US attack on Syria (as demanded by the 51 Neocon crazies at Foggy Bottom). Add to this the very real possibility that Trump will be in the White House next year and I would suggest that, all in all, things sure look much better today for Syria than they did just a couple of weeks ago.

Seventh, no matter what happens next, Turkey as a whole has been tremendously weakened by this coup and the subsequent purge. Not only that, but this one is far from over: Edmonds even speaks of a possible “2nd wave coup”. But even if that does not happen, and even if Erdogan remains in power, the Kurds will now be facing a much weakened enemy and might decide that it is “now or never” for them to try to free themselves form the Turkish yoke. So there is a very real possibility that Turkey will simply fall apart (again, “possibility” is not the same as “likelihood”). But since we are still far away from this possibility actually materializing, it would be premature to go there. However, even if Turkey does not break up, a much weakened Turkey is likely to have to agree to the kind of concessions which a powerful Turkey would never have accepted: this is not only true for the Kurds, but also for the Russians and Iranians. In other words, now is the ideal time to begin some very intense and far reaching negotiations to try to force Turkey to become a responsible and predictable actor in the region.

The biggest problem with all this is, of course, the rise of the kind of neo-Ottoman Islamism which Erdogan has promoted to come to power and which is now infecting large segments of the Turkish society. There is now a real risk for Turkey to go down the terrible path which Algeria had to take to deal with the FIS and, later the GIA (the big difference being that the FIS never really got to power). This is why the neo-Ottoman Islamists are now ruthlessly purging both the secular Kemalists and Islamist Gulenists (a weird de-facto alliance for sure).

Russia and Iran have to be extremely proactive in trying to “channel” Erdogan into some kind of semi-sane form of state Islamism which would not serve as a Petri dish for the kind of horrors which costs so many lives in Algeria. The good news is that Turkey certainly has the potential of finding a unique form of conservative Sunni Islam which does not have to find inspiration in the Wahabi crazies of Daesh or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Maybe Chechnia under Kadyrov could at least in some aspects inspire a modern form of modern Islamic traditionalism?

Again, the main problem is Erdogan himself. But since this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, all the countries neighboring Turkey have to accept this reality, however uncomfortable, and try to make the best of a radically new situation.

For the time being we reasonably can assume that Erdogan will prevail. If that is indeed what happens, he will be much too busy to deal with major international issues. What is certain is that Erdogan has imposed a three months long state of emergency and that he will be meeting with Putin in early August. Whether Putin “saved Erdogan” as some claim, or whether Russia just gave him advanced warning of the coup, it is pretty darn clear that Erdogan now vitally needs Putin’s support and that Putin knows that. Soon the world will find out what exactly Putin had in mind when, following the downing of the SU-24, he announced sanctions against Turkey and then added “Одними помидорами вы не отделаетесь” (you will not get away just with tomatoes). There will be a price to pay for Erdogan and Erdogan knows it. But Putin also knows that now is the time to negotiate with Erdogan, so the price will be substantial, but reasonable. At the end of the day, Russia and Turkey need each other, at least to prevent another, it would be the 13th, Russian-Turkish war.

unz.com