It is becoming more and more obvious now that Türkiye’s struggle with the West has not been concluded but rather becoming increasingly intensified. The term intense signified both the state of close combat and competitive opposition. It can be said that the fight will not only further intensify but also expand.
If it was said only until recently that West European countries and the U.S. would appear willing to wage war against the whole world like today, it is likely that nobody could have associated this with the “civilization mission,” which dates back to the era of colonialism. Yet, in the current state, like in the Ukraine War example, they not only added fuel to a major war that can impact the whole world but also underlined that they are preparing for this great war. The U.K. chief of General Staff’s statement that they will have to fight once again in Europe is quite critical in this respect. Similarly, Germany’s Chief of General Staff mentioned that NATO countries need to be prepared to use nuclear weapons. But were these statements made in reference to barbarians, or was it a reference to the whole world being ruled by Western European nations in the past through the civilization mission? In other words, is the West telling the world, “If I can’t have you, no one can”?
It is quite important that we find answers to these questions. In order to find a sound answer, we first need to identify whom and which countries the chiefs of General Staff of these two countries and U.S. administrations are taking on. Should we focus on a fight between the “civilized Western world’s democratic and liberal values” and their opposition, like the liberal conservatives in Türkiye are trying to show, or should we determine the primary oppositions that necessitate Türkiye’s fight against the West all over again in every period? In brief, who are the barbarians in the current age? Is the West setting out with the “civilization mission” once again?
Germany’s discussion of the nuclear weapon threat recalls Alev Alatlı’s novel titled “‘Nuke’ Türkiye!” The novel wasn’t discussed properly in the 1990s either. Liberal conservatives continuing to serve as the guides of a fight carried on in the name of Western values, despite the fact that the nuclear weapon threat is on the agenda again today, is without a doubt a meaningful result. It can at least be said that the "civilization mission" has a role in their transformation and positioning. There is no harm in saying that they are aware they are fighting on behalf of the West and that they have knowingly chosen their side. It was only as recently as yesterday that they had invaded and occupied Iraq, and with what justifications? The U.K. and the U.S. states paraded the nuclear weapon lie in front of the whole world and invaded and occupied Iraq based on this deception. We knew that they were actually targeting the entire Turkic Islamic region. But those in our midst had aligned with Western countries back then as well.
After waging war on their own country, Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) members fled to Western countries. The others are continuing to be mouthpieces of the West. Those questioning Türkiye's presence in Libya and asking “What are we doing there?” and those who couldn’t be happy about the Caucasus Turks’ victory against the Armenian invasion being the same groups, is an issue that very much deserves attention. We see Western countries stand up against the whole world with the nuclear weapon threat. Those who convicted Iraq in the past for the mass destruction weapons it didn’t have, and thus deemed it deserving of every form of punishment, applauded when the West threatened all of humanity. However, it is not enough that we identify this as a contradiction. But, is this truly a positioning that will not be questioned?
We are emphasizing that Türkiye's struggle with the West is not over or concluded. This inevitably shows that the struggle of the groups within the country has not concluded in favor of a party. Just as the parties and groups are not in a position to take superiority over one another, the fight among ideological groups themselves has not reached an end either. At least, that is, Islamists and nationalists are experiencing a very deep conflict among themselves. It can be said that indigenousness and nationalism-based ideological movements’ fight with universalist, and in fact, globalist groups, is interesting. Very clearly, the primary opposition has not taken shape in the cultural superiority sphere. In an atmosphere in which nuclear weapon threats are made, conflict corresponds more to a physical state.
The position the “left” – in the conventional sense – will take in this conflict is very critical. Or have they surrendered?
