Does Turkey have a maritime strategy?

Admiral Mahan, the theorist of US maritime strategy, says: “Whoever rules the waves, rules the world.” The main components of US naval power, the Atlantic and Pacific fleets, were built in line with this strategy. Its powerful navy gives the US the ability to control maritime trade routes on a global scale. Beyond being a deterrent against rival states, its influence in determining the boundaries of the allied bloc's initiative should not be overlooked. 

The fact that England became the empire on which the sun never sets in the 18th and 19th centuries was due to the navy and merchant fleet it possessed. During the classical colonial era, the United Kingdom, which emerged victorious from its naval wars with Spain, was the unrivaled power of the oceans and maritime trade routes for nearly two centuries. 

The Ottoman Empire's long-standing rivalry with Venice and Spain for control of Mediterranean trade routes is based on the same reasons. There are lessons to be learned today from the struggles that cost Piri Reis his life regarding establishing bases and sovereignty in Libya, Algeria, and Tunisia, and controlling maritime trade routes to India.  

The Ottoman Empire's rise to become the decisive power in the Mediterranean, and its sovereignty over the islands that are the natural extension of the Anatolian mainland, were solidified with the Battle of Preveza (1538) and the conquest of Cyprus. In the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the loss of control over maritime trade routes and the weakening of its navy were decisive factors.

The defeat at Lepanto (1571) was the first major trauma for the Ottomans. It was the first serious blow dealt to Ottoman invincibility in the Mediterranean. The Battle of Chesma (1770), where Russia destroyed the Ottoman fleet; the Navarino incident (1827), carried out jointly by the British, French, and Russian navies, which led to the birth of the Greek state; and the Battle of Sinop (1853) by Russia are tragic documents of what it means to possess or lack naval power. 

With successive defeats, the Ottoman Empire not only suffered a loss of power and prestige but also experienced the pain and humiliation of having to watch as the islands right under its nose were occupied one by one. It is a known fact that we are far from the commercial and military naval power that a country surrounded by seas on three sides should possess. It should never be forgotten how the steps taken with the MİLGEM Project were responded to through FETÖ's Silivri conspiracy. It should not be overlooked that the purge operation carried out against the Turkish Naval Forces and Turkish sailors of all ranks in the recent past, through a weaponized judiciary and instrumentalized law, was a Postmodern Navarino incident.

Let us underline once again that the protection and defense of Turkey's rights and interests in the seas and the security of the TRNC depend on strong naval forces. The 1915 Gallipoli battles might actually never have happened. We might never have suffered so many casualties. History could have been written very differently. I can hear you saying, "So what does this mean?" If we had had a strong navy, the allied fleet could not have sailed freely all the way to the Dardanelles. A strong Turkish Navy would have met the allied fleet in Crete, and the March 18 victory would have been won off the coast of Crete. The land battles would never have taken place.

One should not confuse fairy tales with history. Fairy tales are invented, while history is lived. A lack of knowledge and confusion of consciousness to the extent of mixing history with fairy tales may suit the nature of some, but it can never be tolerated or accepted by the representatives of the Defense of Rights (Müdafaayı Hukuk) tradition!