In the “Trilogy of Values”, Lucian Blaga, analyzing the “unconscious spirit” of civilizations, sees that Europe is guided by its relation to the universe of values dynamics becoming, it is a “stylistics” that would unconsciously characterize the modern West, in contrast to Greek antiquity, which saw the world in a completely different way, i.e. STATIC.

In February 2022, as the world anxiously awaited Vladimir Putin’s decisions on Ukraine, after an avalanche of threats to start a war (only the fateful order had yet to be given), Yuval Noah Harari published an essay in The Economist that began with the following sentence:

At the heart of the crisis in Ukraine lies a fundamental question about the nature of history and the nature of humanity: are changes possible? Can people change their behavior, or will history repeat itself endlessly, with people forever doomed to react to past tragedies, unable to change anything but the situation?

“The End of History…” gives us Francis Fukuyama’s image of an “unconscious spirit” of social dynamics, according to which there is a sense of history in the making, characterized by relentless progress that, despite the obstacles to be overcome, will lead the world to a certain point , to that “end of history” where untainted liberal ideas will triumph.

It must win, Yuval Noah Harari also says, because there is no alternative, we can no longer repeat the cycle of history, because we have simply reached a tipping point from which regression will mean existential danger for humanity.

Surprisingly, with the red marker on the map, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself addressed the question of the impact of the Abrahamic covenants in the same evolutionary style, according to which Israel’s role would be that of a bridge between Europe (the West) and Asia. (Indian civilization), in the Middle East authoritarianism of all kinds, which is simultaneously threatened by Russian, Persian or Chinese neo-imperial tendencies.

Following in the footsteps of the “expedition of ten thousand” described by Xenophon as a direct participant in the Anabasis, Sabina Fati becomes our witness that the region that crosses the tip of Netanyahu’s marker is still the scene of a cluster of conflicts that is difficult to discern, like a Gordian knot – the experience described in detail in “Traveling through the traces of conflicts next to us”[3].

In Mosul, Sabina Fathi has a conversation with university professor Amed Al-Bajari, at which his wife was also present. One day, the university’s wife intervenes in the conversation with an unexpected answer: When I ask the teacher if Mosul’s fate would have been better than Turkey’s, since the city was retaken by the Turks after World War I, she quickly replies: “Turkey is another face of ISIS[4]!“

Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech at the United Nations was not well received by some actors in the Middle East, who were accused of “sharpened nationalism” that would contrast with the generous ideas set forth in the Declaration of the Abrahamic Accords. But nationalism is encouraged everywhere in the region: Syria, Iraqi Kurdistan, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Territories, not to mention the combination of nationalism and imperialism that ideologically underpins Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political agenda.

The murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi five years ago (October 2, 2018) at Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic headquarters in Istanbul shows a cluster of interests and conflicts in the region. A brief overview of events since then sheds an interesting light on the political regimes in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, allowing us to analyze current trends: the judicial reform desired by the Netanyahu government, the restoration of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia (with the participation of China), the strengthening of relations Turkey and Israel, the military offensive of Azerbaijan and the self-destruction of the Armenian separatist autonomous republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.

In the section “Murder on the Bosphorus” [cu subtitlul “Turcia și Arabia Saudită 2015 – 2019”]from “Black Wave”[5]highly acclaimed book by Lebanese journalist Kim Ghattas, details the context in which Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi began to annoy the leaders of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, right up to Saud Al-Qahtani, an adviser to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. [cunoscut în Occident ca Mohammed bin Salman sau “MbS”] sent a group of “liquidators” to Turkey to implement a plan to solve the problem.

In the early summer of 2017, Jamal Khashoggi decided to leave his city of Jeddah, where he could no longer publish anything, and move to Washington. In August 2017, Khashoggi was again allowed to publish in Saudi Arabia and resumed editorial work, but only for a month. He first resigned, then suddenly decided to throw caution to the wind and published an editorial in September 2017 in The Washington Postin which he accused Saudi Arabia of turning into a police state.

This was followed by November 2017 when MbS moved violently to eliminate any pretender to the throne or rival, arresting and holding him in a hotel Ritz Carlton in Riyadh (turned into a luxury prison) several hundred princes, former government officials or businessmen, on charges of corruption. Also shocking was the scene in which Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was invited to Riyadh, where he was detained and forced to write a statement on the government’s resignation.[6] him in front of the cameras. Jamal Khashoggi’s visions and warnings have been confirmed.

As for the personal life of the Saudi journalist, he chose the path of divorce, in particular to protect his family, given that he became unwanted at home, so in May 2018, he met Hatide Cengiz, and they had a love story and a desire to get married . The decision to remarry led him to a situation where he needed certain documents that had to be issued by the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul. On the fateful day of October 2, 2018, Jamal Khashoggi entered the gates of the consulate, and his young partner, Hatice, who would never see him again, was waiting for him outside.

Film of the assassination is shown by Aljazeera, which quotes a US intelligence report and concludes: Crown Prince since 2017 [MbS, n.m.] has absolute control over the Kingdom’s security and intelligence services, making it unlikely that Saudi officials would carry out an operation of this nature without the crown prince’s permission.

Kim Ghattas reinforces the conclusion by pointing to Crown Prince Saud Al-Qahtani’s adviser as having ordered the killing of the Saudi journalist, an event that is part of the same series of demonstrations as the Ritka arrests. Carlton or the detention of Saad Hariri to show everyone, at home and in the region, that: A trickster boy has come to town to show you how it works!

Kim Gattas reveals another aspect: the Turkish security services were monitoring the whole operation, the Saudi consulate turned out to be full of surveillance equipment, and they could have saved Khashoggi’s life, but apparently they didn’t. And they didn’t, because the stakes in Ankara’s political game are completely different.

He waited for someone to come, and Hatice Cengiz did, who, anxious after several hours of waiting, called Yasin Aktay, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s first adviser, as Jamal Khashoggi had instructed her to do before entering the consulate. Then, Ankara began step by step to release the film about the murder of the Saudi journalist and point to MbS as responsible for the murder.

ERDOGAN CELEBRATES VICTORY IN THE CAUCASUS WITH ANTI-EUROPEAN MESSAGES

On Monday, September 25, news agencies report a meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in the autonomous enclave of Nakhchivan, during which the Ankara leader said: It is a matter of pride for Turkey to see the successful implementation of the anti-terrorist operation of Azerbaijan in a short period of time with respect for the rights of the civilian population. This victory opens up new opportunities for general normalization in the region.[7]

Erdogan and Aliyev also noted in 2020 the success of the forty-day Azerbaijani military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh, which was well supported by Turkey (and Israel) with the supply of state-of-the-art military equipment and intelligence.

Last year, Ilham Aliyev repeatedly mentioned the intentions of the Azerbaijani state to finally resolve the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, restore state sovereignty over the entire territory, and, moreover, he emphasized that his goal is to solve the problem. and the “historical injustice” committed by the Soviets when they included the territory between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan in the former Armenian SSR.

Having just returned to the country, at the first opportunity that arose – which was a suicide attack claimed by the PKK on Sunday, October 1 this year, which targeted the headquarters of the Security Department of the Ministry of Interior in Ankara – Erdogan unleashed his anger on Brussels, pointing the finger at the decision of the ECtHR (an institution of the Council of Europe, not the EU!) which condemned Turkey for human rights violations in the case of a Turkish citizen accused of having ties to Fethullah Gülen, the imam who fled to the United States:

If the EU intends to end the accession process, which exists only on paper, then that will be their decision. The decision of the ECtHR is the last straw. Members of the terrorist organization and its supporters, who are inspired by this decision, do not get your hopes up! This decision will not bring any relief to the evil members of FETO. Turkey will not take a single step back in the fight against this gang of traitors, will not allow a return to the past! [8]

It is obvious that Erdogan purposefully uses anti-European rhetoric, in the context of which he sees Azerbaijan’s victory as confirmation of his political goals in the Caucasus; it would not be at all surprising that in the coming years the pressure on Armenia would increase to the point that it would cede – through diplomatic negotiations combined with the threat of armed force – a corridor through its territory connecting Nakhchivan (which borders Turkey) with Azerbaijan, giving Ankara the land corridor to the Caspian Sea it desires.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan remains loyal to the Ottoman neo-imperialist project, which has had some success in the Caucasus – or so Ankara believes – a success that should be repeated in the future in the south and east, in the territories of Syria and Iraq. that Turkey also claimed them during and after the end of the First World War, or perhaps even further, to Jerusalem, Cyprus and even in North Africa (at least in Libya).

Caspian expansion comes at the cost of Turkey’s isolation from the West, a price Erdogan believes is worth paying, especially when it comes to Europeans. As for the expansion to the south or the alliance of the Ankara regime with the Muslim Brotherhood, things are a little more complicated here, because the expected reaction of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Israel requires careful and balanced analysis. given the great risks that are growing, as was already evident from last Sunday’s attack.

Azerbaijan’s victory, which led to the self-dissolution of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, created a huge humanitarian problem as more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians sought refuge in Armenia[9], fearing that ethnic cleansing following the example of Turkey would follow (the historical experience of the Armenian genocide in Turkey is still alive in the collective memory of Armenians). The meeting of the victorious leaders in Nakhchivan again worried them, not necessarily because of what was publicly stated, but because of what was not said, but which can be suspected.

I recently attended a debate organized by the Atlantic Council on the subject of Nagorno-Karabakh, and I can testify that, although the participants have a culture of dialogue, the uncompromising position of the Armenians (Nerses Kopalian and Sheila Paylan) could easily be identified by their speech. and Azerbaijanis (Esmira). Jafarov), which will continue to inflame the conflict between the parties, with little chance of resolution, at the intersection of three imperialist axes, two of which are revisionist (Russia and Turkey), and the third is internationalized. Islamic militancy (Iran). –

Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro