The Russian-Turkish conflict is reflected not only in the military, political and economic tension between the two countries but also in the Russian media, which expresses extreme hostility towards Turkey and its president.
This is evident, for example, in articles in English published recently on the Russian websites NEO[1] and Pravda.[2] One of these articles cites "a leading military expert" as saying that, in the event of a war between the two countries, "Russia will have to use nuclear weapons immediately, because the existence of the nation will be at stake." The others focus on Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, presenting him as an enabler and supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS) and calling him a "madman" and a "murderer." One even suggests that Turkey was "a prime mover in the [November 13] Paris attack."
The following are excerpts from the articles.
The Russian bear stamps out terror, but
Erdogan prepares to stab it in the back (Sputniknews.com, November 24, 2015)
'It Would Be A Mistake For Russia Not To Use Nuclear Weapons' In A War With Turkey
A Pravda.ru article titled "'Scenarios For Real War Between Russia And Turkey" states:
"The possibility of a full-fledged war between Russia and Turkey has been a talk of the day for conspiracy theorists, analysts, couch warriors and experts on international politics for several weeks already... Let's assume that a real war sparks between Russia and Turkey (NATO) - what kind of war would it be? What results would it bring?
"Politonline.ru[3] discussed the topic with leading military experts that follow various approaches to international armed conflicts.
"A leading expert of the Center for Military and Political Studies,[4] Mikhail Alexandrov, is convinced that in case of a real war, Russia will have to use nuclear weapons immediately, because the existence of the nation will be at stake.
"'It would be a mistake for Russia not to use nuclear weapons in this case,' [he said]. 'The West and Turkey will try to drag us into a war such as the Crimean war, where escalation will be slow, combat actions in the Caucasus will erupt, and the Russian group in Syria will be destroyed. The West will be helping Turkey - there will be military units and state-of-the-art aviation deployed there. It will be a war of the wearing-out strategy', he said.
"'From my point of view, should the war with Turkey start, it must be a determined, ambitious and quick war. Russia will have to strike a nuclear blow on main infrastructure and military targets in Turkey immediately'
"'During the first few hours of this war, Russia must destroy the entire military infrastructure of Turkey', Mikhail Alexandrov said. 'One does not even have to use ballistic missiles in this strike - Iskander-M with nuclear warheads would be enough. As soon as the military infrastructure is destroyed, the Russian troops will go and take the area of ÔÇïÔÇïthe straits', he added.
"'The West will not even have time to do anything. European countries will be so horrified that they will not even dare to intervene. The Americans will face a choice - either they begin a strategic nuclear war against Russia or not. As a result, Russia will take the area of ÔÇïÔÇïthe straits, and the rest will be left to Turkey', said the expert.
"In turn, non-nuclear scenario of a hypothetical possibility, but deputy head of the Tauric information-analytical center at Russian Institute for Strategic Studies,[5] Sergey Ermakov, suggested a non-nuclear scenario.
"'Hopefully, the real conflict will not happen. Using nuclear weapons is an extreme option. As for a regional war, there are non-military tools in the region. There are many anti-Turkish players in the region. In the case of a military conflict, the Kurds will rip the region to pieces, so for Turkey, a war is a game not even with the zero, but with a negative sum', he said.
"'If Turkey provokes the conflict, NATO may not resort to the fifth article. Aggression is one thing, but a country asking for a conflict and pulling NATO into it is another thing. In such cases, NATO tries not to get involved', Sergei Ermakov said.
"'No one wants to get involved in a direct military conflict with Russia. This conflict is fraught with a nuclear war and a global tragedy', he added."[6]
'The Leader Of The Turkish Nation Is Not Just An Islamist, He's A Supporter Of International Terrorism"
An article on NEO titled "What Fate Awaits Turkey?" states:
"It is now clear that Tayyip Erdogan's political career is heading to a closure, slowly but surely. He had a chance of saving it if he had the courage to immediately offer his apologies to Moscow after the downing of the Russian Su-24 bomber over Syria, that was in fact heading away from Turkey, not toward it.
"Instead, he got tangled in a web of ridiculous lies and explanations, all while being rude to Russia. On top of it all, he framed Washington, by trying to excuse the actions of the Turkish Air Force with alleged orders he personally received from Barack Obama at the G20 summit held in Antalya.
"But even with his back against the wall, Turkey's President proved to be stubbornly shortsighted, which forced Russia to go even further by uncovering the role Turkey and Erdogan's family played in the smuggling of stolen Syrian oil, which is a direct violation of the UN Security Council Resolution that was adopted on February 12, 2015. This means that the Turkish state is directly responsible for the sponsorship of international terrorism, which, according to the UN, should be punished in a particularly harsh manner.
"But what's even more grave - the president has publicly disgraced himself before the country. His had already been steadily losing his position, but once he dropped his mask, his ratings started falling abruptly. It turns out that the leader of the Turkish nation is not just an Islamist, he's a supporter of international terrorism.
"Now we are presented with a situation in which the AKP leader and the sitting Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu who are largely secured by the victory for the ruling party, has obtained as much influence as the president. And after the downing of Russia's bomber he strengthened his positions even more, even though he decided not to distance himself publicly from the president. It's safe to assume that he's just quietly waiting for a perfect opportunity to strike a mortal blow. He's nothing short of a dangerous contender that is prepared to replace Erdogan at any given moment.
"But the deposing of Erdogan is a relatively positive scenario. Those who remember Turkish history should know that Erdogan is hated by the military command of the Turkish Armed Forces, which has traditionally played a crucial role in the maintaining of country's stability The army is not getting any revenues from the illegal oil smuggling, so, should the ties between ISIL and Ankara be maintained, the military command, while enjoying the support of NATO allies, can launch a coup d'etat and return to the power they had three decades ago. But this scenario won't satisfy local Kurds and other ethnic and religious minorities, who have experienced the cruelty of the army in the suppression of their rights first hand.
"Turkey is going to be plunged into political chaos, when the ruling AKP will find itself opposed by both the army and the legal opposition, along with 22 million Kurds led by the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). In this case, the civil conflict could result in the collapse of the Turkish state with the Kurdish areas (the entire South-East Anatolia) breaking away, seeking ways to create an independent Kurdistan that will absorb certain areas in Syria in Iraq, changing the whole balance of power in the Middle East.
"Whatever happens, one thing is clear: Tayyip Erdogan will be forced to answer for his stubbornness, inability to respect others, dictatorship, corruption, and connections with ISIL. And above all, he must answer to the people of Turkey. And also to Russia for the cowardly attacks that claimed the lives of two Russian soldiers who fought valiantly against terrorism."[7]
'Turkey May Well Have Been A 'Prime Actor' In The Paris Attack'
Another NOE article, titled "Mad King Erdogan's Oil Lies," stated: "Erdogan is claiming he stole no oil. He has threatened to resign if he receives proof. There is little doubt that Erdogan is insane, those who have been watching his dance of death with ISIS have known this all along.
"However, while Erdogan talks only of oil, there are other issues to note as well. First of all, let's talk about arms shipments that cross Turkey and move into Syria and Iraq. By Erdogan's claim of total innocence, we must assume that ISIS, al Qaeda and the other openly terrorist groups that make up 95% of those fighting against Iraq and Syria are operating without any outside supplies.
"Where Erdogan's wild claims fail is simple as looking at a map. When Russia publishes surveillance photos of not just hundreds but thousands of oil trucks, how can there be denial? The roads that these trucks use only go to Turkey.
"They don't go anyplace else, there is no place else. There is absolutely no vehicle traffic between the Turkish occupied areas of Iraq and Syria, and we might as well call them that, and the areas under control of the legitimate governments in Baghdad and Damascus.
"What is support of terrorism if it isn't trading oil for arms or, moreover, trading oil and the other loot of Iraq and Syria, for the cooperation of Turkish politicians and, just perhaps, their European and American friends as well.
"Yet no one considers that Turkey may well have been a 'prime actor' in the Paris attack. Would Erdogan have downed a Russian plane if it weren't for the Paris attack? What about the Russian airliner downed over Syria? When you add MH17 and examine what is now known, that Ukraine and Turkey have been working closely together all along, with ISIS troops joining Kiev forces against NovoRussians, do we see a pattern?"[8]
'Turkey's "Leader" Should Be Charged With Murder'
A Pravda.ru article titled "Turkey: Treacherous Turncoat," stated:
"Turkey's 'leader' should be charged with murder. The sanctimonious West is in denial. NATO, partly complicit if not the instigator, vows to defend the murderer. Washington, which knows every detail, feigns ignorance. Why is there no Western condemnation in absence of Turkey's compunction?
"Turkey, though paying lip service to Obama's 'coalition of the coerced' to at long last fight ISIS in Syria with military force, is loath to do so. More important Turkey has its political/economic motives to do just the opposite: not lift a finger (against ISIS). That is because, as President Putin already disclosed to Russia's Western 'partners' at the G20 Summit, Turkey is in reality a turncoat. Russian military intelligence provided the evidence: Turkey, including its President, are really aiding and abetting the ISIS terrorists. Detailed satellite images show that Turkey provided the egress for the stolen oil that ISIS has been trucking in and through Turkey.
"From there the contraband, once brokered by the Turks, is sold elsewhere. The 'buyers' list includes Israel, the European Union and as some have suggested, even America. The scale and the scope of the covert theft equates to over 50 million barrels. Moreover, Turkey has profited from this nefarious heist for almost four years. Russia has more proof. The laundered money trail flows straight to the Turkish President's palace. Using a labyrinth of the Erdogan's financial network including his own son, the ill-gotten gains are then spirited outside the country.
"While the Kurds fight ISIS, Erdogan courts the terrorists by providing them military cover. Russia, now wiser as to Erdogan's true colors, should endeavor to be ever more vigilant in its Syria campaign as to joining the West's coalition of 'partners'.
"That same portent applies to the newest 'partners': Hollande and Cameron. The two turkeys are even bigger U.S. vassals. Neither one is trustworthy. Syria's war is about oil; both Putin and Assad know that well."[9]
Endnotes:
[1] NEO (New Eastern Outlook) is the journal of the Russian Academy of Science's Institute of Oriental Studies, a leading research institution dealing with Asian and African countries and cultures. NEO presents itself as follows: "We cover political and religious issues, economic and ideological trends, regional security topics and social problems. We are committed to develop NEO into a notable international networking platform offering unbiased expert opinions and open dialogue among all thinking people worldwide regardless of their nationality, race or religion We are focused on creating a new culture of partnership where opinions influence decisions." (Journal-neo.org, "About" section, accessed January 12, 2016).
[2] Pravda.ru is a pro-government news and opinion website. According to its former Director General, Vadim Gorshenin, it is the successor of Pravda, the official mouthpiece of the Soviet Union's Communist Party. It was founded by prominent members of Pravda's editorial staff who left it in 1999, and today it is privately owned by Pravda.ru Holding, of which Gorshenin is the head. Its current Director General, Inna Novikova, is Gorshenin's wife.
The Pravda website publishes in four languages: Russian, English, Italian, Portuguese, and has more than 200,000 visitors daily. According Gorshenin, the English version is the second most popular English-language Russian website, after Russia Today (Pravda.ru, September 16, 2013).
[3] Politonline.ru is a political website, part of the Pravda media network.
[4] The Center for Military-Political Studies is a division of the Russian foreign ministry's Moscow State Institute of International Relations. The center studies trends and affairs in the domains of defense policy, weaponry, military industry, military cooperation and state security (Eurasian-defence.ru).
[5] The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS) is a research center established by the President of the Russian Federation. Its main task is to inform various Russian state institutions on the political, economic and socio-political situation in the Black Sea countries and Mediterranean region (En.riss.ru).
[6] Pravdareport.com, December 8, 2015. The Russian version of the article was published on Politonline.ru on November 27, 2015.
[7] Journal-neo.org, December 7, 2015. The author, Peter Lvov, is described by NEO as a Ph.D in political science.
[8] Journal-neo.org, December 7, 2015. The author, Gordon Duff, is described by NEO as a U.S. Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War and a senior editor and board chairman of the Veterans Today website.
[9] Pravdareport.com, December 16, 2016. The author's name is given as "Montresor."
