Friday, February 25, 2022

DEMOCRACY=DEMOCRAT
More Republicans have negative view of Biden than of Putin, poll finds

Findings from Fox News poll point to deep domestic divisions as well as splits over Biden’s handling of Ukraine crisis

Trump with Putin in Helsinki in July 2018. Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and criticised Biden. Photograph: Anatoly Maltsev/EPA


Martin Pengelly in New York
Fri 25 Feb 2022 

More Republicans have a negative view of Joe Biden than of Vladimir Putin and more Democrats have a negative view of Donald Trump than of the Russian leader, according to a new poll.

The findings point to deep domestic divisions as well as disagreement over Biden’s handling of the Ukraine crisis.

Fox News released the poll, which it said was carried out before Russia invaded Ukraine.

It said 92% of Republicans had a negative view of Biden while 81% had a negative view of Putin. Among Democrats, 87% had a negative view of Trump and 85% a negative view of Putin.

Biden has condemned the Russian invasion and introduced tough economic sanctions, in concert with other world powers.

Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and criticised Biden, on Thursday adapting a favorite golfing metaphor to claim the Russian leader was playing his counterpart “like a drum”.

Trump’s attacks are in line with those from Republicans in Congress, who claim Biden has been too weak on Russia, both as president and as vice-president under Barack Obama from 2009 to 2017.

In the Fox News poll, 56% said Biden had not been tough enough on Russia, 8% said he had been too tough and 29% said he had been about right.

Among Democrats, 42% of respondents said they wanted Biden to be tougher and 47% said his actions were about right.

Fox News said Biden’s numbers tracked closely to the same question about Trump when he was in power. In July 2018, 53% said Trump was not tough enough, 5% too tough and 35% about right.

That month, Russian election interference in Trump’s favor and his links with Moscow were the subject of an investigation in which the special counsel, Robert Mueller, ultimately said he could not say Trump did not seek to obstruct justice.

Also in July 2018, at a summit in Helsinki, Trump and Putin conducted a meeting behind closed doors and with no close aides. What was discussed is not known.

Trump was impeached in 2020, for attempting to blackmail Ukraine, withholding military aid while requesting dirt on Biden. At trial in the Senate, only one Republican, Mitt Romney, voted to convict.

As the Republican nominee for president in 2012, Romney took a more hawkish position on Russia than Obama.

Amid the Ukraine crisis, Republicans have pointed to Romney’s stance on Russia. They have been less keen to mention his vote to convict Trump over Ukraine.

The Utah senator also voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, for inciting the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.

The Fox News poll returned closely matched favorability ratings for the 45th and 46th presidents, Trump on 45% and Biden 43%.


More than half of Americans see Russia-Ukraine conflict as critical threat: Gallup

BY CHLOE FOLMAR - 02/25/22 

More than half of Americans view a Russia-Ukraine conflict as a critical threat to U.S. interests, according to a Gallup poll released Friday that was conducted before Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

As tensions with Russia rose during Gallup’s Feb. 1-17 World Affairs poll, 52 percent of Americans surveyed said that the conflict was a critical threat.

That is an 8-point increase from 2015, when 44 percent of U.S. adults said that the conflict when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine was a critical threat.

Respondents who identified as Democrats (61 percent) were slightly more likely than Republicans (56 percent) to see the conflict as a critical threat.

However, Republicans (72 percent) are more likely than Democrats (64 percent) to see Russian military efforts as a critical threat more generally. Independents were slightly less likely to view Russia as a threat, at 48 percent.

The poll found the least favorable attitude toward Russia in more than 30 years, as only 15 percent of respondents said they had a positive opinion of Russia while 85 percent viewed the country unfavorably.

The percentage of Americans who viewed Russia unfavorably grew by 8 points since numbers were recorded in 2021.

Before 2014, the majority of Americans viewed Russia favorably. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine and Russian attempts to interfere in U.S. elections have caused that number to drop significantly in past years.


Ukraine war exposes lack of support for Trump’s pro-Putin GOP wing


A Ukrainian soldier inspects fragments of a downed aircraft in Kyiv, Ukraine, on Friday.
(Vadim Zamirovsky / Associated Press)
SENIOR EDITOR
 FEB. 25, 2022 

WASHINGTON —

Since the 2016 election and Russian efforts to help Donald Trump‘s presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton, U.S. attitudes toward Moscow have featured a stew of partisan memes, personal grievances and Cold War tropes, all superimposed on top of the inevitable tensions between two big international powers.

As wars have so often done, the Russian invasion of Ukraine — predicted for weeks, but still a shock — has quickly begun to clarify who stands where.

One result has been to highlight how little support Trump’s Russia-friendly attitudes have within his party.

Some Republican elected officials have used the occasion to criticize President Biden, mostly by asserting that he has failed to take a tough enough stance. Very few have echoed the favorable comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin that in recent weeks have come from Trump and Tucker Carlson, the influential Fox News commentator.

That could have big consequences.

In the short term, Biden faces relatively little domestic opposition to ratcheting up economic sanctions against Russia. Hesitancy by European allies will constrain him more than domestic concerns. The one line the public clearly does not want to cross is any use of American troops — White House spokespeople have repeatedly stressed that Biden will not do that.

Longer term: It’s possible, although by no means certain, that widely aired pictures of civilian death and destruction in Ukraine at Putin’s orders will undermine support for Trump and other Putin apologists.

A long decline in U.S. views of Russia

The mainstream of American public opinion has flowed against Russia for most of the past decade.

During the late 1980s and 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. views of Russia were mostly favorable. Attitudes began to sour in the mid-2000s, then worsened starting in 2013, amid growing tensions between the two countries and the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea, part of Ukraine.

By the time Trump became president, Americans had an unfavorable view of Russia by about a 3-1 margin, according to the Gallup poll, which has tracked U.S. attitudes toward Russia for years.

That image only worsened during Trump’s years in office, despite the former president’s consistent warmth toward Putin — a friendliness that has generated endless speculation, but no clear explanation ever since his presidential candidacy started.

American views of Russia have only worsened since. As the Ukraine crisis intensified this month, Gallup found that 85% of Americans had an unfavorable view of Russia, with just 15% favorable. American views of Ukraine were favorable by nearly 2-1, the poll found.

In a rare bit of agreement, Republicans and Democrats had equally negative impressions of Russia, although Republicans were slightly less favorable than Democrats in their view of Ukraine, 66% versus 57%.

Dissent from that mainstream, anti-Russian view has come largely from two directions.

On the left, a fairly small, but notable, segment views U.S. involvement overseas as a continuation of past imperialist adventures. As tensions have risen in recent weeks, prominent voices in that group have argued that there’s merit in Putin’s complaints about NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They also have highlighted the uglier sides of Ukrainian nationalism, which includes militias with clearly anti-Semitic and anti-democratic programs. And they’ve called for Ukraine to agree to abandon its goal of eventually joining NATO, while also urging Russia to show restraint.

As a share of the American electorate, however, the anti-imperialist left is in the single-digit range. Support for Putin has come more from the right, from Trump and some of his allies.

After Putin recognized two portions of Ukraine as independent countries — the final pretext for invasion — Trump repeated his long-standing praise for the Russian leader, recounting to a conservative radio talk show on Tuesday how he had watched Putin’s declaration on television.

“I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent,” Trump said. “Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper.”

“They’re gonna keep peace all right,” he added. “Here’s a guy who’s very savvy.”

Trump returned to the theme the next day.

“I mean he’s taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions,” he told an audience of donors and Republican lawmakers at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, according to news reports. “I’d say that’s pretty smart.”

A highly visible coterie of pro-Trump figures have adopted the same position. Trump’s former strategist, Steve Bannon, for example, has hailed Putin as an upholder of traditional values, singling out for praise the Russian leader’s opposition to gay rights. That mirrors a strategy Putin has used of allying himself with conservative nationalists and the Russian Orthodox Church, including the passage of a law in 2013 that the Kremlin has used to shut down LGBTQ organizations and websites and ban services for gay youth.

Outside of Trump, the most high-profile conservative defender of the Russian leader has been Carlson, who, the day before Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine, called that country “a pure client state of the United States State Department.”

Americans have been told “it’s your patriotic duty to hate Vladimir Putin,” Carlson said, and as a result of that hatred, “all of us are about to suffer.”

Despite the large audiences those figures draw, they’ve had limited impact on the views of Republican voters.

A poll in January by YouGov for the Economist magazine found, for example, that only about 1 in 6 Republicans held a favorable impression of Putin; nearly half viewed him very unfavorably. Republicans were only slightly more likely than Democrats to hold a favorable view of the Russian leader.

Similarly, the latest annual survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that only a tiny share of the public in either party, 2% to 3%, viewed Russia as “an ally — a country that shares or interests and values.” About 1 in 5 Republicans and about 1 in 8 Democrats viewed Russia as “a necessary partner — a country we must strategically cooperate with.”

About two-thirds of Americans in both parties viewed Russia as either “a rival” or “an adversary,” with Republicans about evenly split between the two and Democrats favoring the more adverse description by about 2-1.

Finally, a poll taken Saturday through Wednesday by Echelon Insights, a Republican firm, found that only about 1 in 5 Republican voters thought Biden was being “too aggressive” in his approach to Ukraine. Two-thirds thought he was either being “too cautious” (44%) or “about right” (16%) while the rest were unsure.

The best gauge of public opinion, however, sometimes comes from watching how elected officials behave, and the verdict there was unequivocal.

“Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is reckless and evil,” declared House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), who only rarely shows daylight between his positions and Trump’s.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky urged Biden to “ratchet the sanctions all the way up. Don’t hold anything back.”

McConnell, of course, has tangled with Trump in the past, but he was joined by many others, including Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who has diligently positioned himself as a potential heir to the MAGA vote. Hawley declared that “Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine and invasion of its territory must be met with strong American resolve.”

Through most of Trump’s political career, he paid little price for his dalliance with Putin — most Americans didn’t much care. To some extent, that’s still true — foreign conflicts that don’t involve U.S. troops seldom rank high on voters’ list of worries.

That might begin to change now, suggested Christine Matthews, a Republican pollster and campaign strategist.

Republicans who have followed Trump’s line on Putin may reconsider “when we start to see the casualties coming from Ukraine,” she said. “I don’t know how they could not remember that he’s a really evil guy. I’m hoping this starts to create some distance from those people, or at least they shut up.”

“Tucker Carlson the other day was on [television] saying, ‘What reasons do I have to dislike Putin?’ I think we’re going to see a lot of reasons very quickly that we have not to like Putin.”


Hundreds of people sought shelter in an underground train station in Kharkiv, Ukraine, as the Russian invasion continued Thursday.
(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)

Our colleagues Nabih Bulos and Marcus Yam are on the ground in Ukraine. Here’s what they’ve been seeing.

Other Los Angeles Times staff members in Washington, Los Angeles and elsewhere have been following a host of stories about the growing war.

To single out a few:

Don Lee in Washington and Stephanie Yang in Beijing looked at the difficult choices facing Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Tracy Wilkinson examined the reasons behind Putin’s obsession with Ukraine.

Stokols reported on Biden’s latest round of sanctions.

U.S. diplomats have been in intense talks with counterparts from dozens of countries seeking votes for a tough United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but some major countries, such as India, are not yet on board, Wilkinson reported.

Jon Healey, Lee, Suhauna Hussain and Kenan Draughorne examined the potential impact on the economy nationally and in California.

Lorraine Ali reported on Carlson’s efforts to backpedal from his previous statements supporting Putin.

And Kate Linthicum, Henry Chu and David Pierson reported on the international reaction to the invasion — a reminder of the kind of war that many Europeans thought the continent had left behind.


Experts React: Ukraine’s Regional Displacement Crisis

Erol Yayboke
February 25, 2022

As many as 1.5 million people were already internally displaced within Ukraine before this week, forced from their homes during the 2014 invasion and the ensuing prolonged conflict in eastern Ukraine. The February 24 attacks are already adding to those figures, with the UN refugee agency estimating that 100,000 people have already left their homes within Ukraine. U.S. officials estimate that as many as 5 million people could be forced from home, and the European Union is preparing to host up to 1 million refugees. Those with the means to do so have piled belongings and relatives into cars and buses, largely heading to the western reaches of Ukraine or international borders. Those without means remain in harm’s way. Traffic jams have been reported across the country, with long lines of vehicles inching along from Kyiv to Zhytomyr and onto Lviv and ultimately the Polish border. Since the attacks are coming primarily from three sides and targeting critical water infrastructure and educational facilities, vulnerable Ukrainian civilians could be forced to seek refuge outside of Ukraine in historic numbers.

For now, Ukraine’s neighbors are keeping borders open and preparing to receive refugees. In Poland, nearly 5,000 U.S. troops from the 82nd Airborne Division have set up three new processing centers to add to the existing five. Polish officials have also set up a system to transport injured people to at least 120 hospitals across the country, ultimately preparing for the arrival of up to 1 million refugees in the coming days and weeks. The Polish border remains open, as do Ukraine’s borders with fellow EU members Slovakia and Romania. Even Hungary, long known for its hostile stance toward migrants and refugees, has signaled a willingness to provide humanitarian relief and refuge to Ukrainians. Moldova, a non-EU member state, has also vowed to keep its borders open to Ukrainians and provide them assistance upon arrival.

The number of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) will undoubtedly rise, potentially into the millions. Many will hope to return home soon; however, prolonged displacement is more common globally than quick return. And while no one knows how or when the conflict in Ukraine will end, very few think it will end quickly. For IDPs, this means searching for food, shelter, and other assistance while considering more permanent relocation to Lviv or wherever they can find safety. For refugees outside of Ukraine, their stay becomes more complicated the longer it lasts. The initial welcome mat laid out by Ukraine’s neighbors should be applauded; the European Union and the United States should also ensure through bilateral and multilateral assistance (and resettlement to the United States and elsewhere when possible) that the burden of sheltering refugees does not fall entirely on the countries and communities that host them. They should also work with local authorities to make sure borders remain open to vulnerable Ukrainians. But as their time away from home lengthens, Ukrainian refugees will increasingly seek more durable solutions, including access to education for children, labor markets for adults, and mobility for families within a European Union that has been reticent to allow for such access in the past. Despite the longer-term challenges to come, every effort needs to be made to keep the welcome mats in place for vulnerable Ukrainians as long as they need them.

Erol Yayboke is director of the Project on Fragility and Mobility and senior fellow with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2022 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
DON'T GO! IT'S A TRAP!
Russia To Open Talks With Ukraine In Belarus

Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, noted this in response to the request of the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, CNN reports.

BY SAHARAREPORTERS, 
NEW YORK
FEB 25, 2022

Russia is reportedly ready to send representatives to the Belarusian capital of Minsk to open talks with Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, noted this in response to the request of the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, CNN reports.

“Following Zelensky’s proposal to discuss the neutral status of Ukraine, Putin can send representatives of the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Ministry and his administration to negotiations with the Ukrainian delegation,” the readout said.

The readout added that Minsk was chosen as the venue for the proposed talk.

It has been earlier reported that the Russian forces have entered the Obolon district in the north of the city, just a few miles from its centre. The forces appeared to be closing in on Kyiv which put Ukraine under significant pressure.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian forces have reportedly pushed the Russian forces back, having blown up the city bridge to stop their advancement.


Russia's readiness for talks with demand Ukraine put down arms first is a 'farce,' experts say

Mike Snider
USA TODAY


The Kremlin said Friday it is ready to hold talks with Ukrainian officials, but only if the Ukrainian forces stand down – an offer that experts derided as a "farce" and came as Russian troops were bearing down on Ukraine's capital, Kyiv.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to send a delegation to Belarus to meet with Ukrainian officials. This came after Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he is willing to discuss a non-aligned status for the country, which could mean dropping his country's long-held bid to join NATO.

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Ukraine must put down its arms before any talks happen, according to Russia's state-controlled TASS News Agency.

"We are ready to hold talks at any moment, once the Ukrainian Armed Forces respond to our president’s call, end their resistance and lay down their arms," Lavrov said.

"This is a farce," Mattia Nelles, a Ukraine and Russia expert with the Wilson Center, a Washington-based think tank, wrote in a tweet. He noted the Ukraine is unlikely to accept such conditions.

Alexander Lanoszka, an expert on European security at the University of Waterloo in Canada, said Moscow's proposal seemed preposterous.

“I am not sure why Kyiv would ever agree to send a delegation to enemy territory when Russia plausibly wants to decapitate Ukraine's leadership and impose regime change,” he tweeted.

Russia strikes Kyiv in 'horrific' attack:Pope Francis makes unprecedented visit - live updates

Ukraine:Reports: Country bans all male citizens aged 18 to 60 from leaving the country

Chinese President Xi Jinping said he had spoken with Putin Friday and the Russian president "expressed Russia’s willingness to have high-level negotiation with Ukraine," according to a statement on the Chinese Foreign Ministry's website.

Russian military forces on Friday continued the second day of its invasion of Ukraine, as forces approached the capital city of Kyiv.

Putin on Thursday said Russia was launching its special military operation after declaring two breakaway districts in Ukraine as sovereign. He accused the Ukrainian government of being neo-Nazis who threatened those districts and Russia's own defense. “They left us no choice," he said.

Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russia's foreign intelligence agency, echoed that on Russian state television Friday, The New York Times reported. “Russia cannot allow Ukraine to become a dagger raised above us in the hands of Washington,” he said. “The special military operation will restore peace in Ukraine within a short amount of time and prevent a potential larger conflict in Europe.”

Meanwhile, Zelenskyy sought talks and support from Western countries. "When bombs fall on Kyiv, it happens in Europe, not just in Ukraine," he said. "When missiles kill our people, they kill all Europeans."

 Thich Nhat Hanh and "socially engaged Buddhism"

Ken Knabb knabb@bopsecrets.org


Millions of people around the world are mourning the recent death of
Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese Buddhist teacher and author who was
a major pioneer of "socially engaged Buddhism."

I share their love and admiration of him. I also have enough respect for
him, and for those whose radical efforts he has inspired and influenced,
to feel that they merit the clearest possible critiques:

"Strong Lessons for Engaged Buddhists"
http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/buddhists.htm

"Evading the Transformation of Reality: Engaged Buddhism at an Impasse"
http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/buddhists.htm

__________________________________________________

The BPS website features Ken Knabb's writings, his translations from
Guy Debord and the Situationist International, and a large archive of
writings by Kenneth Rexroth. 
________________________________________________________

BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
P.O. Box 1044, Berkeley CA 94701, USA
http://www.bopsecrets.org

"Making petrified conditions dance by singing them their own tune."

How Egypt’s Heritage Became a Political Battle

Islamic, Pharaonic or both? That's the dilemma facing Egyptians as they look to the past for a new sense of national identity

Magdi Abdelhadi

Magdi Abdelhadi is an Egyptian-born writer and broadcaster

February 25, 2022

How Egypt’s Heritage Became a Political Battle
In Cairo in April 2021, as part of a convoy called the Pharaohs’ Golden Parade that included 22 royal mummies, a specially designed vehicle carried the mummy of Ramesses III from the Egyptian Museum in Tahrir Square to the new National Museum of Egyptian Civilization / Islam Safwat / Getty Images

Pick up any Egyptian banknote, look at both sides of it, and you will see two competing strands of the country’s heritage. The design on one side evokes Islam, while the other evokes the Pharaohs. Both have a central place in the nation’s history but, 2,000 years since the end of the Ptolemaic dynasty and almost 1,400 years after the arrival of Islam, Egyptians still argue about their respective contributions to national identity.

It’s a dispute that the passage of time has failed to resolve, and it has come to the fore again as the Sisi regime attempts to claim some of the ancient glory for itself.

The nub of the issue is simple enough, though its ramifications are far-reaching. There’s no denying that Egypt, under the Pharaohs, had one of the greatest civilizations of the ancient world and yet — according to Islamic teaching — it was a place of “jahiliyya” (ignorance and darkness) until the Arab-Islamic conquest brought enlightenment.

Efforts to resolve this uncomfortable paradox have spawned a vast culture of apologetics over the years. For many pious Egyptians it starts with a basic question: Will the Pharaohs go to hell because they were not Muslims? On that point the answer from clerics is usually reassuring: Anyone who died before the Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad will not be punished for nonbelief, because they had no opportunity to hear the divine message.

But that’s not all. The Qur’an itself incorporates several well-known biblical narratives casting the ancient Egyptians as the bad guys. First, there’s the story of Moses and Pharaoh, then Joseph and the lustful wife of Potiphar. In both tales, the Egyptians come off badly. They are portrayed as gross, tyrannical and violent — in contrast to the wisdom and mercy shown by chaste and righteous young Hebrews.

When I mentioned that to a friend recently, he quickly rebuffed me, saying that the negative stories in scripture apply only to the Pharaoh, not the entire Egyptian people. That overlooks the fact that the Pharaohs were an integral part of the ancient culture, but my friend is in good company: none other than Zahi Hawwas, the former antiquities chief, told an Egyptian publication recently that the Qur’anic narrative “does not hurt Egypt.” There was one tyrant king there who disobeyed the order of his lord and received the punishment he deserved, Hawass said. “Egypt was ruled before him and after him by hundreds of great kings who built a human civilization whose merits can only be denied by a hateful or an ignorant person.”

Numerous writers have noted the piety of ancient Egyptians, quoting at length from ancient sacred texts such as the “Book of the Dead.” But the fact that they need to point this out, and argue the case with supporting evidence, is testimony of how deeply the Christian/Muslim/Jewish view of the ancient Egyptians has penetrated into modern Egyptian consciousness.

Another line of argument — popular with nationalists — is that ancient Egypt’s bad reputation was generated by her historic enemies and handed down through scripture. Thus, when Christianity came to Egypt, followed later by Islam, Egyptians internalized these negative portrayals and lost sight of their great past. In the nationalists’ view, that was the ultimate defeat, and the only way to become a great nation again is for Egyptians to reclaim their ancient past. While this is not currently the predominant view, it’s one that has been gaining ground in the past few years.

In contrast to the maligned history of the Pharaohs, the Arab-Islamic conquest in the seventh century A.D. is often viewed more favorably (by Muslims, if not by Egypt’s large Christian minority). The official narrative, as reflected in school textbooks, is that the Arabs liberated Egypt from Byzantine oppression and in doing so were motivated by religious zeal and lofty principles. Historians know that is not quite true. Egypt was Christian when the Arabs invaded and there were repeated revolts against the “jizya” tax imposed by the new masters on the non-Muslim population. The textbooks don’t mention how the revolts were brutally suppressed and, not surprisingly, Egyptian Christians and others sometimes complain about the terminology used to describe the conquest. The usual Arabic term — “fath” — has positive connotations, implying that the Arabs “opened” rather than subjugated Egypt.

During the struggle for independence in the first half of the 20th century, there were broadly two currents. One, which viewed Egypt primarily as a Muslim nation, sought to free it from British tutelage and return to the Ottoman sphere. The other current sought independence for Egypt as a modern nation state — which brought the country’s Coptic minority on board by prioritizing national cohesion over religious identity. Incidentally, the historical leader of this second trend, Saad Zaghloul (1858-1927) of the Wafd party, lies today in a Pharaonic-style mausoleum in central Cairo.

Since the 1950s the Arab strand of Egyptian identity has become indelibly linked to Gamal Abdel Nasser — the first real Egyptian to rule the country in well over 2,000 years. From the fourth century B.C. until the 1952 coup that brought Nasser and his fellow army officers to power, it had effectively been in the hands of foreign dynasties. Nasser almost single-handedly steered Egypt away from the European sphere and thrust it into the heart of Arab politics. It became officially known as the Arab Republic of Egypt.

Buoyed by his political triumph in the Suez Crisis of 1956, Nasser quickly assumed the mantle as the Arabs’ leader, standing up to the old colonial powers and pursuing the dream of pan-Arab unity. But that dream came quickly crashing down after the short-lived — and by all accounts disastrous — union with Syria (1958-1961). Worse disasters were to follow.

Nasser’s foray exposed the flaws of the basic idea of uniting all Arab states, from the Atlantic to the Euphrates. The sheer grandiosity and impracticality of the project should have killed off the idea once and for all. But far from it: The dream of pan-Arabism is still alive and kicking.

Nasser died in 1970, with a chunk of his country (the Sinai Peninsula) occupied by Israel. Every year on the anniversary of his death or his coup a dispute breaks out over his legacy. Critics say he was a disaster — that his brand of socialism and pan-Arabism destroyed a once-prosperous country. But he still has a big following both in Egypt and beyond, and the politics he championed still pervades the public discourse to a remarkable extent. This annual tussle is not just about economic policy and the nature of the political system Nasser created, but in a fundamental way it’s about national identity. It was Nasser who made Egypt officially “Arab.”

Today, half a century after Nasser, the Egyptian constitution has enshrined the two pillars of Egypt’s supposedly Arab-Muslim identity: Arabic is the official language and Islam is the state religion. It even pays lip service to the ideological aims of pan-Arabism as part of the constitution: “The Egyptian people are part of the Arab nation and work toward its unity.”

More visibly, though, Egypt’s architecture often tells a different story. There are Pharaonic motifs in all kinds of buildings — public and private — and some of the most conspicuous ones have been erected by the state. There are the constitutional court, built in 2001 on the eastern bank of the Nile, which resembles an ancient temple, and the monument of the unknown soldier, shaped like a hollowed-out pyramid. Constructed in 1975 during the presidency of Anwar Sadat, the monument is adjacent to the spot where Sadat was assassinated six years later. It also became his burial place.

Aside from the monument’s design, its site links ancient and modern Egypt in an uncanny but telling way. Sadat was gunned down by Islamist militants among his own soldiers, with one of them — chief assassin Khaled el-Islambouli — reportedly shouting “Death to the Pharoah!” as he pulled the trigger.

This reported phrase made the tragic moment reverberate back and forth between pre-Islamic Egypt and modern jihadism. According to testimony during the investigation, the assassins killed Sadat because two years earlier he had made peace with the Jews, i.e. the state of Israel.

The moral standing of ancient Egypt vis-à-vis the Torah or the Qur’an is not an arcane theological or archaeological topic for modern Egyptians. Far from it. It’s still debated and argued over vigorously, not least because it strikes at the heart of questions about the nature of Egypt today — its own perception of itself, its national identity. As such, the issue has serious political and cultural implications.

Attempting to reconcile the two strands of national heritage — the purely Egyptian and the Arabized/Islamized Egyptian — has the potential benefit of defusing religious tension between the majority Muslim communities and Coptic Christian minority. At times they coexist peacefully but at others less so.

Diverse arguments have been marshaled over the years in an effort to reach some accommodation. One of modern Egypt’s outstanding intellectuals, the late Professor Gamal Himdan, wrote extensively on the interface between geography, history and culture. In his much-quoted work, “The Genius of Place,” he sought to offer a rational economic explanation for the enormous centralisation of power around the Pharaohs. As any school textbook would tell you, without the Nile, there would be no Egypt. Its water was a vital resource, and a strong central power was needed to manage it.

Others have sought to rehabilitate ancient Egypt in the eyes of pious Egyptians with the self-congratulatory claim — officially promoted by the state itself — that Egypt was “the cradle of monotheism.” This refers to the short-lived cult of Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV, the Pharaoh who sought to replace ancient deities with one god (Aten, the sun disc), in the 14th century B.C. There are even some who peddle the theory that Akhenaten was none other than Moses himself.

The aim of this is to rehabilitate ancient Egypt as a place of “one god” rather than “shirk” — the term used in Islam to describe idolatry or polytheism. The truth or otherwise of the claim matters less than the idea, which seems to offer some form of redress to ancient Egypt, and comfort to contemporary Egyptian Muslims, for whom shirk is the ultimate depravity and the fastest way to hell.

One of the most bizarre examples of this apologetic trend came when Sheikh Khaled el-Guindy, a senior Islamic scholar and a member of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, stated in a religious talk show: “The Pharaohs are our fathers, and there were Muslims among them.” This was a radical departure from the orthodox view embraced by al-Azhar, Egypt’s pre-eminent seat of Sunni Islamic scholarship.

Another highly controversial attempt to put ancient Egypt on an equal footing with its Abrahamic detractors involves the mysterious “muqatta’at” — disjointed sets of Arabic letters that appear at the start of 29 chapters in the Qur’an. Their significance has never been conclusively explained but one theory (among many) can be found in a book titled “Hieroglyphs Explain the Quran,” in which its author, Saad Abdel-Muttalib, tries to establish that the letter combinations are in fact ancient Egyptian phrases with spiritual and religious meanings relevant to the Qur’anic chapter. Another unsolved mystery is how the author received approval from the Egyptian censor and the religious authorities at al-Azhar to publish such a contentious book.

It’s against this backdrop of a tortuous and contentious striving for national identity that the recent spectacular displays of ancient Egyptian culture organized by the state ought to be seen. Twice last year, the Egyptian government staged huge events — one in Cairo and the second in Luxor — to celebrate ancient Egypt in ways never seen before in the country.

The first of these, in April, was an elaborate ceremony to transfer the mummies of some 20 ancient kings and queens from the old Egyptian Museum in central Cairo to a new museum on the outskirts of the city. It was a carefully choreographed show accompanied by operatic music and dancers on the city’s streets. The occasion for the second spectacle, in November, was the opening of the ancient (and newly restored) “Avenue of Sphinxes” linking the monumental temples of Karnak and Luxor.

It was not only the grand scale of the celebrations that made these events stand out but also the pageantry, which included hymns sung in the old language, understood today only by Egyptologists. Egyptians themselves had never heard their ancient language before, and Arabic subtitles had to be provided for the TV broadcasts.

Obviously, one purpose of this was to promote tourism, which provides the state coffers with much-needed hard currency and employs millions of Egyptians, but at the opening ceremony in Luxor antiquities minister Khaled el-Enany made clear that its other aim was to “grow a sense of belonging” among the Egyptians. “We have all seen in our homes and among our friends how the children reacted to the caravan of the royal mummies, how they felt proud and felt that there was something that binds us all together, that they haven’t seen before,” the minister said.

It was a political message that many Egyptians greeted with genuine pride and growing curiosity about their distant past. On social media, which is a good barometer of opinion in Egypt, pages dedicated to ancient Egypt proliferated and people changed their Twitter handles and Facebook profiles to show related images. Artists joined the trend, too. One launched a program to teach ancient Egyptian design to schoolchildren. A young opera singer offered her own interpretation of an ancient Egyptian love song, and the government announced plans to teach hieroglyphs in primary schools — which would be a first.

For the regime, the return to ancient Egypt had its own attraction, because the long-dominant themes of Arabism and Islam have outlived their usefulness. Arabism embroiled Egypt in pan-Arab conflicts with devastating effect — whether this was the wars with Israel or the disastrous intervention of the Egyptian army in the Yemeni civil war during the 1960s. Nasserist intelligentsia and the state media on autopilot may still trumpet the pan-Arab rhetoric, but in practical terms it amounts to nothing. When Egypt signed the peace deal with Israel in 1979, it effectively turned its back on Arabism and became focused on its own problems.

Meanwhile, the twin brother of Arabism — political Islam or Islamism — has been declared the official enemy of the Egyptian state. Its foremost proponent, the Muslim Brotherhood, has been outlawed and designated a terrorist organization. Although the movement came to power through the ballot box after the overthrow of Mubarak in 2011, its failure to build a broad consensus with other political forces quickly brought all its enemies together to oust the Brotherhood’s president in 2013. The turmoil of the past decade has polarized Egypt, and there are still huge disagreements on how best to describe what happened: an uprising, a revolution, a coup, a foreign conspiracy or perhaps all of them together.

Having declared war on political Islam and bereft of Arabism as a guiding ideology, the Egyptian regime had to develop a new narrative of legitimacy — and what better way than to project the power and glory of a distant past?

The patriotic slogan adopted by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is “Tahiya Masr” — roughly equivalent to “Long Live Egypt.” Resurrecting a great and glorious past always works, especially in dictatorship or authoritarian states. Further, the promotion of ancient Egypt as a national identity that binds Egyptians together has the advantage of undermining the divisive narrative of political Islam which sees Egyptians in exclusively Islamic terms.

Resurrecting Egyptian (as opposed to Arab) nationalism taps into the pride that many genuinely feel about their ancient history, especially those who see themselves excluded from the discourse of Arabism and Islamism — such as Egypt’s sizable Coptic minority and the liberal or secular constituencies.

Naturally, not everyone was pleased by the recent Pharaonic spectacles. To some, they looked more like a coronation, reinforcing fears that Sisi has no intention of relaxing his iron grip. He was central to both events. In the first show, he was seen walking alone surrounded by glittering lights in long corridors before receiving the royal mummies in their new resting place. Yet again, there was a long sequence of him walking alone, surrounded by the massive columns of the Karnak temple.

If that’s what resurrecting ancient Egyptian identity means, critics say they want none of it: The last thing Egypt needs today is another Pharaoh. Sadly, for those still nursing the hope of freedom and democracy of the 2011 uprising, Sisi is a dictator in all but name, much like all his predecessors and arguably even worse.

Others, though, saw the prominent role played by women anchors, dancers and singers in the two spectacles as a cause for celebration. It was decidedly un-Islamic and a far cry from the image of headscarfed women promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood in what they claimed was an “Islamic Awakening.”

Countering the Brotherhood, veteran journalist Ibrahim Issa dubbed the Pharaonic spectacles an “Egyptian Awakening” on his talk show. Novelist Hamdi Abu Golayyel observed: “Egypt’s salvation lies in being close to its Egyptianness. I am not against the Arabs. But Egypt is different from the Arabs and older than the Arabs. Attaching Egypt to that Arab entity as if she was part of it has been extremely damaging.”

It was a remarkable statement from a writer who is avowedly Arab of Bedouin stock and who has built his literary career on classical Arabic — not the Egyptian vernacular, the everyday language of the Egyptians. The conflict between the two is yet another twist of the unfolding drama of national identity in Egypt. Not a year goes by without calls in Parliament to protect the purity and dominance of Arabic against the encroachment of the vernacular or foreign languages.

Arabic is the official language of Egypt, but in reality the Egyptians live with two languages: classical Arabic and the Egyptian vernacular, which is a hybrid of Arabic and the kind of Egyptian spoken when the Arabs conquered Egypt in the seventh century. The first is the language of writing — official documents, preaching, literature and news reports. But the vernacular has over the centuries become the language of everything else. It is the language of popular culture — films, drama, soaps and songs — and more recently it has become the language of populist Muslim “televangelists.” The vernacular has a rich tradition of poetry, but not novels. Yet that is beginning to change too.

The recent translation to the Egyptian vernacular of the French classic “L’Etranger,” by Albert Camus, which had been available in classical Arabic for decades, has provoked a very angry and predictable reaction from all and sundry. The new translation was a decidedly defiant statement about cultural identity, a challenge to those who look down upon the spoken language, viewing it as incapable of reaching the literary heights of Tolstoy, Balzac or T.S. Eliot. Challenging that bias is self-evidently a frightening prospect for the guardians of Arab identity.

The young translator Hector Fahmy had to endure a barrage of vitriol that ranged from contemptuous ridicule of the Egyptian vernacular to predictable claims that his translation was part of a foreign plot to undermine “Arab unity” — since the Arabic language is one of the foundations of the pan-Arab ideology.

In response to these insults Fahmy wrote on his Facebook page: “We are Egyptians, we have the right to write and translate to our Egyptian language, just as we think and dream and live in that language. I will continue to defend that right. Those who want to hurl abuse at me can continue to do so, and I will [continue to] translate.”

Developing a distinct awareness of Egyptian identity may help curtail the pervasive influence of Islamism and pan-Arabism on the public discourse. The idea of an “Egyptian Awakening” will undoubtedly make many people happy and inspire artists and intellectuals to find new forms of expression.

But can a return to ancient Egypt provide what the dominant ideologies of pan-Arabism and political Islam have so far failed to deliver: a confident and prosperous nation free from want or fear of voicing dissent? For that to happen it will take much more than glamorous pageantry — and certainly not worship of an infallible leader. It will have to translate into some palpable value for the majority of Egyptians, some 30 percent of whom live under the poverty line. Otherwise, lofty ideas about a great past will remain just that.

Six Months After the Fall of Kabul — with Fazelminallah Qazizai, Pashtana Durrani and Emran Feroz
New Lines Podcast
February 25, 2022
A Taliban fighter stands guard last month before a women’s protest at Ahmad Shah Massoud Square in Kabul / Wakil Kohsar / AFP via Getty Images

There is no work and there is no money. And this is a great challenge for the country that won’t allow Afghans to enjoy the peace that they gained after 20 years of war.

The war in Afghanistan may be over, but a humanitarian crisis threatens to be even deadlier than the 20 years of fighting. In a follow-up to our podcast episode from September, New Lines’ Faisal Al Yafai talks to Fazelminallah Qazizai, Pashtana Durrani and Emran Feroz to explore how the country’s situation has changed over six months of Taliban rule. They discuss how U.S. sanctions have left Afghans without money or food, how the Taliban govern and what will happen to their regime if the crisis continues into the spring.

At least 23 FARC dissidents killed in Colombia military operation

by Agence France-Presse
February 25, 2022



At least 23 dissidents of the former FARC guerrilla group were killed during an operation by the Colombian armed forces along the Venezuelan border, the Defense Ministry said Thursday.

The dissidents “died during military operations” carried out in the northern border department of Arauca, a narcotrafficking corridor that has seen fierce fighting between armed groups since the beginning of the year, a source in the ministry told AFP.

Among the dead was a former leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), known as “Arturo.”

Five dissidents were additionally injured, the source said.

“This operation forcefully dismantles the FARC dissident structure,” said Colombian Defense Minister Diego Molano, in a video published to social media.

Colombia signed a peace agreement in 2016 with the FARC to end a decades-long battle, but some dissident members of the group have chosen not to recognize it.

The defense minister said Arturo “took refuge in Venezuela and from there sought to reactivate the dissident groups to continue committing crimes.”

Former FARC dissidents, as well as members of Columbia’s last active guerilla group known as the ELN, have set up bases in Venezuela, where Colombian authorities say they receive government backing — an accusation Caracas denies.

Another rebel group leader known as “Ernesto” was also killed in the operation, which adds to a recent string of successful military offensives.

Last month, the president announced the “neutralization” of the rebel group leader known as “Jhonier,” while in October of last year the drug kingpin known as “Otoniel” was captured.

He is now awaiting extradition to the United States.
Kurdistan People's Democratic Movement calls for delisting of PKK

Necad Eli Qadir, a member of the Kurdistan People's Democratic Movement, demanded that the PKK be removed from the EU's list of terrorist organizations.



RÊBAZ HESEN-WEYSÎ TALLÎ
SULAYMANIYAH
Friday, 25 Feb 2022

The international initiative Justice for the Kurds called on internationally renowned figures from 30 countries to join the campaign to remove the PKK from the EU list of terrorist organizations. 1003 people joined the call and started the "PKK removed from terrorist lists" campaign on 13 December 2021.

One leg of the campaign carried out in many parts of the world is South Kurdistan.

On 29 January, many people, including intellectuals, politicians and artists from South Kurdistan, launched a campaign for the same purpose in Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk.

Support for the campaign came also from the People's Democratic Movement of Kurdistan. Movement member Necad Eli Qadir said: “Removing the PKK from this list means that the PKK's effort and desire for freedom will pave the way for peace, freedom and democracy. To be peaceful, you must be a fierce and brave fighter. Today, the PKK is a fighter struggling for peace and freedom in Kurdistan and Turkey.”

Qadir said that the success achieved in each part of Kurdistan should see the struggle as "its own success".

Calling for the PKK to be removed from the list of terrorist organizations, Qadir said: "On behalf of the People's Democratic Movement of Kurdistan, I express my support to the campaign. We demand that this freedom movement be removed from the list of terrorist organisations immediately."

HPG Commander: We will liberate Öcalan

A commander of the People’s Defence Forces (HPG), Hawar Suruç, said that guerrilla forces will put up the greatest resistance to make Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan free. “We are ready for this militarily and ideologically,” Suruç added.



ANF
BEHDINAN
Tuesday, 22 Feb 2022, 14:17

HPG’s Qandil State Commander Suruç Hawar spoke to ANF about the international conspiracy against Kurdish leader Öcalan, which marked its 23rd year, as well as the guerrilla resistance and objectives for 2022.

Suruç remarked that the resistance of the Kurdistan freedom guerrillas in 2021 was based on completely frustrating the International Conspiracy and added that the Turkish state is very likely to attack in 2022. “We are ready for possible attacks this year.”

Suruç commemorated the martyrs who set their bodies on fire for Öcalan under the motto “You cannot darken our sun” following the international conspiracy on February 15, 1999. “For every single year that Öcalan has been kept in prison for the last 23 years, we should do a self-criticism. As the guerrilla forces and PKK militants, we bear the responsibility to ensure the physical freedom of Leader Öcalan. This is our duty. Therefore, it is not enough to condemn the conspiratorial forces, the important thing is to raise the resistance against these forces and physically liberate Öcalan,” the HPG commander said.

'INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY IS COMPREHENSIVE AND FAR-REACHING'

Suruç reminded that leaders have faced conspiracies various times in the history of Kurdistan. “For this reason, the conspiracy against Öcalan is in fact directed at the Kurdish people, it is neither the first nor will it be the last one. However, the conspiracy against Öcalan is unprecedented in our history. Because previously, it was mainly about foreign powers not keeping their promises and suppressing serhildans (Kurdish uprisings). In this regard, the conspiracy against the Kurdish leader is more comprehensive and far-reaching. The Turkish state had tried to eliminate Öcalan through conspiracies and assassinations several times before, but these were frustrated owing to his prudence.”

The HPG commander pointed out that the states led by the USA, Israel, Russia and Greece were involved in the international conspiracy on February 15, 1999, stating, “We should not forget the support given by the reactionary Kurdish forces. Moreover, some betrayers and confessors, such as Åžemdi Sakık, who fled our movement, targeted Öcalan. These confessors told the Turkish state that our movement would not be eliminated without eliminating Öcalan first.”

'ÖCALAN IS A RED LINE FOR GUERILLAS'


Suruç stated that even though the international conspiracy resulted in the physical captivity of Öcalan, the conspiratorial forces could not achieve their objectives. “In fact, Turkey itself was not ready for the imprisonment of Öcalan, and Ecevit, the then Prime Minister, admitted it. Therefore, this conspiracy was also directed against the peoples of Turkey. The imperialist powers knew that Öcalan was a red line for the Kurdish people and wanted to use him to cause strife between the Turkish and Kurdish people. However, Öcalan frustrated the conspiracy and prevented wars and conflicts between peoples.”

Suruç reminded that Öcalan paved the way for democratic politics and the ceasefires, adding, “At that time, all HPG guerrillas volunteered for actions of self-sacrifice, but they were stopped at the request of Öcalan. Öcalan represents a red line for the guerrilla forces, just like the Kurdish people. He prevented larger and more effective actions since he had deeper foresight and prudence.”

'ISOLATION OF ÖCALAN


Suruç also spoke about the ongoing imprisonment of the Kurdish leader for 23 years now, saying, “When it is a matter between the oppressors and the oppressed, there is no such thing as law. Everyone turns a blind eye to what the Kurdish people are going through in the person of Öcalan. It seems that they have decided to terminate the Kurdish people in the person of Öcalan, and the conspiracy is still continuing in the same manner.”

Suruç remarked that the international conspiracy is still not completely over, even though it has not achieved its goals and objectives. Pointing to the guerrilla resistance in 2021, he continued, “The resistance mounted by the guerrilla forces, especially in Werxelê, Metîna, Zendura, Girê Sor and Åžehit Serdar Hill, was actually to frustrate the conspiracy against Öcalan. We should not forget that our fighters became martyrs in 2021 for this objective, because those who are not aware of the truth of history and the people, and those who are not loyal to Öcalan, cannot resist. The resistance spirit that Öcalan gave shape within the HPG guerrillas has remained pervasive. They thought that the guerrillas would not be able to resist if Öcalan were subjected to aggravated isolation and separated from the guerrilla forces and his people, but they were wrong about that. Even if they keep Öcalan under severe isolation, he is in our minds and souls. The Turkish state and the public should recognize this reality.”

Suruç argued that the Turkish state is likely to attack in 2022. “We are ready for possible attacks this year. Even if they attack us with all their tanks, artillery, planes and even chemical weapons, they cannot break us from our faith and our goal, and they cannot weaken our loyalty to Öcalan. If you are ready to resist attacks mentally, psychologically, militarily and ideologically, no power can defeat you.”

'GUERILLAS ARE ALSO FIGHTING AGAINST CONSPIRATORIAL POWERS'

Suruç emphasized that those who support the Turkish state by providing all kinds of weapons, specifically chemical weapons, are the very same forces that were involved in the international conspiracy. “In this respect, we are actually fighting these forces which favour the sovereign and colonialist mentality. The oppressed peoples have thus come together around the ideas of Öcalan. Scientists and world-leading experts also endorse Öcalan’s cause. This shows the level the resistance of the freedom guerrillas has reached.”

Suruç stated that the forces that do not fight and cannot resist to cope with the problems of the 21st century do not have the right to speak about their demands. "The PKK has proven itself in this matter as well,” he added.

“On the 24th year of the conspiracy, the guerrilla forces will make any sacrifice so that Öcalan is not held captive anymore. We are ready militarily and ideologically, and our people are also ready for it. We see that the oppressed peoples are also ready. We have everything, ideas and ideology for victory,” the HPG commander concluded.


War in Ukraine and Turkey’s Bayraktar TB-2 drones

Russia's military operation against Ukraine concerns Turkey as well. Why is it so?



ANF
NEWS DESK
Friday, 25 Feb 2022, 13:27

The military operation launched by Russia on February 24 is a particular concern to the Turkish state, both historically and currently. This war will affect Turkey in terms of arms sales, tourism revenues and energy supply. Turkey's arms agreement with Ukraine has already been affected.

The Russian army announced that they had destroyed 74 military facilities, 11 of which were aerial domains, on the first day of the war. Defence Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov also announced that the Russian forces destroyed three command centres, a naval base, 18 S-300 and Buk-M1 air defence radar systems, an attack helicopter and 4 Bayraktar TB-2 Turkish-made lethal drones.

Military forces of Luhansk People’s Republic, backed by Russia, also announced that they shot down two Ukrainian planes and two Bayraktar TB2s.

Ukrainian companies were supplying different sophisticated drone engines to Turkey. Bayraktar TB-2 drones have been produced in Kiev since the end of 2021. Moreover, the Baykar company, which produces TB-2, purchased land and started to build a factory in Ukraine in December. Last year, Ukrainian officials announced that they had bought 12 TB-2s and were planning to purchase 24 more.

The Moscow administration has repeatedly expressed its discomfort with the Turkish drone sale to Ukraine. Turkish drones were used especially against the rebel forces in the Donbass region, who declared a republic unilaterally.

Turkish drones, which are used effectively against forces that do not have air defence systems and aircraft, have become one of the main instruments of war crimes committed in many parts of the world, particularly in Rojava. There are international reports of war crimes committed by Turkish drones in Ethiopia and Libya. These killer robots are used for extrajudicial executions with complete impunity.

Turkey sells drones to African countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Rwanda, Nigeria and Ethiopia.

However, these drones have proved to be ineffective against a much more advanced military power such as Russia. The Ukrainian war has shown that Turkish drones have remained impotent against Russian military power.

While the war in Ukraine played havoc with the military cooperation of the Turkish state, it also triggered long-term fears of the Turkish state.

HISTORICAL AND CURRENT FEARS

The Ottomans reigned in the Crimea for a long time. Located in current Ukraine and annexed to Russia in 2014, Crimea was one of the first Ottoman strongholds to be captured by the Russians in 1783. In the century following the fall of the Crimea, the Russian empire seized western parts of Ukraine and, in 1878, Russian forces came very close to Istanbul. The Ottomans lost their Balkan provinces under the pressure of Moscow and new states were established. In the east, following a bloody war and massacres in the Caucasus, the Russian empire advanced towards Artvin and other cities in North Kurdistan such as Kars and Ardahan.

Ukraine has long been considered as a buffer zone to prevent Russian influence in the region. Ukraine’s fall is likely to lead to serious consequences for the Turkish state. However, it remains unclear how Turkey will pay for the consequences. Just like NATO, Ankara seems worried. It is argued that Ankara will avoid confrontation with Russia regardless of its economic interests, because the Turkish economy is expected to be affected much more heavily by the recent war.

The Turkish state benefited from the Ukrainian gas crisis in 2014. In order to continue the gas sales to Europe, Russia picked an alternative route to the Ukraine territory and introduced the Turkish Stream gas pipeline project. Thus, Turkey became one of the countries through which Russian gas would pass. Both the gas pipeline project and Turkey’s dependence on Russia in its hostility towards the Kurds in Syria and Rojava leave Ankara vulnerable.

Turkey to close straits to warships if it acknowledges Ukraine in state of war – ÇavuÅŸoÄŸlu


Feb 25 2022 

If Turkey legally acknowledges the situation in Ukraine constitutes a state of war, then it will shut its two straits to warships under the terms of the Montreaux Convention, Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said.

But even if Turkey does close the straits, Russia still has the right to use them, Çavuşoğlu told Hürriyet newspaper columnist Fatih Çekirge on Friday.

“If there is a demand for the ships of the warring countries to return to their bases, then it must be allowed, according to the convention,” ÇavuÅŸoÄŸlu said.

Following the launch of a Russian military operation against Ukraine on Thursday, Kyiv, which views the presence of Russian warships in the Black Sea as a threat, made an official request to Turkey to close its Çanakkale (Dardanelles) and Istanbul (Bosphorus) Straits, to Russian warships.

Kyiv also asked Turkey to close its airspace to Russia, Vasyl Bodnar, Ukraine’s ambassador to Ankara, said.

The provisions of the Montreux Convention are very clear and precise, and until today, Turkey has implemented the treaty without hesitation, Çavuşoğlu said.

Turkey can stop the passage of warships through the straits in a state of war.

“Our experts are working on the situation (to determine) if there is a state of war,” ÇavuÅŸoÄŸlu said.

Six Russian warships and a submarine passed through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits on Feb. 8, Tass reported at the time, for naval drills near Ukraine.

Turkey has control over which military vessels are allowed passage through its straits in wartime, under the 1936 treaty.

“We are against the annexation or a war,” ÇavuÅŸoÄŸlu said, reiterating Turkey’s support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

“We will continue to maintain our principled stance that is balanced but in favour of fairness and international law. We will do our best to end this military operation as soon as possible,” he added.

ÇavuÅŸoÄŸlu also said on Thursday that Turkey had finalised all preparations to evacuate its citizens from Ukraine, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported.

“We have been working on the evacuations of our citizens from the very beginning,” he said. “We are ready, but the airspace is currently closed.”

“Marine traffic is also closed at the moment,” he said, adding that Turkey can evacuate citizens by sea when it reopens.

That leaves the option of evacuating Turkish nationals overland.

“When the situation calms down, we will be able to take our citizens to Moldova, Romania and Poland by land,” he said, adding that agreements have been made with bus companies in Ukraine for this contingency.