In the past week Erdoğan has secured personal support from Brussels as Erdoğan is holding the key to the solution of the refugee crisis in Europe, he is forcing Brussels’ elite to accept his policy. His visit to Brussels cleared the way to grab more power, crack down on press freedom, increase the war against the Kurds and in the process abolish the democracy in Turkey. All of that without losing the support of Brussels’ elite. The bomb attack in Ankara this Saturday, will be the next pretext for Erdoğan to consolidate his power as the ruler of Turkey.
Erdoğan’s visit to Brussels was primarily to discuss the refugee crisis. When Erdoğan left Brussels many were surprised by the fact that both parties agreed to revive Turkish accession process to the European Union, without mentioning the dramatically deteriorating human right situation in Turkey. A clear sign Erdoğan is in the position to blackmail Brussels’ elite as he is holding the key to the current refugee problem. The European leaders are scared to death for the growth of the current refugee crisis in Europe.
Since the US coerces Turkey to participate in the Syrian war in July, the Syrian-Iraqi war has spilled across the boarder into Turkey. Our team tracks daily acts of war in Turkey. According to our first estimate, around one thousand people perished last month in eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq, as a consequence of the armed conflict between the Turkish army and Kurdish insurgents. Given the number of incidents, the daily attacks by Kurdish fighters in Turkey and the arming of Kurdish fighters in Iraq by the US, Germany and other Western countries, we expect the situation to deteriorate even further. We will come with more exact numbers in the coming weeks. It is no coincidence that the refugee crisis moved into Europe at the same time that Turkey became the next victim of a mix of reckless US-Europe foreign policies, ethnic conflicts, religious fanatics and scruples political ambitions.
In the heyday of NATO between 1949 and 1995, the NATO’s credo was clear: an armed attack against anyone in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against all. For NATO members this was not a superficial contract between politicians, but a contract between the populations of the member nations. NATO countries had a standing army with conscripts prepared for war. There was opposition to the organization but everyone knew the purpose and scope of the organization.
In 1999 the NATO was enlarged with Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland under the same mandate: an armed attack against any one in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against all. The 1999 enlargement annoyed Russia but did not change the spirit of the organization nor the population it relies on and has to protect.
During the 2002 Prague summit, NATO invited former Soviet republics as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania without consulting the population of its member states. While the NATO management assured these countries that they apply under the same security credo as all countries, the political reality is completely different. The willingness in Europe to fight in an ethnic border conflict in one of the former Soviet republics is very low. NATO Management has steered the organization on a slippery road, creating an organization that is not able to fulfill its promises. With the Baltic states as new member countries the NATO organization could still pretend that the emperor is not naked, but with the expansion including Georgia and Ukraine, things can unravel very rapidly.
With this expansion, Europe and the US could be sucked into a Caucasus conflict most Europeans never heard of and in countries they probably are not able to find on the map. There are no politicians in Europe who would send out their army on behalf of NATO into the Panski Gorge in case of a Russian invasion into this part of Georgia as they are chasing Chechen Jihadist.
Is the tide finally turning from fighting the symptoms to treating the cause?
The migrants that are fleeing in from the Balkan, the Middle East and Africa did not come as a huge surprise for the European politicians. For many years now are millions of people fleeing their homes. But so far, practical enough for Europe, the refugees were seeking rescue in their neighboring countries. Relatively few people succeeded in reaching the northern African countries to cross to Europe from there or to try to make a rush for the fences of Melilla or Ceuta. The EU in its effort to build “Fortress Europe” even went so far as to associate with dictator Muammar Gaddafi, with whom they agreed on building and funding refugee camps in the Libyan Sahara.
In particular Germany’s asylum law reform in 1993 did not intend to fight the cause for flight, but was solely directed towards keeping refugees far from its soil. The concept for the now infamous Dublin Convention, according to which refugees have to seek asylum in the country where they have entered the EU, has been developed in the German Ministry of Interior.
The Migration Crisis has divided EU members. The inflow of newcomers will last longer and the dissonance between Germany and the Visegrad Group will increase. There are no benefits to gain from it, except for Vladimir Putin.
The issue of immigrants and refugees is kindling European nations. Politicians have lost their senses, they are governed by their emotions. Mistakes of the past cannot be fixed and the results will be harmful for the European unity for the years ahead.
Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, known as informal Visegrad Group (V4), reject refugee quotas system1 forced by Germany and France. This will complicate the relation within the European Union in the future, signs can already be seen.
Western media, particularly the German one, are leading the campaign against their eastern neighbors. Hungary is criticized and compared to Nazis2, while they are struggling to respect the Dublin Regulations3, the European law on asylum seekers. As we have learned from last financial crisis in the USA and the debt crisis in Greece; disregarding of previous determined principles are always leading to political tragedy.
Reports on increasing Russian activity in Syria are covered by rumors about reducing support for separatists from Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Vladimir Putin most likely will not risk the game on two fronts and will shift his military attention to the Middle-East. He does so not only due to threats related directly to Islamic State (IS) and to eventual downfall of Bashar al-Assad, but also because of the fact, that the road to a victory in Ukraine leads through Damascus and Latakia.
Since September 1st the ceasefire in the eastern Ukraine has been broadly respected by both sides of the conflict. However, reported single incidents of violation have been pointed out each other by rebels1 and Ukrainian army2. Also Contact Group failed so far to agree on the pullback of heavy weapons3. Quarrels on elections in Luhansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’e Republic4 also show that political confusion will not be stopped.
Inconsistent statements of separatists leaders regarding local elections cast doubts, though. They are beating about the dates of elections, not knowing if October/November term would be better or February 21st 5. It could be a symptom of sliding ground from under feet, because Russia seems to leave the Ukraine conflict for now. Of course, political pressure will not be diluted – quite the reverse!