There is a very bad scenario. Toxicity and verbal abuse now constantly radiate Anchor be part of a plan in which one of the key next steps is a crisis, which will also include a high-intensity, high-stakes military confrontation. This daily aggression, open threats, irritation of the nationalist reflexes of a part of Turkish public opinion can no longer be interpreted only in the context of domestic political aspirations and needs. Clearly, the Turkish president needs Bahceli’s audience and will continue to stimulate it.

However, this expediency is not enough to explain the situation. Even after the invasion of Cyprus, Imia, or in the case of the criminal proceedings against Ocalan, Ankara did not abandon the diplomatic – even high-pitched – language.

By historical analogy, the Nazi invasion of Poland was preceded and followed by aggressive propaganda lies about attacks by Poles on the country’s ethnic German community (Volksdeutschen). The Russian invasion of Ukraine in both 2014 and 2022 was preceded by a continuous broadcast of Nazi propaganda in Kyiv. And, of course, we must not forget what preceded September 1955.

The Turkish tactic is trying to create a structure in which Greece is described as an aggressor and a pawn of Turkey’s enemies. Coincidentally, they are all located in the west. It repatriates refugees and migrants on land and sea, provides asylum and trains terrorists, offers protection to conspirators, pursues Turkish militants and above all 20 years ago occupied the Turkish islands and militarized the islands in the eastern Aegean, which it will lose when Turkey come tonight.”

Worst of all, in an already marginal, as it develops, diplomatic situation, the daily propaganda and its reproduction can be perceived as a realistic impression. In the case of a group fiasco, a fictitious image is easier to deal with than what some consider “real”.

At the same time, there is a geopolitical reality that can change rapidly and is far from being virtual. For the Erdogan regime, the West is no longer, and probably never has been, the reference point for Turkey’s social, political, cultural, and even economic development. In addition to the well-known (neo)Ottoman imperial illusions, Turkey has been a “central state” for the ruling elite for twenty years, not limited in its choice and preferences by any institutional or other geopolitical restrictions. Its participation in NATO is important for its members, but it is useful for Turkey to the extent that its autonomy is recognized. Relations with Putin’s Russia are, on the one hand, evidence of strategic emancipation, and, on the other, a lever of pressure on the West. Washington and a number of European capitals are trying to balance between Turkey, which they do not trust and do not hope for allied cooperation (see Ukraine, Libya, Syria), but are not at all ready to see her as an ally with her main threat. Western elites hope that the elections will solve this intolerable dilemma.

President Erdogan is apparently taking advantage of this strategic paralysis caused by the Turkish-Russian “game”. For Moscow, Turkey is useful as a member of the West and NATO. As a factor that will constantly undermine its cohesion and put pressure on Greece, which many in the West see as an important piece in the puzzle of the Western strategy to contain Russian revisionism.

In addition to the geopolitical situation, for the Erdogan regime, Vladimir Putin’s Russia also has cultural characteristics. In the new developing world, Erdogan’s Turkey has already come out on top among the “illiberal democracies”. Where do the “leaders” go after the elections.

* Mr. Costas Ifantis is Professor of International Relations and Director of IDIS at Panteion University.