Turkey: the nature of national modernization

Today's Turkey is one of the most dynamically developing economies in the world. The underdeveloped agrarian state turned into the member of G20, lying in the 15th place in the rating of the greatest global economies. In 2002-2009 the average GDP was 6-9 percent, the figure was doubled in five years. Now it is 880 billion dollars (the nearest competitors are South Korea, Mexico and Australia). Turkey expands its international influence, seeking to gain the role of informal leader of the Middle East and the Balkans. It may lead to the revival of the new Ottoman Empire. How did it happen that the poor state turned into politically, economically strong entity?

The elections of 2002 shocked both Turkey and the international community: the Islamists came to power! However, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the new Turkish leader proved to be a clever man. Aspiration to full-fledged EU membership and reforming legislation to meet its standards represented one of the main directions of the political program. This step was very successful and the party still enjoys its dividends. Having quickly understood that the main danger is posed to his party from inside the country - mainly from traditionally secular military and civil officers who head the Constitutional Court and the Council for National Security- Erdoğan took care of their non-involvement in political life of his country. According to the incumbent Constitution of 1982 these bodies are completely entitled to dissolve any political force which could be accused of attempted violation of secular bases of the society. Amendment of legislation towards europeization would deprive the army from this right. Slogans of democratization and europeization provide strong support from abroad.

Many other home reforms found approvement of the EU leaders and bodies and clever foreign policy made Turkey one of the new leaders of emerging world order. I guess almost every country could find some useful example to take from this country's policy, but will any? I doubt as despite these achievement Turkey is still perceived by most Europeans as a second chop state.

http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/turkey-nature-national-modernization-essay-1

FUTURE OF EUROPE: New security system or new “Berlin walls”?

What should the Europeans be afraid of today? Many still believe that the main threat is coming from Russia and try to install some powder kegs between itself and this potential enemy.
But much more real are threats coming from inside. In the first place — it's the unpredictable and inadequate behavior of the “new democracies” of Eastern Europe; their political climate is very favorable for the emergence of the ultra-nationalist regimes as if they were transferred by a time machine right from the 1930s—1940s. It is them who create the zone of conflicts around the Europe, which threatens the Old World with numerous troubles. The most outrageous example of them is Georgian troops invasion in Southern Ossetia in August of 2008. Only intervention of the Russian army saved the citizens of Ossetian city Tskhinvali from the genocide, which cannot be denied: Georgian tanks were firing directly to the residential houses, schools and hospitals. Recently Dmitry Medvedev made a public statement that if the effective international security institution, capable to stop the aggressor, existed in 2008, Georgia would have never taken the audacity to unleash the war against the people of South Ossetia.
There are yet other potential threats coming from inside - for example, economic crisis that can destroy European architecture so thoroughly built during the last decades.
It is therefore to unify all possible sources to improve the situation. And not the least of the actions needed is adooption of a common European security system.
http://www.win.ru/en/school/2891.phtml

US ABM system in Europe: what comes next?

The threat of American ABM system initiative for military security of the Russian federation is apparent and is put under the question only by the participants of its implementation. The point of view of Russia concerning the issue was expressed by the chief of General Staff of military forces of the Russian Federation Nikolaj Makarov, who, in particular, claimed that “in an extreme case, if Iran places its warhead against a certain state, we now where this warhead will go – it is not Poland or the Czech republic, that’s why the deployment of the facilities in these states make us concerned”. “Regarding imaginary threat from North Korea and Iran, this facility is not capable to reach these countries. We are really concerned that this system is against Russia” – added the chief of General Staff. The concern of Russia is caused also by the involvement of the Baltic states in the process. Such a scenario of the further course of events is not rejected, particularly, by the Russian military expert Vladislav Shurygin: “The USA reconfigures its ABM , turning away from land-based objects. It is easy to destroy them by cruising missiles at the very beginning of military operation. Only land-based tracking stations will be deployed in Romania. Washington places its stake on naval ABM, which can be easily moved from one region to another and in elaboration of which the USA advanced greatly. If the intend to deploy similar elements in the Baltic region or somewhere in the north is the determining factor.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/us-abm-system-europe-what-comes-next

Greece: the cradle or the grave of European civilization?

University professors of International Policy Studies throughout the world have been treating the European Union as an example of a democratic, rapidly developing, and exclusively wealthy organization for more than a decade. The current crisis is a serious challenge for the EU. This time weak link is Greece, the country with population of only twelve million, pretending to be the cradle of European civilization. Russian analyst Dr. Alexander Sotnichenko argues that the situation is so acute that the cradle may become the grave of united Europe quite soon... See the whole article here:
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/greece-cradle-or-grave-european-civilization

The Yalta System still alive?

Sixty five years ago in the Crimea the second conference of the Allies took place, including marshal Joseph Stalin, the prime minister Winston Churchill, and the president Franklin Roosevelt. It is often stated that Yalta is the turning point in the history of modern Europe: there the borders have been established which remain unchanged till now; “spheres of influence” of the West and the USSR have been determined, which has later caused the appearance of two military blocks; and the fate of post-war Germany has been determined, as well. The Yalta system has proved stable; and until recently none has dared to argue the existing borders in Central and Eastern Europe. As for the scheme of balance between the East and the West, it still exists despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and NATO expansion to the East.

How serious may be consequences for Europe and Russia, if the main principles of the Yalta agreements are undone? A point of view has appeared that these decisions are to be revised. The answer is obvious: such revision, especially the one of state borders, may cause a new global catastrophe. Those who call upon “finishing Yalta for ever” hardly realize what terrible daemons they may summon.
http://www.eastwest-review.com/article/yalta-system-and-central-europe-1945-2010