Turkish geopolitics, especially in the 16th century, was shaped by major power dynamics. After this century, it was affected by competition with Russia, and there were 12 wars with this state. The 10th war, the Crimean War, started with the Sinop Raid in 1853. For the first time after this war, the West went to the Black Sea with armed forces to protect the Ottomans. The West’s help to the Turks took away as much as it brought in return. Thus, the process entered into a cycle of “sovereignty and dependency” that has been repeated in 70-year cycles until today.

To read this article in the following languages, click the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

Every period in which states miss technological transformations or seek external support due to a lack of self-confidence in the face of regional threats has resulted in the loss of strategic autonomy and the long-term survival of the homeland, even if it creates a short-term security illusion. Historical data prove that the pressure created by the 12 great wars between the Ottoman Empire and Russia pushed the Ottoman Empire into becoming a geopolitical protectorate under the West, but this protection was actually a process of invasion and colonization. The same situation repeated after 1946.

In short, whenever we trusted the West in our history, we were either invaded by it or placed into its sphere of influence like a colony. The Ottoman Empire missed both Industrial Revolutions. Therefore, in the 19th century, it entered the period as an empire that had 3 million square kilometers of land but could not transfer power and prosperity to these lands. The Ottoman Empire, which was gradually removed from the Mediterranean after the defeat of Lepanto in 1571, continued to be the biggest obstacle to the Russian Tsardom, which expanded in all directions, in its attempt to reach the warm seas, that is, the Mediterranean. Britain, which did not want a rival in the Mediterranean, always helped the Ottomans to stop this advance of Russia. In short, a great naval power, England, stood on the side of the Ottoman Empire against Russia, which wanted to reach the seas from the continent. The most important of these processes, shaped by Russia’s control of the Balkans, Crimea, and Caucasus basins and its struggle to descend to the Mediterranean, is undoubtedly the Sinop Raid of November 30, 1853, which led to the Crimean War, in which the Western states entered the war for the first time on the side of the Ottoman Empire.

The First 70-Year Cycle (1853–1923): Beginning with the Sinop Raid

The Sinop Raid of November 30, 1853, was not only a military defeat but also the suicide of an empire at sea that had missed the Industrial Revolution and rational guidance. This raid, in which 2,700 sailors were martyred, made the Ottoman Empire militarily and politically dependent on the West after the economic colonization process that had started with the Treaty of Balta Limanı in 1838. Although it went down in our history as a raid, it was not truly a surprise attack. The Russian navy did not suddenly arrive off the coast of Sinop. Preparations had been made for days. The navy, which had missed the Industrial Revolution, science, and rational thinking, was not ready for war. Instead of engaging in battle at sea, it chose to wait in port. In other words, the war was lost from the very beginning. In this raid, the Ottoman Fleet lost 2,700 sailors. It paved the way for the Anatolian Turks to be supported by European armed forces against the Russians for the first time.

The forces of Britain, France, and Piedmont-Sardinia, which sided with the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War, acted as a predecessor of modern NATO in the 19th century. However, this alliance was not a “defense aid,” but rather a strategy to use the Ottoman Empire as a buffer zone to prevent Russia from reaching the Mediterranean. These forces, which were stationed in Gallipoli and Istanbul, did not act like allies but as invasion armies that insulted the population and caused moral corruption. This mentality, which came under the guise of allies in 1853, later revealed its true intention—to disintegrate the Empire—with the Armistice of Mudros in 1918 and the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920.

.

The Battle of Sinop, Ivan Aivazovsky (Public Domain)

.

19th Century NATO and the European Ottoman Deception

Britain, France, and the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia declared war on Russia on March 12, 1854, as allies of the Ottoman Empire—that is, as a kind of NATO of the 19th century. This war was also part of the Great Game of the century. After this war, in which the Russians were defeated, the Ottoman Empire was accepted as part of so-called Europe with the Treaty of Paris signed in 1856; however, both the Ottoman and Russian naval powers were excluded from the Black Sea. Shipyards were closed.

On the other hand, the Ottoman Empire turned into a real colony of Europe after the Crimean War, and its collapse became inevitable. Sultan Abdülmecit received the first foreign debt of the Ottoman Empire during this war. The European armies that had depolyed in the Gallipoli and Istanbul regions acted like invasion forces. The local population was exhausted by insults and immoral conduct. The Crimean War was actually the first rehearsal of the occupation of Anatolia, which began after the Armistice of Mudros on November 13, 1918. The geopolitical maneuver, initially intended to protect the Ottoman Empire from Russia, was repeated in 1878 when the British Navy entered the Sea of Marmara as the Russians reached Yeşilköy, and Egypt and Cyprus were lost in return. This process continued to repeat itself with Libya, the Balkans, and the First World War.

Britain and France stood against the Ottoman Empire as colonial executioners in the autumn of 1914 and imposed the disaster of Sèvres Treaty in 1920. Both countries, which we had welcomed as friends in 1853, kept the Russians away from Anatolia in the mid-19th century but ultimately occupied the Empire’s lands after October 30, 1918, like a beast. The Ottoman Empire had to be dismembered, but neither the Russians nor the newly emerged Germans (under the guise of allies) were to do it alone. In the First Cycle (1853–1923), we almost lost the homeland. First, North Africa was lost with the Italian War, then the Dodecanese Islands, and later the Balkans and Rumelia with the Balkan Wars. We were defeated on the side of Germany in the Great War and first the Armistice of Mudros and then the Treaty of Sèvres were imposed. We were saved from extinction thanks to the blood of the Turkish nation led by Mustafa Kemal and the weapons and ammunition supplied by Russia.

Mustafa Kemal’s Blow to the First Cycle (1853–1923)

The first 70-year cycle, which started with the Sinop Raid in 1853, was halted in 1923 with the establishment of a new republic under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This series of disasters could only be stopped by a will that made full independence its defining characteristic; that will was first embodied in the War of Independence and then in the founding philosophy of the Republic. This process continued in an impartial and independent manner until March 12, 1947, despite the Second World War. First, through the War of Independence between 1919 and 1922, and then through the 15-year Turkish renaissance, the Turkish people were transformed from subjects into citizens, and from an ummah into a nation through the Republic and its reforms.

The farmer and peasant population exhibited development that would set an example in world history through rapid industrialization and modernization. During this period, under Atatürk’s exemplary leadership, the Republic not only protected its independent sovereignty but also built a regional security architecture through the Sadabad Pact and the Balkan Entente. The years between 1923 and 1947 were a period of full independence, in which Türkiye built a state based on its own power, free from the tutelage of foreign powers. This period was founded on the principle that security is too sacred to be delegated to others. During this time, Türkiye established its own regional equation by refusing to become a satellite of any global power. Even when German armies reached the Thrace border in 1941, Türkiye maintained its sovereignty without the need for any external protector. This stands as the greatest historical evidence refuting the post-1947 thesis of the necessity of external protection. However, the shift that began in 1947 placed Türkiye once again into a spiral of dependency and Atlantic constraints.

The Truman Doctrine and the Second 70-Year Cycle (1947–2016)

With the Truman Doctrine of March 12, 1947, Türkiye once again took shelter within the Atlantic system under the leadership of the United States, using exaggerated Soviet threats as justification. This process marked the beginning of a period that paralyzed Türkiye’s security perception and mortgaged its intellectual independence. In reality, Türkiye did not need external protection even under those conditions. Moreover, at the time of the Soviet demands, the USSR was not yet a nuclear power. The second 70-year cycle, which began on March 12, 1947, lasted until July 15, 2016, the date of the FETÖ coup attempt. This process, which gradually distanced Türkiye first from Mustafa Kemal and then from the Aegean and the Mediterranean, hindered the development of a national defense industry. It aimed to create a semi-educated population through a guided populist democracy model and encouraged the use of religion and ethnic separatism in politics. Under the pretext of fighting communism, it contributed to the erosion of Kemalism and its transformation into an abstract doctrine. In 1950, thousands of Turkish soldiers were sent to Korea without the approval of the Turkish Grand National Assembly. In doing so, Türkiye demonstrated that Turkish blood could be treated as expendable for imperial interests and was subsequently admitted to NATO in 1952.

They consistently supported Greek fait accompli policies in Cyprus and the Aegean. In 1955, during the Bandung Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, they promoted the image of Türkiye as an instrument of the hegemonic Atlantic system. In 1958, they ensured that Türkiye voted against Algeria’s independence at the UN. Nuclear Jupiter missiles were deployed on Turkish soil without public knowledge. The Turkish people only learned that American U-2 spy planes had been launched from Turkish territory after one was shot down over the Soviet Union. By encouraging the coups of March 12, 1971, and September 12, 1980, they facilitated the transition from a production-based mixed economy to a neoliberal model. They punished Türkiye for intervening in Cyprus to prevent a massacre with a four-year embargo and subsequent Armenian terror campaigns.

After the Cold War, like a bull in a China shop, they pushed Türkiye into new geopolitical adventures while Western Asia was being reshaped in line with Israeli strategic objectives. As Iraq, Libya, and Syria were destabilized, they aimed to establish a Kurdish state—effectively a second Israel—on Türkiye’s borders. They supported initiatives that undermined Türkiye’s territorial integrity and unitary structure. After 2003, they facilitated the emergence of an autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. In 2004, they supported the Annan Plan aimed at dissolving the TRNC. They attempted to disrupt the Montreux Convention balance in the Black Sea. They funded and supported divisive political movements and civil society initiatives under the guise of democratization and human rights. They also played a role in creating and supporting the FETÖ organization, ultimately deploying it during the coup attempt of July 15, 2016. However, they failed. The second cycle collapsed on that night due to the will of the nation.

Don’t Allow the Third 70-year Cycle

Today, Türkiye is in the third 70-year cycle. In this cycle, which started in 2016, 10 years have passed. Today, the world is in the process of a new power transfer. Asia has risen; the Atlantic system has begun to dissolve. China, Russia and regional powers are establishing a new balance. In this conjuncture, we need to learn from the strategic bankruptcies of the past and understand the necessity of building a central power based on “mental independence”.

Today, there is a brand-new conjuncture. Asya woke up. Türkiye is waking up. What happened in the Russia-Ukraine War, the Gaza Genocide and the Israel-US-Iran war offer both great risks but also great opportunities for our country. Israel’s increasing hostility towards Türkiye and the fact that the Greek Cypriot Administration and Greece stand by Israel together with the USA in this context make it necessary for our country to review all its geopolitical equations and rewrite the National Security Policy Document and the National Military Strategic Concept. Türkiye must address the geopolitical fate of its region in West Asia. The Turkish economy, demographic power and defense industry cannot be compared with the conditions of 1853 and 1947. In these days when we have completed the first ten years of the third 70-year cycle, we should not forget that our ancestors established an empire in these lands and that we were the first nation to slap imperialism with the War of Independence and the Founding Revolutions. In addition, our homeland has been saved by none other than the Turks in history. Others did not write our constitution. The Turkish people should trust themselves.

Iran’s resistance to the US has revealed that it is no longer a unipolar world. The crisis in Hormuz and Bab El Mandeb has revealed the fragility of the global system. The maritime dominance of the USA is questioned. NATO, on the other hand, is scattered, indecisive and ineffective in this process. European countries are distancing themselves from the policies of the USA, and the alliance is losing its ability to act together. NATO no longer produces security, but risks. At the same time, Russia continues to advance in Ukraine, gaining a strategic advantage by taking advantage of the West’s disorganization. Energy crises and the division of military resources further deepen this picture.

Image source

Under these conditions, Türkiye’s reconnection to an Atlantic-centered security architecture would mean re-entering the same historical spiral. Today, the most critical area is the Black Sea. NATO’s efforts to establish a permanent presence in the Black Sea are an open challenge to the Montreux regime. The inclusion of Türkiye in this process is a mistake that will put it directly in conflict with Russia. Montreux is a balance that ensures the security of not only Türkiye but also all Black Sea littoral states. The Black Sea is not the sea of foreign powers, but of the riparian countries. With the strategic mistakes made in our south after 2013, the Syrian civil war, which is a major buffer state between us and Israel, was dragged into and the regime changed. As a result of the change of power supported by the USA and Britain, Syrian airspace was opened to Israel for attacks on Iran. Türkiye should not repeat the mistakes it made in Iraq after 2003 and later in Syria in Iran. Because if Iran also falls, Türkiye will be surrounded by Israeli and US aggression.

Türkiye is now faced with a choice in this picture. Either it will be a frontline country as in the past, or it will establish its own geopolitical axis and become a central power by getting closer to Russia and China. We are no longer the Ottoman Empire of 1853 or the fragile state of 1947. We are in a much stronger position in terms of defense industry, demography and geopolitical capacity. However, the biggest issue is mental independence, which is caught between NATO and western admiration. Living under someone else’s security umbrella is easy, but the price is heavy. This price has been paid many times throughout history. We do not have the luxury of repeating the same mistake. Türkiye should rely on its own power, maintain its active neutrality, defend Montreux uncompromisingly, and take its rightful place in the Asian century on the front that defends Iran and Palestine in deeds, not in words. Today, the ability to return to the period between 1923 and 1946 should no longer be a potential vision, but a kinetic reality. Türkiye has passed the tests brought by historical cycles by paying the heaviest price. The picture before us today shows that the Atlantic-centered security architecture no longer produces security, but risks. It is not a choice for Türkiye to chart its own path; it is a historical necessity.

Our vision for the future is no longer a wish or a potential; it is a kinetic reality embodied in every field, from our defense industry to our geopolitical moves. Atatürk’s unshakable will against the occupation fleet on November 13, 1918, is the cornerstone of the third cycle that started after the 2016 FETÖ coup attempt. We must be able to say, “as they come, so they go” and put an end to 70-year cycles.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on Mavi Vatan.

Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM. 

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.