The world order, which is known as the so-called American Peace (Pax Americana), which was established on mutual balance with the Soviets after 1945, experienced its first change in 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the change in the geopolitical map of Europe in favor of the USA and the EU. The events after 1990 dragged the world into major crises and wars in every field. There is no doubt that the second change of order began with the Trump era after January 20, 2025.

Just as the Soviets voluntarily left the Warsaw Pact sphere of influence in Central and Eastern Europe after 1990 and dissolved the Soviet Union after 1991, the United States left its sphere of influence based on political, military and economic power in Europe 80 years after 1945. This means that the US has shifted its center of gravity from Europe to the area that will surround the Asia Pacific, that is, China, in the rimland geopolitical doctrine that it inherited from Britain after 1945. It also means that the U.S. has started a new, but passive, Yalta process for Russia and Europe.

The only difference between the new Yalta and the old one is that England is not included in the photo frame. The reason why British Prime Minister Churchill was next to Roosevelt and Stalin in the Yalta photo in the winter of 1945 was not Britain’s military and economic power at that time, but the owner of the old order, the so-called British Peace (Pax Brittanica). He was handing over hegemony. He was necessarily relinquishing his hosting. The two new hegemons were the United States and the Soviets. Britain would no longer be a former emperor or hegemon, but a vassal of the United States that would control the European continent. However, he would continue to use his intellectual heritage, that is, his soft power, in many areas from language to football, from maritime to banking, from finance to insurance, all over the world and especially on the USA.

In the meantime, let’s make a reminder. After 1943, when Churchill improved the situation in North Africa and the Atlantic with the help of the USA, new fronts were opened on the European Front, first through Italy (Anzio and Salerno) and then through France (Normandy), using American overseas forces. Churchill could not have imagined these victories without American military power. Nevertheless, he went to the Kremlin alone in October 1944 and made the famous “percentage agreement” with Stalin before the Yalta meeting. In a great hurry, Churchill brought Greece, where he had great interests, into the British sphere of influence in exchange of Eastern Europe for giving the to be placed under the Soviets sphere of influence. Roosevelt, on the other hand, opposed spheres of influence from the beginning and wanted the United Nations to be the decisive structure. Unlike Churchill, who saw Stalin as a geopolitical rival, Roosevelt believed that he could personally influence and negotiate with Stalin to form a postwar alliance. He thought that direct U.S.-Soviet cooperation would be more effective than Churchill’s backroom deals. After all, Churchill representing the established British oligarchy, was more experienced than the young American nomenklatura. Soon after the war, the United States and the Soviets were made enemies in all areas.

.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin met at Yalta in February 1945 to discuss their joint occupation of Germany and plans for postwar Europe. (Public Domain)

.

The Main Parameters of the Exchange

In fact, the US-led global order, which lasted for 35 years after 1990, entered a new regionalized phase with Trump’s second term as president. Trump changed the geopolitical structure that emerged after 1945 in an instant. Both the political/military decisions and the economic measures taken are like those experienced during the collapse of the Soviet Union. To understand today’s dizzying order change developments, the geopolitical axis; economies from the perspective of manufacturing and finance, technological developments; trade routes and Israel’s geopolitics should be evaluated collectively.

When the Cold War ended, the era of capitalist liberal democracy under the leadership of the United States and the Anglo-Saxon world was forced to accept the unipolar American Peace. Some have declared it the end of history. In this system, as stated by esteemed researcher Associate Professor Volkan Özdemir in his book “Türkiye in the Renewed World” (Kırmızıkedi Publications, 2025),

“The USA and the collective western would control the finance, especially the UK; China would control the production, Russia and Arab states and other resource-rich states would ensure the flow of raw materials. The U.S., on the other hand, would shape this system according to its own interests through borrowing, sanctions, embargoes, impositions and, if necessary, occupations.”

During this period, there were unexpected road accidents. First, American military power could not impose the new system. Wherever this power occupied, instead of peace and prosperity, blood and destruction followed. Secondly, Russia, which was subservient to the USA and colonized during the Yeltsin period, recovered after Putin and resisted with its military power after 2008.

This resistance set an example for other countries. Third, China has become a state that confronts the West not only with its economic growth powered by manufacturing and technological progress, but also with a large naval power on the high seas and oceans and the Belt and Road Initiative. Fourth, Russia and China have become closer in all areas in Asia, which became a nightmare of the USA after 2022. Fifth, Russia has added the Arctic Northern Route to the world’s transport networks after 2024. However, this route was outside the control of 200 years of Anglo-Saxon maritime hegemony. Sixth, the Russia-Ukraine war turned into a Russia-NATO war, and NATO was defeated. Seventh, the U.S. has been an open party to Israel’s genocidal intervention in Gaza, and has discredited itself as the state that has done the greatest damage to the rules-based world order, it defended and has found itself in the face of the global south. All these developments forced the collapsing U.S. system to make a new judgment of the situation. These were the root reasons why Trump made decisions that would change the course of history. The biggest opposition to these decisions came from globalists in the UK and the EU.

British Hostility Toward Russia

The greatest resistance to Trump’s recent decisions excluding Europe and the EU from American defense umbrella came from the UK. However, for the last 200 years, Britain has been in the position of a small but intelligent state that has ruled and influenced the giant body of the United States. Until BREXIT, the UK was making the strongest directions in the EU. Even today, even though they have left the EU, English continues to be the EU’s first language.

For Britain, the U.S. security was so great that it even kept its nuclear armament dependent on the U.S., unlike France. Trump’s claim to Canada, Britain’s former colony and closest relative state, has caused serious damage to relations. On the other hand, regardless of its status, Britain can never tolerate the presence of a continental power in Europe that would pose a threat to it. In this process, he never has a permanent friend or enemy. He can switch sides on the fly. It had allied with the Soviets against Hitler, but after 1945 the Soviets were too strong, and the United States had to be used against them. The Soviets had to be pushed to the east. As MacKinder said,

the one that dominates Eastern Europe would have the heartland that Russia now occupies. Whoever dominates here would be the ruler of the Eurasian island and therefore the world.

This should have been prevented. With this basic geopolitical motive, the industrial and financial giant USA became hostile to the Soviets with the two directions of Britain, the representative of global big capital, after 1945. The first was Churchill’s famous “1946” Fulton Iron Curtain speech, and the second was the establishment of NATO in 1949 with Britain’s mind.

Historically, Britain was hostile to Tsarist Russia and later to the Communist Soviets. The reason for this was geopolitical. The United States, on the contrary, was not hostile to the Russians. During the American Civil War (1861-1865), the Russian Empire supported the Union (Northern) forces. The Russian squadron under the command of Admiral Lessovsky reached the east coast of North America in September 1863 and remained there for seven months. This support was considered important enough to write the phrase “God bless the Russians” in the diary of the then US Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles. This move by Russia was aimed at deterring Britain and France, which supported the south. Moreover, the largest military aid to the Soviets invaded by Hitler in the Second World War was sent by the United States through the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea. However, after 1949, the Soviet Union would become the mortal enemy of the United States. The most important direction that paved the way for this would be London and Churchill.

Today, London continues to be one of the centers of international finance, following the routes of Venice, Amsterdam, London and New York. The fact that the largest foreign holder of US securities is the UK with $6.3 trillion, followed by the British money laundering ring in the Cayman Islands with $5.5 trillion, continues to make London the center of the liberal capitalist global financial oligarchy. This structure is a rival to Trump. According to American financial analyst and researcher Richard Cook, this structure is dangerous. He says:

“The globalists know that the restoration of US economic power and the adoption of an independent foreign policy by the US will threaten and even destroy their entire program of world domination. That is what is at stake. In the meantime, nothing is off the table, possibly including more assassination attempts and all sorts of dirty tricks to smear and discredit the Trump administration and Putin and Russia. This will involve more turmoil in the Middle East, as Israel is also an outpost of the British Empire. This was demonstrated by the alliance between Britain and Israel in the 1956 Suez crisis and has not changed since.

The U.S., Soviet Rivalry, and the New Colonial Era

The biggest compromise after Bretton Woods, which took place at the end of the Second World War, was that the United States would act as the gendarme of the western world and the dollar as the dominant currency. In return, the U.S. would enjoy the benefits of having a world reserve currency. Thus, the dollar could be printed far beyond other currencies without being exposed to the threat of hyperinflation, since most of these dollars would be kept abroad.

On the other hand, the Military Industrial Structure (MIC), which got out of control after US President Eisenhower in 1961, needed enemies/competitors to maintain its very profitable existence, especially in the nuclear arena. If the enemy/competitors were present, the US would allocate a share to the defense budget and armament apart from its needs. It would exploit the natural resources of these countries by creating spheres of influence to grow its economy, thanks to the dollar and the liberal capitalist system. It would put these countries in debt for their development, and in return, it would put all the resources in the country under the control of its own bankers or multinational companies, and it would use its military power against those who resisted it.

In this strategy, the U.S. tied the countries it would exploit to itself through consumption economies through the dollar, which it printed almost for free, the country under the rule of the U.S. supporters was indebted to more than it could pay with loans. The ruling elite, the army and intelligence were put under its influence, and its resources could be confiscated if it could not pay its debts. In fact, this model was a new form of 18^th century brutal colonialism. Their key difference was that the U.S. dollar was replaced by the British pound and the U.S. navy was replaced by the Royal Navy. Instead of the British nearly 50 coal/partial military bases, the United States had around 200 military bases worldwide. In response to the Soviet threat, NATO was established and produced security and placed the member states under American control. If this system made economic gains in favor of the United States, there was no problem.

Since 1949, the United States has contributed an average of 30 percent in direct financial support to NATO, more than 30 percent in military assets and more than 50 percent in declared force structure support. The Europeans, especially the Germans, who transferred the defense to the USA, both bought weapons from the US arms industry and exported the largest goods to the USA and even exported their own goods to the world through the USA.

After the end of the 1990 cold war, the neocons launched the Greater Middle East project by combining the American geopolitical and economic vision with Israel’s geopolitical goals. This project was implemented through constant wars and orange revolutions. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan were dismembered, and all their wealth, especially oil and natural gas resources, was plundered by the multinational corporations of the neoliberal oligarchic structure. During the NATO-ISAF intervention in Afghanistan (2001-2014), opium production and exports peaked, disrupting global drug markets.

.

U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.

.

On the other hand, with the post-1999 expansion, Central and Eastern European countries were made members of NATO, and these countries were made dependent on the USA in the field of defense industry. This model walked beautifully until the early 2000s. The post-1990 model of a partnership between neocon and global liberal oligarchy was ideal for multinational corporations in the United States, and especially for multinational financial companies headquartered in London. However, it was the end of the road. While the US was building defense for Europe, it had an average trade deficit of 250 billion dollars in recent years. (In total, the U.S. ran a $1.2 trillion trade deficit with its trading partners in 2024.)

However, from all this looting, the American people did not receive any added value as a reflection on their welfare. The wealth created by this plunder was transferred to the liberal capitalist oligarchic structure. The American people were on the losing side with the $2 trillion spent on the post-1990 neocon wars and nearly 5000 soldiers were lost with tens of thousands of veterans in the wars. This, combined with the chronic structural problems of the United States, began to break the fault lines between those who defended the interests of the global oligarchy and those who defended the interests of the USA as a country. The United States needed to get rid of the hump of European defense that it had undertaken for years. Trump tried to stop the U.S. from providing security to Europe at a very cheap price during his first term as president. However, he failed.

The Russia-Ukraine War and the Collapsing American System

Trump and his republican staff clearly see Biden and his neocon staff responsible for the NATO’s defeat against the Russians in the three-year Russia-Ukraine war.

To date, Zelensky, who has received $177 billion in support from the United States and Europe, has sacrificed the lives of more than 500,000 Ukrainians. More than seven million Ukrainians have fled the country. Ukraine has lost vast agricultural land and areas with rare metal resources. Even though the war logistics, which was transferred from the American mainland to European ports by sea without encountering any obstacles, was integrated with European war logistics, Russia did not take a step back. If this war had progressed to a stage that required an operation against the ships carrying war materials to Ukraine in the Atlantic using Russian submarines and these ships had been sunk, Ukraine would have withdrawn much faster. In this case, when the US trade loss of 350 billion dollars due to the war and sanctions with Russia and the military and economic aid that was wasted close to 100 billion dollars, and the 300-billion-dollar trade deficit given to Europe were put on top of each other, a hump of close to one trillion dollars emerged.

So, who was profiting this money coming out of the US coffers?

The American globalists and the liberal capitalist oligarchy under the influence of the British establishment were the winners. Trump and his MAGA team saw that this which they applied through the post-1980 globalists and liberal capitalist corporate representatives, was no longer beneficial. Thanks to Trump, the US administration is putting a stop to this model. One other fundamental problem is that the U.S. can no longer produce enough. The global status of the USA, which had a 50% manufacturing share in the world in 1945, is 16% today. Its biggest competitor, China, could not produce even 1% in 1945, while its share today is 32%. U.S. debt stocks have reached unmanageable levels with a volume of 34 trillion dollars. A third of this debt is in the hands of foreign investors such as China and the Saudis. Annual interest payments on the U.S. government’s debt are now close to $1 trillion. While the U.S. debt is increasing, it is unable to increase its revenues. The U.S is constantly selling treasury bonds to cover its 6% budget deficit. However, if investors lose confidence in U.S. bonds, bond yields could rise, making it harder to borrow.

On the other hand, the flight from the dollar continues due to the unilateral coercive economic sanctions imposed against Iran and Russia. The use of the dollar in international trade through systems such as Russia’s SPSF and China’s CIPS has decreased by a quarter. Conditions like the 1929 depression are occurring. French journalist and researcher Thierry Meyssan writes in his latest article how Trump will deal with this big problem:

“On January 21 and 22, 2025, Donald Trump brought together the central bank governors and finance ministers of the G7 at his residence at Mar-a-Lago. He is said to have greeted them by saying, No one will leave this room until we reach an agreement on the dollar. The treaty would therefore have been ratified by the Allies. The idea would be for the U.S. Treasury Department to issue government bonds that do not pay interest (these are called “zero coupons”) and will not mature for a century (i.e., cannot be cashed out for 100 years). Therefore, Washington will have to force its allies to convert US debts into “zero coupons”… Trump seeks to fundamentally restructure the U.S. debt burden by reorganizing world trade through tariffs, devaluing the dollar, and ultimately lowering the cost of borrowing, all aimed at putting U.S. industry on an equal footing with its competitors in the rest of the world.’’

Neocon Geopolitics

Under the influence of the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1991, which authorized “preemptive” warfare against any potential adversary, and the neocon geopolitics of global military dominance on all military fronts set forth by the Bush II and Obama administrations in the early 21st century, the United States focused its weight on shaping the Middle East by directing its interests toward Israeli interests. Meanwhile, NATO has advanced towards Russia’s borders after 1999. After 1991, it invaded states that stood against Israel and Zionism one by one. Between 2003 and 2025, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and Somalia have all been victims of the geopolitical shaping of Israeli security with American military power. The neocons then spent their success in the Middle East on the disintegration and weakening of Russia.

After 2004, that is, after the NATO membership of the three Baltic states and Romania and Bulgaria, Ukraine and Georgia took their share of this movement. In both states, there were attempts at the orange revolutions. The U.S. announced at the 2008 NATO Summit that both countries would become NATO members and Russia intervened. In 2008, the United States provoked Russia through Georgia, and the Georgians lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia on August 8, 2008. In 2014, they made the same provocation this time through Ukraine, and on March 18, 2014, Ukraine lost Crimea. However, without this provocation, there would have been no Russian intervention in Crimea. With the Kharkiv agreement of April 21, 2010, the lease of the Sevastopol Base in Crimea until 2047 was completed.

In 2019, the United States abandoned the paradigm of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) of post September 11, 2001, and declared the beginning of the Great Power Competition Era. This new paradigm, which was initiated during the Trump era, started the Ukraine War during Biden era by provoking Russia through NATO expansion under the neocon democrats after 2021; Taiwan was provoked and triggered an escalation with China in the Western Pacific. The neocons of the Biden era tried to gain an advantage in Eurasia during the period of great power competition by making the EU and NATO fully dependent on the USA through the Russia-Ukraine war and harming Russia. However, it has done the greatest damage to US geopolitics since 1945. Russia and China have turned to cooperation and strategic partnership in all areas.

New Balances

If we look at what Trump has done in his first 60 days, we see that a major war has been launched in the United States against the globalist neocons. We see a similar war being waged against the London-based liberal capitalist globalist oligarchy.

In particular, let us add that Washington is extremely uncomfortable with the fact that British Prime Minister Starmer signed an agreement with Zelensky shortly before Trump took office, which would transfer the control of Ukrainian mines, pipelines, ports and strategically valuable assets to the UK for 100 years. Let us remind you that there is a great resistance to Trump’s claim to Canada in the UK, especially from the Royal Family. King Charles III’s visit to the aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales in the uniform of the Admiral of Canada is a manifestation of this. Another manifest is that Britain made 180-degree opposite statements from Trump on military aid to Ukraine and continuing the war. However, the existing problem is to what extent Zelensky’s signature is valid. Because in May 2024, Zelensky’s presidential term has expired.

On the other hand, the negative statements of the USA regarding the Five Eyes Intelligence system in a short time, the interruption of the flow of intelligence to Ukraine, albeit for a short time, and the US Department of Defense’s order to the Cyber Command to stop cyber-attacks on Russia are also the manifests of the USA to the British.

So, on what basis does Britain make these statements when its economy and military power are crawling on the ground?

Because Britain, which was saved from extinction at the last moment in both world wars thanks to the USA, this time still trusts its relative, the USA, despite everything. He thinks that the United States will not give up on Britain easily. However, the United States can no longer tolerate Britain playing games in Europe by relying on its own power. While Britain supports the rooting of Russophobia in Germany, it is trying to use the historical hostility of Romania, Poland and the three Baltic Republics against Russia. In this context, we can say that they will focus on the containment of Russia through the Three Seas Initiatives (Baltic, Adriatic and Black Sea) launched in 2016 by keeping the center of gravity in Europe around Poland. If there was no Ukraine, Moldova could be used for new provocations. In terms of trade and economy, if the US implements additional tariffs to correct the trade deficit against Europe, this time China may step in for the EU. Because if the US moves away from the EU, it can naturally approach its biggest rival, China. The U.S., on the other hand, is clearly moving back to rapprochement with Russia to balance China.

In his 1997 book, The Great Chessboard, Brzezinski argued that the worst-case scenario for the United States was a rapprochement between Russia and China. The Biden administration has ensured this. Trump wants to get out of this situation. At the very least, instead of getting closer to Russia, he wants to ensure that Russia at least remains neutral in a Sino-US conflict. At the February 12, 2025, NATO Defense Ministers’ meeting, Hegseth, the US secretary of defense, said:

“Even if we are with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore and South Korea in the Pacific, we cannot balance China.”

Secretary of State Rubio said that “the order of the Second World War is dead.” They saw that this order did not contribute to the welfare of the United States, but on the contrary, it was in the interests of Europe and NATO. On the other hand, the EU and Britain want the US to fight both China and Russia, but continue as welfare states of their own, while at the same time continuing to export enough to give the US a trade surplus of $300 billion. Trump has now told Europe “it is enough.” Britain, on the other hand, is resisting the change of the order created by its own will after 1945 by taking the EU oligarchy on its side not the EU peoples. In these conditions, they say that they will continue the war with Russia until the end, despite the United States, which has set China as a geopolitical target and is approaching Russia. France, on the other hand, acts like a decapitated rooster in competition with England, not knowing what it is doing. It is incomprehensible that Macron, who has no political power left, advocates a permanent war with Russia as a representative of the liberal capitalist oligarchy, despite the economic weakness of his country and the fact that he was dealt a major blow by the USA and Britain in the AUKUS initiative.

Let us remind you that Britain and European states are the cause of both world wars. By encouraging and recognizing disintegration at an early stage, the European powers were also the main culprits of the post-1990 disappearance of Yugoslavia. Now history is repeating itself, and the Europeans, following the EU oligarchy and the British, are trying to continue a new struggle with Russia, which they will never win. It is not easy for these moves to divert their own public opinion from the welfare society to the security society and to increase their defense budgets massively. There are four countries among the 32 NATO members that contribute more than 3% of the national income to defense. If Trump does not bluff and member states do not increase their defense budgets to 5%, Europe’s situation will worsen when US cuts its contribution to NATO. Even in this case, it is impossible to understand why they are warmongering with Russia. In this context it is unrealistic to expect member states to approve EU Commission President Von Der Leyen’s 800-billion-euro defense budget target under current conditions. The U.S. no longer has the power to support the new ambitions of Europe’s egocentric and narcissistic colonial past. Europe must face this reality and establish peace, not war, with Russia.

Is It the Industry? Is It Finance?

As a result of the above analysis, it can be said that the Asia Pacific (BRICS)-dominated industrial economy led by China and the Atlantic-dominated financial economy led by the USA are in competition today. Similarly, China, whose military power is increasing day by day and Russia which is successful on the Ukrainian front against NATO, prevails over Atlantic geopolitics in Eurasian geopolitics. The US and EU oligarchy prevented Russia from getting closer to Germany but could not prevent it from getting closer to China. In this process, the opening of the Arctic Northern Route under the control of Russia for the first time in world history has turned the control of the geography of maritime transportation routes, which constitute the backbone of hegemony, upside down.

The U.S. has faced the reality of Asia, which is rising very rapidly not only in rhetoric but also in action. Although the EU has the economic power to have a say in this gigantic competition, it does not have military and political power. In manufacturing, China is arguably far ahead. To give a simple example, in 2024, China has built more merchant ships in terms of tonnage than the United States has built in the last 80 years since World War II. China and the Asia-Pacific region (BRICS) also hold 35% of the world’s known oil and gas reserves. On the other hand, the Atlantic front also has large financial assets. To give an example, according to IMF figures, the total world economic size in 2023 was at the level of 105 trillion dollars at current (nominal) prices. On the other hand, according to data from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as of the end of 2023, the total contract value of derivatives traded on over-the-counter markets was $667 trillion. In other words, there is a virtual financial economy that is more than 6 times the real-world economy. Of this amount, 126 trillion dollars is traded on the world’s stock exchanges. 60 trillion dollars, that is, half of this amount, is under the control of more than 6000 US companies. The main reason for this is not the economic power of the United States, but the fact that the dollar is the international reserve currency. Then the question is raised. Is it production power or financial power that will win the war in a large-scale conventional showdown in the future? During the Second World War, the stock exchange and global financial centers were standing in London. By the summer of 1942, however, famine had almost begun in England.

Lessons for Türkiye

Let’s say it from the beginning. Türkiye should stand by with the production power and develop this power. Türkiye is a state at the center of Eurasian geopolitics.

In the First World War, the Ottoman Empire, which had no political, military and economic power but had an enormous geography, was described as a sick man by the imperialists of the period and it was decided to be dismembered by England, Russia and France. The main reason for the outbreak of the First World War was the weakening of Germany, for the good of Britain. In the 1909 Reval meeting, the Ottoman lands and Straits were offered by Britain to Romanov’s Russia to attract Russia to its side. The Ottomans had no choice but to cooperate and ally with the other two Empires namely Austria, Hungary and the German Empires. In the end, with the USA entering the war on the side of Britain after 1917, the Ottoman Empire was aimed to be partitioned with Treaty of Sèvres, but as a result of the National Liberation War, it was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk who tore up Sèvres and ended the Ottoman Dynasty. In this process, the overthrow of the imperialist Romanov dynasty and its replacement by Lenin’s power and the establishment of cooperation with Kemalists played a vital role. This experience taught our geopolitical memory to establish balanced relations with the state to our north and not to provoke it.

On the other hand, the First World War and the War of Independence showed the imperialists, especially Britain, that it would be very expensive and difficult to fight the Turks. In the Second World War, Türkiye was able to remain neutral thanks to this legacy and the Montreux Convention. So, he achieved the hardest. Although we were on the anti-Soviet front in the Cold War and a member of NATO, we did not mediate imperialist provocations in the Black Sea. We maintained the same attitude in the post-Cold War NATO enlargement. In the Russia-Ukraine war, which has been going on for three years, Ankara has implemented the Montreux Convention’s article 19. He managed to remain neutral by enforcing this clause. It was able to establish relations with Russia at a level that would allow to build a nuclear reactor on our territory and procure a strategic air defense system. It was able to establish economic and military cooperation with China. While continuing the Customs Union Agreement with the EU, which was against us, it was able to open up to Africa and Central Asia, albeit to a limited extent. By establishing the Organization of Turkic States, it maintained the responsibility of being the only Turkish state with an outlet to the sea; contributed to the military victory of Azerbaijan over Armenia in a way that preserved its territorial integrity.

However, it has not succeeded in recognizing the TRNC, which is of geopolitical interest to the US, the EU and Israel. It could not prevent the autonomous Kurdish Administration in the north of Iraq and then the PYD/YPG in the east of the Euphrates under the protection of the USA and Israel. He failed to see that the collapse of the unitary integrity of the Syrian state would create a quagmire in our south, and he kept the sectarian perspective above geopolitics. In the Mediterranean, the Blue Homeland is abandoned, and the active protection of our interests was ceased after 2021. In the new situation, Türkiye should continue its policy of active neutrality by using the power of its geography in parallel with its historical heritage and its responsibilities under the Montreux Convention. While the UK and the EU, which keep their hostile attitudes for TRNC and the Blue Homeland over the Seville map, try to establish a Kurdish state in our south with USA and Israel, and have been dragging our citizens in visa queues for decades, we should never enter into new adventures in the military field. Support for EU security policies should not be provided without these guarantees.

In this context, it should not be forgotten that the influence of actors such as France and Italy may increase in the vacuum that will be created by the withdrawal of the USA from the Mediterranean basin. Active policies aimed at the Blue Homeland and the strengthening of the navy should be continued.

Türkiye should maintain and develop its trade and economic relations with Europe and the United States. However, in the Asian century, it should direct most of its energy to the Turkic world, Asia and Africa in all areas, and should never enter into a new security relationship with the USA and the EU without securing our geopolitical interests.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on Mavi Vatan.

Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.  

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link