The crises seen from time to time in Turkey's foreign policy have a significant impact on the ideational tendencies of the "always opponent" highbrows in Turkey. The content of the relationships formed with the parties in power is the determinant in such forms of being affected, not moral tendencies, ideational sensitivities and consistencies. In other words, if the party in power has been approved by them, then that government is supported, if it has not been approved by them, then they will certainly position themselves in the opposite line.
There are many examples of this. Perhaps an example will help clarify the matter.
Cyprus was one of the topics headlining the agenda in the 1960s.
When certain social incidents took place in Cyprus in the first half of the 1960s, the representatives of Turkey's "always opponent highbrow" types, with the effect of their anger over İsmet İnönü's coalition preferences, started to stir the Cyprus issue.
The government's hand regarding the Cyprus matter is weak. What's more is that it does not have the power to militarily intervene in Cyprus, and as it is later revealed, İnönü was threatened by NATO, and in fact by US President Johnson himself.
The incidents that took place had an ideationally serious effect on the atmosphere of the time. The government was accused of selling off Cyprus and the Cyprus cause. However, with the same ideational circle starting to see the Turkish army as an invader in Cyprus, and start to show tendencies like “the fascist army is in Cyprus,” is interesting in that it shows the dimensions of the contradiction. What actually happened is nothing other than the positioning of this highbrow type in accordance with political preferences.
In recent times, we have a chance to witness up close the more caricaturized examples of this situation. There are even those who took the matter so far as to describe Russian President Vladimir Putin's behavior as very Muslim-like. The others who are just as low, decided on a position that would blow up the basis of their argument.
The love and gratitude those who talk big regarding democratic rights and freedoms feel toward Putin, who is known to be a huge obstacle preventing all sorts of freedom of expression in Russia, is simply an example of how those alike find one another. Hence, our Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) Co-Chair Selahattin Demirtaş finds his role model in Moscow. The crimes Putin has committed against humanity, from Russia to Syria, the genocide-scale massacres, cannot even go near the chitchat type of topics that will be discussed at this meeting.
As it becomes revealed at this meeting platform who is really after what, speaking of the ethics of thought also turns into a kind of fantasy. One thinking over something they don't really believe, or even worse, doing politics, brings them to such pitiful states.
In this context, the visit to Russia by Demirtaş, who these “always opponent highbrow” types whittled to make him a partner to their fantasies, is an interesting example of devoting oneself to anyone who opposes a Turkey run by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
When Demirtaş was asked in surprise, “What is this?” like an amateur playboy, he tried to “explain” the situation by saying, “The whole world respects [us,] [we] are trying to normalize Turkey-Russia relations.” Whereas there is nothing to explain; everything is as bright as day.
Respecting oneself in such a state is out of the question. On the contrary, there is nothing other than a cheap relationship of being used.
The claim that this visit made during a time when the crisis between Turkey and Russia is deep, is aimed at bettering Turkish-Russian relations, is not enough to cover the shamefulness and how out of line this bright-as-day-reality is.
Demirtaş's visit which confirms one of the latest popular sayings, “when the thief is from the inside, the door will be unlocked,” brings to mind another figure from history. Mahmud Nedim Pasha is a statesman, who was on duty in the difficult times of the Ottoman Empire, and announced the state's bankruptcy with the 1875 memorandum. It is said that, due to his close encounter with Russian statesman Ignatief, who worked in Istanbul for a long time, and his excessive inclination toward Russian politics, he was called Nedimow in Istanbul, or according to some sources, Mahmudov.
After almost 150 years we have another politician who also pays homage to Russia. This is the clearest message of Demirtaş's Russia visit: At a time when Duran Kalkan and PKK terrorists are on Russian television channels making comments, by visiting Moscow, with which Ankara's relations have soured, the HDP's co-chair has informed Sergei Lavrov of his loyalty. However, we still need to give rights where they are due; since Demirtaş is showing this loyalty not only toward Russia, but toward any country, any government in power, which has a hostile attitude toward Turkey, it would be wrong to evaluate him as pro-Russia only.
