Turkey's Sweden decision: The main goal is to encircle Russia and China

Melik ÇELİK - 12punto.com.tr

The legislative proposal finding the protocol for Sweden's accession to NATO appropriate has been accepted by the TBMM Foreign Affairs Committee. A 'yes' vote for Sweden's NATO membership is also expected in the General Assembly. Sweden's NATO membership, known for its support for the separatist terrorist organization, carries greater significance in international politics than it appears. Retired Rear Admiral Cem Gürdeniz and former OSCE Vice President and author Uluç Gürkan evaluated the international effects of Sweden's membership for 12punto.

'PROMISES MADE TO RUSSIA WERE NOT KEPT'

Turkey was complaining at every opportunity about the support Sweden provides to terrorist organizations. However, these complaints were not reflected in the Foreign Affairs Committee. The vote on Sweden's accession to NATO will come to the TBMM General Assembly. This has opened up a debate on both why Turkey changed its decision and the international implications of this move.

Speaking to 12punto, retired Rear Admiral Cem Gürdeniz emphasized that NATO did not keep the promises it made to Russia and that the goal is to encircle Russia and China. Gürdeniz stated the following:

“Sweden's NATO membership will undoubtedly be a very important move against Russia for the geopolitics of the Arctic Ocean, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea. When we look at Russia-NATO relations, we see the continuous eastward expansion of US and EU influence after 1999. However, as will be remembered regarding the reunification of the two Germanys, a promise was made to Russia that NATO would not expand even an inch to the east. This was not kept. For the last two centuries, the global geopolitical struggle has been between continental powers and maritime powers. Therefore, it is not desired for the Russian Federation to reach the oceans. This is the basic theory of the geopolitical system led by the US and the EU. The NATO membership of Sweden and Finland is for the encirclement of China—a continental state reaching the ocean—and Russia, which supports it. The main motivation for rushing the NATO memberships of both Scandinavian states is Russia's challenge to Anglo-Saxon maritime hegemony in the Arctic region. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) under Russian control has now opened. This area is entirely under Russia's military, political, and economic control. The Anglo-Saxon maritime will cannot tolerate this.

When we look at it, Sweden controls the Baltic Sea with Finland. Norway also controls the Barents Sea in the north. On the other hand, Finland has a 1500 km land border with Russia. Finland's deployment of NATO forces along this border poses a serious threat to Russia. While Norway was already a serious obstacle for Russia in the Barents Sea and the North Sea, now, with Sweden and Finland, the goal is to prevent its access to the Atlantic Ocean by completely encircling it from the Baltic.”

Gürdeniz emphasized that Russia, encircled by NATO, will show many reactions, such as increasing its naval buildup. Reminding that Russia has previously signaled its red lines three times, Gürdeniz said:

'THE US HAS ACHIEVED A GEOPOLITICAL VICTORY'

"Russia's access to the Atlantic through the Danish straits, moving from both Saint Petersburg and the Kaliningrad Oblast, will be seriously blocked. Following these developments, Russia's biggest reaction will be in its naval structure. The number of ships Russia will keep in its northern fleet against the naval power of Norway, Sweden, and Finland; the number of armed unmanned aerial vehicles it will use, and the number of submarines it will use will change. Along the 1500 km land front opened by Finland's NATO membership, Russia will absolutely have to deploy new air bases, ground troops, and special forces in a large area. This situation will bring serious defense expenditures for Finland, a welfare state that has been in a neutral position with Russia since World War II, and will lead to a situation where the US will be stationed in the region in parallel with the NATO Treaty. This situation will even result in Russia placing nuclear weapons on the Finnish border.”

"By taking Sweden and Finland into NATO, the US has achieved a geopolitical victory. Because Russia will be occupied with NATO in the west, it will be prevented from helping China on the Pacific front. If Ukraine and Georgia are also included in NATO, the encirclement will be complete. However, Russia has proven that this is its red line with its interventions in Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and Ukraine in 2022.”

A NEW ERA IN US POLICY

Gürdeniz also pointed out that the US has entered a new era in foreign policy with these words:

"One of the main reasons why the US ended the Global War on Terror era in 2018 and started the Great Power Competition Era is the rise of Russia in Europe and China in the Pacific and their challenge to the US.

Russia and NATO can be said to be in a hot war with the Ukraine War. Because just yesterday, a Russian landing ship in the port of Feodosia in Crimea was heavily damaged by a Ukrainian attack. This air capability was provided to Ukraine by NATO. People in Russia have also started to write that this war could evolve from a Ukraine-Russia war into a NATO-Russia war. On the other hand, the start of the events in Gaza caused the US to be caught very unprepared in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Right now, the US is experiencing a period where perhaps its political and military power is at its weakest and its reputation is in the gutter."

'NATO HATES THE TRNC'

Gürdeniz interpreted the acceptance of Sweden, which supports terrorism, into NATO by the TBMM Foreign Affairs Committee as Stockholm syndrome. Emphasizing that NATO geopolitics is a rival to Turkish geopolitics, Gürdeniz continued as follows:

“Under these conditions, the TBMM Foreign Affairs Committee accepted Sweden's NATO membership. I am sure there is a celebration in Washington, Stockholm, and Brussels. Let's be realistic. NATO geopolitics is a rival to Turkish geopolitics. Because its founder and puppeteer is the US. NATO wants a Kurdistan with access to the sea. It hates the TRNC. It wants to constantly show presence in the Black Sea against the Montreux Convention with US and EU naval forces. It is always on the side of Greece in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. 90 percent of its members are among the biggest supporters of Israel, which is committing a massacre in Gaza.

All the arms and financial supporters of the PKK process, which caused our 12 martyrs we just laid to rest, are NATO members. NATO has a leading role and support in the brutal fragmentation and interventions in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, which are the biggest reasons for the refugee influx to Turkey. Not a single statement came from NATO while the Turkish Armed Forces were being decapitated in the Ergenekon and Balyoz conspiracies. On the contrary, they were happy and hopeful for the future while the Turkish army's Atatürkist core was being destroyed. We have not used our veto power in NATO for our national interest even once until today. In an environment where calls for a caliphate are made at a Gaza rally, and calls for autonomy for Kurds in southeastern Anatolia and amnesty for Abdullah Öcalan are made in Parliament, the joint Sweden decision of the government, the opposition, and the committee was not surprising at all. Both the government and the opposition must share the same Stockholm syndrome."

‘2024 WILL BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT’

"In summary, there is no common area of interest in the geopolitical theories of NATO and Turkey that would support each other. On the contrary, NATO encourages Turkey's conflict with Iran and Russia and wants Israel to be supported under all circumstances. Therefore, under these conditions, for Turkey to say 'NATO is our everything, we are completely committed to this alliance' is for Turkey to knowingly allow itself to be wounded. It means supporting a state that supports the PKK without receiving anything in return. Moreover, it is incomprehensible that this bargaining was done in exchange for F-16 or Eurofighter jets. If Turkey is to defend its own geopolitical interests tomorrow, it will do so against the West. Let's say a conflict broke out with Greece in the Aegean due to territorial waters; expecting the US or EU countries that own Eurofighters to send us spare parts and ammunition for these jets would be a vain dream. We are facing a West that imposed sanctions on the general managers of MTA and TPAO in 2020 because Turkey was conducting seismic research within its continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, Turkey may receive F-16s or Eurofighters in the short term by approving Sweden's NATO membership. However, tomorrow, in the smallest national cause, we will face sanctions heavier than the 1964 Johnson letter. Therefore, 2024 will be very, very difficult.”

AN ECONOMIC COLD WAR

Former OSCE Vice President and author Uluç Gürkan emphasized that the US supports terrorism a thousand times more than Sweden and Finland. Stating that he expects a cold war based on an economic foundation in the future due to the effect of NATO's expansion, Gürkan said:

“NATO's borders with Russia have lengthened. Russia will undoubtedly end the war in the Donbas region and have taken it so that the event does not cover Ukraine in this regard. Beyond that, there is no need for too many precautions. Because the defense risk on Turkey's southern border has increased, and the US is not providing air power, specifically F-35s and F-16s.

In this respect, the wing of NATO connected to Turkey is in an extremely weak state. Turkey already based its decision on grounds such as their support for and ownership of terrorism. This was an extremely wrong and incomplete phenomenon. Because the US does a thousand times more of their support. It should have revealed this. Secondly, the condition for acceptance for Sweden and Finland should have been the meeting of Turkey's increasing defense risks. If we do this without a return, if we are tied to the US by an umbilical cord, we will face such troubles.

My expectation is a cold war based on an economic foundation. Ultimately, neoliberal global capitalism is dying. It has tied its fate to the rise of populist leaders. I am of the opinion that structures outside of neoliberal global capitalism will win in the long run.”

News Source: Melik Çelik