Erdogan's Two-Faced Ukraine Policy--Lavrov

In an interview with the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet published today by Russia’s MFA, we learn many things, the most important of which is Erdogan’s incomprehensible position on Ukraine that’s as unethical, dishonorable as his position on Palestine, where today he called for “Countries of Middle East to Act in Solidarity for Regional Peace” while continuing to supply the Genocidal Zionists with food and fuel. And yet he wants to become a full BRICS member. While geographically, it makes great sense to include Turkey in BRICS, politically it doesn’t whatsoever given Erdogan’s extensive unpredictability and the leverage the Outlaw US Empire still has over him and Turkey. Evidence exhibit #1 beyond his Palestine policy is that on Syria and his support for Terrorists in Idlib. But I don’t want to give too much of the interview away; so, here’s Lavrov:

Question: Turkey has applied to join BRICS. In your opinion, how will this process take place and how will it end? What impact will Turkey's full membership have on the organization? What is Moscow's attitude to Turkey's membership?

Lavrov: We welcome Turkey's interest in rapprochement with BRICS. This confirms the attractiveness of an association based on respect for the UN Charter, openness, pragmatism and non-targeting of third parties.

We stand for the expansion of BRICS ties with the countries of the Global Majority, primarily with those who share the focus on strengthening multilateral principles, pursue a sovereign foreign policy and do not join unilateral sanctions.

At the summit held in Kazan, a choice was made in favor of consolidating the current composition of the BRICS members with the involvement of partner countries in the association. I am confident that Turkey is able to make a significant contribution to the further development of BRICS. The decision on the parameters of Turkey's participation in the association will be made on the basis of consensus and with respect for the sovereign choice of all BRICS countries and Turkey itself.

Question: A year has passed since the start of Israel's attacks on Gaza, and tensions in the region have reached their peak due to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Who will stop the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu? Will Russia take the initiative to stop Israel? In this regard, the question is: what position will Russia take in the event of a possible military intervention by the United States and Israel in Iran?

Lavrov: The unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict has given rise to another round of violence: tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, thousands of victims in Lebanon, and an increasing number of countries are being dragged into the vortex of confrontation.

Russia condemned Israel's assassination of political leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as high-ranking Iranian military officials. We proposed that these actions be assessed by the UN Security Council. However, due to the resistance of the Western members of the Security Council, it was not possible to do so.

We call for refraining from steps that lead to a further escalation of violence and the situation spiraling out of control. There will be no winners in this conflict.

The path to normalising the situation is to stop the bloodshed and create conditions for a political settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on a universally recognised international legal basis. It provides for the creation of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and only such a solution can guarantee sustainable peace in the Middle East.

Question: Turkey expresses its determination to resolve the Ukrainian crisis at the highest level, and there are statements that it is ready to make every effort to resume the Dolmabahce process. In this context, what do you think about Turkey's role as a mediator and host in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in the coming period? How would you assess Ankara's efforts to overcome the crisis?

Lavrov: We appreciate Turkey's efforts to facilitate the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. It was the Turkish side that provided the Istanbul platform for consultations with representatives of Kyiv in the spring of 2022 and contributed to the conclusion of the "grain deal". The Istanbul talks "buried" the Anglo-Saxons, prohibiting Vladimir Zelensky from concluding agreements that could stop hostilities and ensure a balance of interests of the parties involved.

Russia is open to a political settlement. But it should not be a question of a temporary ceasefire, but of ending the conflict by addressing its root causes. These include NATO's eastward expansion, the creation of threats to Russia's vital security interests, and the Kiev regime's violation of the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine.

At the moment, peace is not included in the plans of our opponents. Ukraine's response to the peace initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin in June of this year was the invasion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine into the Kursk region and air attacks on targets in other border regions. Washington and its allies are providing Kyiv with comprehensive support, discussing the possibility of using Western long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia. V. Zelensky did not cancel his decree prohibiting negotiations with Moscow. In such a situation, the mediation efforts of any country, including Turkey, hardly have a chance of success.

Unfortunately, Ankara continues to cooperate with the Kyiv regime in the military-technical sphere. Turkish weapons are used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine to kill the Russian military and civilians. This cannot but cause bewilderment against the backdrop of statements by the Turkish leadership about its readiness to provide mediation services.

Question: Turkey is also in close contact with Moscow on the issue of normalising relations with Syria. Despite the fact that Ankara has repeatedly expressed its point of view regarding the meeting with Bashar al-Assad, Damascus puts forward preconditions for negotiations, such as the "withdrawal of Turkish troops from the region." What do you think about this attitude of Damascus and the normalisation itself?

Lavrov: The normalization of Syrian-Turkish relations is of great importance for the sustainable stabilization of Syria and the strengthening of security in the Middle East.

Russia is making consistent efforts to overcome the contradictions between Damascus and Ankara. My colleagues from Turkey and Iran and I discussed this issue during a meeting of the foreign ministers of the guarantor countries of the Astana process on September 27 in New York.

Last year, a number of contacts were held in Moscow between the ministries of foreign affairs, defense departments and special services within the framework of the Russia-Iran-Syria-Turkey quadrilateral format. Topics of particular interest were identified, including the return of Syrian refugees, the fight against terrorism and border security.

The revealed differences in the positions of Damascus and Ankara led to a pause in the negotiation process. The Syrian government insists that it is first necessary to decide on the withdrawal of the Turkish military contingent from the territory of the SAR. Turkey reaffirms its commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria in principle, but proposes to return to the issue of the withdrawal of its military later.

Since there are signals from both capitals about a serious interest in resuming the dialogue, we will actively contribute to the early restart of the negotiation process.

Question: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that "we can take serious steps with Russia on the Sinop nuclear power plant." Is there any progress on this issue? After the Akkuyu NPP, will such a step be taken in Sinop?

How does the Western embargo against Russia affect the country's economy? At what stage is trade with Turkey during this period? What would you say about the course of economic relations between Turkey and Russia?

Lavrov: The Turkish authorities must decide how, on what basis and with whose assistance the Sinop nuclear power plant project will be implemented. If it is possible to agree on the parameters of Russia's participation, then, in our opinion, both sides will benefit from this. We have a successful example of cooperation – the construction of the Akkuyu NPP.

Russia has adapted to the sanctions pressure and is developing successfully. In terms of GDP in terms of purchasing power parity, we have reached the fourth position in the world and the first in Europe. The growth of the Russian economy this year should be about 3.9%. We have the lowest unemployment among the world's largest economies – 2.4%.

The United States is trying to limit the possibilities of foreign partners interested in trade with Russia. Unfortunately, Turkey is no exception. The prospects for our practical cooperation depend on whether the experts will be able to find mutually acceptable solutions in the near future.

Question: Presidential elections will be held in the United States in November. During the election campaign, Russia is often in the spotlight. Which of the presidential candidates would Moscow prefer to see in the White House? Donald Trump or Kennel Harris?

Lavrov: We have no preferences. At one time, the Trump administration imposed the largest number of anti-Russian sanctions compared to its predecessors. Under the current president, who has spun the spiral of Russophobia in the United States to the limit, our countries are balancing on the brink of a direct military clash.

Whoever wins the election, we do not see the prospect of changing the Russophobic course of the United States. For our part, we will be ready for dialogue if and when the Americans demonstrate their serious intentions to negotiate honestly, based on respect for each other's interests and the principle of reciprocity. [My Emphasis]

The Idlib issue and Turkish-backed terrorists were to become history in 2019. Some, not all, will be aware that Erdogan personally profited from the theft of Syrian oil and other resources and likely continues to do so. On that basis alone, I consider Turkey to be a quasi-enemy nation particularly from the Resistance’s POV. IMO, nations unable to show almost complete independence from the Outlaw US Empire shouldn’t become privy to the inner workings of BRICS, meaning they shouldn’t be allowed Partner status, and certainly not full membership. Any nation with Imperial forces stationed on its territory must be considered an occupied nation and not even close to being fully sovereign and must first free itself. Lavrov and BRICS like to characterize the association as not targeting any one or group of nations, but that’s rhetorical flummery that ignores reality and is a point at issue BRICS must overcome. What did Lavrov admit above: “our countries [USA and Russia in case that’s not clear] are balancing on the brink of a direct military clash,” and Russia is arguably the key center of BRICS, while an economic war is being waged on China by NATO.

When the G-20 meets later this month in Rio, Russia will have been under a massive set of illegal sanctions for 10 years. Recent EU jabbering says illegal sanctions will never be removed. The obvious fact that conflict exists and is ongoing is visible everywhere. Lavrov also dodged the Palestine questions, specifically these two: “Who will stop the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu? Will Russia take the initiative to stop Israel?” The interviewer then cast up a softball which was also evaded. The interviewer must be credited for asking THE TWO Qs THAT MATTER. Furthermore, most everyone with a working brain capable of reasoning understands the Two State Solution is dead, regardless its International Law status. Vicariously, the interviewer asked what nation is going to force all those rabid, genocidal Zionists out of the West Bank to make the Two State Solution even begin to be viable? Lavrov dumps the blame on the UNSC’s ineptness caused by the Zionists’s ally in the genocide, an answer I see as dishonorable and dishonest. Be fucking honest and come clean by saying: “We don’t want to/can’t do that ourselves.” Yes, there’s some shame that goes with uttering that truth. But perhaps once said, other ways of dealing with the core of the problem will be noted and attempted.

Lavrov’s had a brilliant career, but Russia’s Palestine policy is tarnishing that record and must be solved so that shame doesn’t become his legacy.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!