Dr. Ufuk Saka writes: Historical strategies and conspiracy theories

Dr. Ufuk Saka

We love talking about conspiracy theories just as much as we love talking about politics. In fact, if we can add a pinch of conspiracy to our political discussions, what we say becomes more interesting, more entertaining, and more worth listening to. How nice.

The Turkish Language Association defines a conspiracy theory as "the sum of ideas based on the assumption that a secret, harmful trap has been set against a person, organization, or country."

So, do historical strategies serve as a source for conspiracy theories?

Given that the vast majority of historical strategies are predictable and some are already public, it is difficult to think that they could be a source for something 'secret' and a 'trap.' But when we are faced with a historical strategy imposed globally with disproportionate power, it becomes normal for such assessments to emerge.

***

Global capital does not have a specific geography or flag on a global scale, but it acts like a state. Its will emerges, for example, at the Davos summit and similar forums. In the meetings that make up such events, the topics deemed appropriate for that period by global capital are discussed and debated by its own elites.

The results are implemented and enforced in the relevant countries by political elites who were either trained by them or trained in accordance with their preferences. This is a reality, not some conspiracy theory. It is clear, it is announced, and it is explained with great fanfare in press releases and endless television talk shows. The political elites in question boast about this. For this reason, they even attribute extra importance to themselves.

So, does everything in the world always happen according to the historical strategies of global capital, always according to the whims of global capital? In other words, is everything that will happen in the future predetermined? Is everything we experience a global conspiracy, or a part or complement of a global conspiracy? Does everything in the geographies that global capital declares as targets always happen exactly as it wants? Without a doubt, no! Our famous March 1st memorandum and Turkey are not the only examples. Let us remember the Vietnam War, for example. Let us remember Afghanistan, for example, or Cuba.

***

Of course, global capital has a global historical strategy, and of course, it has very useful, very effective tools at its disposal. Global capital is capital that is active on a global scale and influential on a global scale. For example, it ensures that fighter jets are sold to the country it wants, and prevents them from being sold to the one it does not.

For example, it remembers the laws of war in the wars it chooses, and ignores war crimes in the wars it chooses. But many times, things do not go as it prefers. Sometimes, some countries in its 'scenario' may have their own historical strategies or their own preferences that cannot be in harmony with its own. Israel and the Kurds in the Middle East may be effective allies of global capital. But in the same geography, it cannot advance its regional projects despite a Turkey that is jealous of its own territorial integrity and an Iran that has military presence and influence across the entire Middle East through one tool or another.

It does not give up on its projects, but it cannot advance them either! Douglas McGregor, a former advisor to Trump, for example, explains that the US has spent 14 trillion dollars in the Middle East and has not achieved the desired result. Global capital tries very hard, but the end of the movie cannot always be in accordance with its script. In other words, history does not progress according to conspiracy theories.

***

But as we said, global capital does not give up on its projects either. It does everything it can to ensure that the historical strategy known and expressed as 'global expansion' is realized sooner or later. For example, provoking Russia into a war with Ukraine was a highly strategic move in terms of its consequences.

For many years, Finland and Sweden believed that staying away from NATO would be more correct for their national security. They preferred not to provoke Russia. This preference almost became a part of their historical strategies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Sweden renamed its policy as 'military non-alignment' and significantly reduced its defense budgets. In terms of their political institutions and democracies, Sweden and Finland rank among the most developed countries in the world.

The 'duly' provoked Russia's decision to start a war with Ukraine led to a significant and sharp differentiation in the perception of Russia by both Sweden and Finland—and undoubtedly other Nordic countries as well. It also led to a significant and sharp differentiation in the threat perceptions that inform the historical strategies of these countries.

***

Moreover, it led to such a differentiation in the perception of a population known for the most part as 'educated' and 'democratic.' The impact of the intense propaganda carried out by the countries' capital through the media they own cannot be ignored in this differentiation. However, Russia's engagement in military operations on Ukrainian soil with all its military capabilities was a kind of kickoff for the process that led to this shift in perception.

Was it a conspiracy? It was not, of course. It was a move made by global capital in the chess game of international relations, and it resulted exactly as they had foreseen. That is all!

The situation was similar after Hamas, known to have been financially supported by Israel for years, 'out of the blue(?)' attacked Israel, followed by Israel's occupation of the Gaza Strip and its continued occupation by committing relentless, open war crimes without distinguishing between civilians and children. So, it was not a conspiracy either, no. But it was, again, another move in the chess game of international relations, and they are trying to make it result as they have foreseen.

***

The move by global capital toward the Nordic countries found its response. It is not yet clear where the move made through Israel will lead. But these kinds of moves by global capital will never cease.

Global capital knows no boundaries, whether economic, military, or political. It does not care about the local preferences or local values of the countries it targets. For instance, freedoms, the rule of law, poverty, global pollution, or global desertification are of no concern to global capital. By the very nature of capitalism, it seeks to expand on a global scale and increase its profits. That is its agenda, and that is all. This situation is clearly observable.

***

So, while global civilization is visibly turning into a kind of hell, can these moves not be stopped? Or can they not be prevented? Can an appeal to reason, common sense, and conscience not be made to some of the decision-making institutions of global capital? Through which institutional tools, which global capital might actually take seriously, should this appeal be made?

Well, are there such institutional tools or instruments that represent power? Do any remain? These questions need to be worked on urgently.

However, until those answers emerge, the historical strategies of the countries targeted by global capital and the social awareness regarding these strategies become very important. Only those historical strategies represent a preventive power in the chess game of international relations, proportional to the economic, military, and political power behind them.