With which strategy, which autonomy?

As academics who speak and write in the field of Turkish foreign policy, there is a concept that has been occupying our minds for some time: Strategic autonomy. We have frequently discussed in the Turkish foreign policy literature the fact that Turkey, especially since the second half of the 2010s, has seen its relations with the West (the US, NATO, and the EU) deteriorate and has shifted toward alignment with "non-Western" countries through this concept. And we continue to discuss it...

Frankly, as I look at Turkish foreign policy from a long-term perspective, I have stated in more than one place that Turkey entering into a different search is not a new phenomenon, but rather an orientation that has emerged from time to time over the last century, to the extent permitted by the system. But I have also tried to examine some of the factors that play a role in the issue of autonomy—such as changes in the system or regional subsystems, or leadership—including the most recent one. Because approaching the subject with scientific seriousness requires this.

However, and however, I think that since last week, foreign policy has been reduced to almost a single and general factor: domestic politics. As for autonomy, for which I already find the adjective "strategic" meaningless, I feel that if it must be analyzed, it could be analyzed as "ad hoc" (momentary), but there is no need for that in this conjuncture either.

Let us explain more clearly for those who think I write too academically... Let us put strategy and autonomy aside; just the developments and news of the last week on the Turkey-US axis show that we have to deal with much larger and more fundamental problems. It is quite problematic that the US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey (referred to as Barrack in the text), citing a conversation with the US President, conveyed that Trump said regarding Turkey, "The issue is not borders, S-400s, or F-16s. The issue is legitimacy," and then, as a result of the reactions that followed, said that he meant "respectability" with this concept. Because the unit that constitutes the source of legitimacy for us is the people. What we basically understand by this is that the government's discourse, actions, and behaviors are accepted by this unit... If this is what is meant, there is no need to make a distinction between foreign policy and domestic policy. But someone needs to point out that things do not work this way in Turkey. That is to say, no other country can be a source of legitimacy for this place... If this is not the case, and if the issue is truly "respectability" as stated by Jeffrey—who has previously made remarks that should not be taken lightly about the nation-state systems in the region and has not hesitated to recommend the millet system—is the absence of this being implied? And does the US want to establish this? In either case, it is a problematic narrative and a problematic situation.

Within all this discussion, a statement came from the Kremlin spokesperson that is not directly related to this topic but could be indirectly relevant: Peskov said that Turkey, as a sovereign state, will decide for itself in which areas it will cooperate with Russia. The subject is the energy issue... Trump called on Turkey to stop purchasing energy from Russia. And furthermore, according to the Wall Street Journal, an agreement totaling 43 billion dollars, which paves the way for Turkey to purchase US liquefied natural gas, was also made before the White House meeting. Again according to the same newspaper, it is expected that Turkey's dependence on Russian gas will thus decrease, as it seeks to approach the West again in the recent period. As can be seen, the subject is the energy issue, but I found the part of Peskov's statement that specifically refers to Turkey's sovereignty interesting. Because in last week's speeches, everything from the issue of legitimacy to the subject of elections boils down to the domestic political and international meanings of the concept of "sovereignty." In short, we can even say it is the most fundamental issue...

In other words, I think none of us predicted that the subject could come to this while discussing concepts like strategy and autonomy... Turkish foreign policy is full of surprises...