Category: Analysis

The American embassy in Turkey has granted a visa to Ersin Tatar to visit the United Nations General Assembly. Tatar will be flying on a Turkish passport. The creeping recognition of occupied Cyprus is steadily under way.

This follows the genocidal assault on the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan. The Biden administration can be considered the most pro Turkish administration in American history and that says a good deal. While in the Senate, Biden took pro Greek positions.

What many failed to realize is the Presidency is different from the Senate and the President is subject to the influence of the foreign policy establishment. Greeks should not be surprised by how things are turning out. The anti Russian hysteria has inevitably made Turkey a strategically important player that Washington and Moscow are both looking to influence.

This is not the first time the senile President has extended diplomatic courtesies to the occupied territories. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland previously visited occupied Cyprus and called Tatar “Mr. President”. The Biden administration is hostile to Greece and Cyprus and this was made clear early on when Washington sold fighter planes to Turkey.

Prime Minister Mitsotakis has put Greek foreign policy in American hands by publicly bashing Russia and embracing the phony cause that is Ukraine. The Russians have been disappointing to say the least as the Armenians can attest, but there was no reason for Mitsotakis to embrace the fascist cause of Ukraine and to destroy Greek Russian relations. Mitsotakis was once an admiral leader who stood up to the Turks, he is now an American stooge like many of his predecessors.

Disaster on the diplomatic front for Cyprus is coming in phases. First, Nuland’s visit to occupied Cyprus, and now this this visa granted to Tatar. Greeks should be worried.

Archbishop Elpidophoros of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese needs to be deposed. For years, he has been a controversial and polarizing figure. He is indifferent to the controversy and division that he has left in his wake. His contribution to the schism in Ukraine as a result of his distortion of Orthodox ecclesiology is the most notorious example.

Metropolitan Antonios of the Metropolis of Glyfada in the Church of Greece has given new information regarding the baptismal ceremony that has caused such an uproar in Orthodoxy. The American Archbishop asked permission from the Metropolitan to preside over a baptism of two babies in a parish in Glyfada. The American hierarch told the Metropolitan it was a family baptism without pointing out the “parents” were gay.

His eminence Metropolitan Antonios has stated flat out he was deceived. It is clear that Archbishop Elpidophoros was dishonest. The Archbishop has NOT communicated with the Metropolitan ever since despite the uproar and division that has ensued. The Archbishop must be removed at this point as he has demonstrated his unfitness to lead the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.

His eminence Metropolitan Antonios has expressed sympathy for the babies. This was clearly a delicate situation. The Orthodox Church does not recognize or permit same sex unions. There is a view that says the children should have been baptized despite the status of the “parents”. The Metropolitan has said that if he knew the status of the family he would raised the issue with the holy synod which would have collectively made a decision as to whether the baptism should proceed.

Indeed, some voices within the Church of Greece suggest the baptisms should have proceeded. If Archbishop Elpidophoros had been honest this entire controversy could have been avoided. While the majority of the blame lies with the Archbishop the family and the guests contributed to the anger of scandalized Orthodox faithful by their insensitive comments.

The guests did not celebrate the entry of two beautiful children of God into the holy Church. They seemed to celebrate the imposition of homosexual relationships on the Orthodox Church as if the Church were a secular institution susceptible to modernization and evolving standards of social morality. They hurt themselves by their apathy toward the sacred teachings of Orthodoxy which emanate from revelation and holy tradition. Proudly referencing the “first gay baptism” in the Orthodox Church was a provocation against the Church and her faithful.

It is sad to see that people have been embarrassed and hurt. The Church in the end has an obligation to her founder Jesus Christ and to adhere to holy scripture and sacred tradition. Archbishop Elpidophoros put everyone in an awkward position by failing to adequately convey the moral teachings of the Orthodox Church.

None of this should have happened. This case does create the need for the Orthodox Church to adopt a firm stance regarding the issue of baptism when the parents of a child do not adhere to Orthodox teaching. Sexuality is not the only instance in which something like this could happen. What if the parents are white supremacists or adhere to other anti Christian ideas and philosophies?

This should be a wake up call to the Greek speaking Churches. For nearly three years, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has dominated the Church of Greece. This case illustrates why the Church of Greece must be removed from the domineering influence of Constantinople and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.

Archbishop Elpidophoros had very little experience as pastor or bishop when he was elected Archbishop. The bishops in Greece are very experienced and have real flocks unlike the Archbishop in his former see at Proussa. This should be the time for the Church of Greece to reclaim its autocephaly and to tell the Archbishop that he will never again be permitted to serve in Greece.

If the Ecumenical Patriarchate wants to recover the credibility it has lost mostly because of Ukraine (and other issues) it will depose the Archbishop and rule out the possibility of assigning him elsewhere. The Patriarchate should repent for Ukraine but that is another story. The Orthodox Church is a hospital for sinners that does not seek to turn people away. But it can never change what Christ has given through the scriptures, the apostles, the fathers, and holy tradition.

Theodore Karakostas

With the anti Russian rhetoric heating up again in Washington it is impossible not to comment on the involvement of Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Elpidophoros with the American foreign policy establishment. The schism in Orthodoxy began when Patriarch Bartholomew violated canon law and proceeded to “grant” autocephaly to a schismatic sect in Ukraine despite the fact that this territory belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church. Political interests based on anti Russian hysteria made Constantinople’s actions possible.

The unpleasant reality here is that the Patriarch and the Archbishop are blinded by their aspirations for power by attempting to convert the Patriarchate into a source of complete authority over Orthodoxy at the expense of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. Authority in the Orthodox Church is held by Christ who is the true leader of the Church. Under the auspices of the holy spirit, decisions are made by an ecumenical council in which all the Orthodox Churches participate.

In 2013, then Metropolitan Elpidophoros gained notoriety in Orthodoxy when he pronounced that the Ecumenical Patriarch is “first without equals” among Orthodox Patriarchs and primates. In truth the Ecumenical Patriarch is considered to be “first among equals” with a “primacy of honour” and not authority. In 2018, the theories of Archbishop Elpidophoros were put into practice when the Patriachate declared against all evidence that Ukraine belonged to Constantinople.

A formal alliance between the Patriarchate and the American foreign policy establishment was formally sealed at this time. The unifying factor in this alliance was a common dislike of the Russians. Only the Russian Church is strong enough to resist Patriarch Bartholomew’s aggressive and anti Orthodox ecclesiology. To this end Washington considers the Patriarchate to be of considerable value.

This is important because Washington only values the Patriarchate for the purpose of hurting the Russian Church. It does NOT support the Patriarchate for reasons of religious freedom. The Patriarch and the Archbishop have badly misinterpreted the intentions of the American foreign policy establishment.

During his American visit, Patriarch Bartholomew referred to the Russian Church’s decision to break communion with Constantinople. He uttered the infamous “skasila mou” remark and his audience responded with laughter as if the threat of a permanent schism in Orthodoxy was a cause for amusement rather than a tragedy. It has been forgotten that the American foreign policy establishment ignored the ethnic cleansing of Orthodox Greeks from Constantinople by the Turks during the 1950’s and 1960’s which is why the Patriarchate’s existence is threatened.

The decisions of the Patriarchate and the Archdiocese of New York have been catastrophic. Much publicity has surrounded the scandals at the Archdiocese and the Saint Nicholas Shrine but surprisingly little has been written about the blatant politicization of both Patriarchate and Archdiocese by the secular interests of the State Department. The political activities of both Patriarch and Archbishop have not been confined to their own ecclesiastical territory.

The Patriarchate and the Archdiocese have done much harm to the once independent and honorable Church of Greece. Patriarch Bartholomew with the backing of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and “Ambassador” Geoffrey Pyatt pushed the Church of Greece under the cowardly Archbishop Ieronymos to recognize the fake “church” in Ukraine that Constantinople established with the backing of the Americans.

The influence that the spiritually unhealthy Archdiocese and Patriarchate have established over the once vibrant and solidly Orthodox Church of Greece is a cause for mourning. They have delivered the most vibrant and prosperous Church in Hellenism to the State Department as can be seen by the fact that American officials have been giving orders to Greek bishops. Where are real bishops like the great Archbishop Christodoulos?

Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Elpidophoros have betrayed Greek Orthodoxy. They have entered into a nefarious alliance to harm Orthodox Russia and there will be a price to pay. They have betrayed the spiritual heritage of Constantinople (which is actually being upheld by the Russians who inherited it) and are becoming complicit with American warmongering.

The Patriarch and the Archbishop have attempted to justify their war on the Russian Church by hiding behind the Greek flag. The Archbishop however demonstrated how much he supports Hellenism when he attended that ceremony at the Turkish mission in New York which was attended by the Turkish President who converted Hagia Sophia into a Mosque and by the leader of the Turkish occupation in Cyprus.

Hysterical voices in both political parties are looking to exacerbate tensions with Orthodox Russia. With Donald Trump gone from the White House the pro war factions in Washington and the think tanks are taking the initiative to start yet another war against Orthodox Russia. The decision of Patriarch and Archbishop to align themselves with these elements is both immoral and contravenes the traditions of the Greek Orthodox Church.

One thousand years ago, the Emperor of Constantinople encountered the Knights of the First Crusade. The Crusaders talked about “holy war” to kill Muslims. The Emperor told the Crusaders that the Christians of the East reject the concept of “holy war” and fight only in defense of their borders and their security.

The Crusaders did not understand this because they were religious fanatics. The neoconservatives and neo liberals do not exploit Christianity as the Crusaders did. Instead, they justify their modern Crusades under the guise of “democracy”. Originally, it was Emperor Alexios Comnenus of Constantinople who asked for western mercenaries to counter the Seljuk Turks who had conquered Anatolian territory in 1071. When the Emperor realized that an army of lunatics showed up at the gates of Constantinople, he came to regret his decision.

His successors also came to regret his decision as new Crusades were launched. In 1204, the Fourth Crusade attacked Constantinople and destroyed its Churches and Monasteries while massacring the population. The Patriarchate and Archdiocese are depending on Washington to save the Patriarchate.

That unwise decision has been costly for Orthodoxy and especially for the following Churches. For the canonical Ukrainian Church which is being persecuted by the Ukrainian authorities. Churches are being seized by the schismatics that Patriarch Bartholomew supports and priests and faithful are being beaten. The Greek Churches have also become casualties (as noted above) as the Church of Greece’s autocephaly has been undermined and the Church of Cyprus has become divided because of Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions.

The reputation of the Holy Mountain of Athos has been damaged because a handful of Abbots have placed their loyalty to the Patriarch above Orthodoxy. It is well known that American officials have interfered with the Monks to press them to go along with Patriarch Bartholomew’s orders. The remaining Orthodox Churches remain cautious regarding the break in communion between Constantinople and the Russian Church. The Orthodox Church is in a a state of semi paralysis.

As the Greeks in the Byzantine Empire came to bitterly regret aligning with the Crusaders, modern Greeks will come to regret the decisions of Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, and the Archbishop of Athens to align the Greek Churches with the modern Crusaders of Washington who like their predecessors one thousand years ago have an insatiable lust for unending wars.

As the city of Constantinople was destroyed by the Fourth Crusade, the Church of Constantinople today is being gradually destroyed by the policies imposed on it by the new Crusaders. Those who happen to love the Church and City of Constantinople and its glorious heritage reject the new Crusades against Holy Russia and its Great Church.

5 + 3: Turkic Superstate in Caucasus, Central Asia Under NATO Tutelage

It appears that Turkish influence is growing in Central Asia and Russian influence is lessening. This is problematic as is the remarkable lack of support by the Russians for the Armenians during last year’s war with Azerbaijan. The Russians have been giving Turkey a free hand against Armenia.

It is hard to see what the Russians have to gain from this. Turkey is the promotor of jihadism. Ankara is gradually replacing Islamic State as the center of the new Caliphate. The Russians fought to destroy jihadism in Syria but are now tolerating a new from of jihadism being promoted by Turkey and Azerbaijan.

The Russians are not the only ones that deserve criticism here. The United States has not exactly done anything to counter Turkey and Azerbaijan. True, the Biden White House recognized the Armenian Genocide but in the aftermath lifted an embargo that had been imposed on Azerbaijan in the early 1990’s. Appeasement of Turkey remains in effect in Washington.

The problem that Greece, Armenia, and Cyprus face is the fact that Turkey’s geostrategic position continues to enthrall both Washington and Moscow. Turkey has benefitted from its borders going back to the Ottoman Empire. Under the Erdogan regime, both Moscow and Washington have been humiliated and slapped around.

The Turks ordered the downing of a Russian plane over Syria in 2015. They supported the enemies of the government in Damascus (Russia’s ally) during the Syrian war. They supported Islamic State which should have enraged both Washington and Moscow. Turkey continues to humiliate both Washington and Moscow both of whom seek the influence of Erdogan.

Turkish influence continues to grow over the Turkish speaking Republics of Central Asia (see the links above) and over the Muslim world, although there are countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates who are resisting Turkey’s expanding influence. Washington and Moscow will come to regret that they both had opportunities to crush and curtail the influence of Erdogan’s Turkey but refused to do so for their own self serving and short term interests.

Greeks also seem to misunderstand the American foreign policy establishment’s commitment to Turkey. American-Turkish ties have been badly strained during the Erdogan era, but American officials have not figured out how to conduct policies in Central Asia and the Middle East without Turkey. Some Greek Americans are under the impression that the Democratic Party will be anti Turkish. Such a belief is based in the realm of fantasy because domestic American politics cannot penetrate the long and committed American policies that have been built up for at least a century based on Turkish support.

On the positive side, American-Turkish relations have deteriorated but that is because of the rise of radical Islam in Turkey and because of Erdogan’s arrogance and megalomania, not because either political party in America has become pro Greek. It appears that the new cold war between Washington and Moscow has benefitted Turkey. The Erdogan government has been very effective in playing the Americans and the Russians off one another.

The reality is that the world is a vicious place dominated by the powerful. Turkey retains a great deal of power and influence. For a brief time as the Cold War was coming to an end, there were signs that America’s use for Turkey was coming to an end. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait however led the US to depend on Turkey for use of the military base at Incerlik.

The Greeks and the Armenians still have strong cases to make but need to work hard in both Washington and Moscow. The Ukrainian Church crisis has complicated Greek relations with both Washington and Moscow. Greece needs for that issue to be resolved even if it means disavowing Patriarch Bartholomew. Greece and Cyprus have other pressing concerns beyond Patriarch Bartholomew’s claims of power over the Orthodox Church.

The Church issue is relevant here because it exposes America as a semi colonial power maintaining an unhealthy influence in Greece. The Church issue is also turning Greeks against Russians. The Church issue must end and then Athens can engage both Washington and Moscow.

There are reasons for optimism. Erdogan has demonstrated a pattern of irrational thought. In 2011, he nearly started a war with Israel after supporting the flotilla attack on the Israelis. In 2015, he shot down the Russian plane, and during the war in Syria invaded the Kurdish region which was then occupied by American forces.

At some point, one has to believe that someone will finally stand up to Turkish bullying and aggression. Turkish influence is on the rise and needs to be countered. The abandonment of the Syrian Kurds by even the Trump administration and the abandonment of Armenia by Russia are truly disappointing.

However, the signs of tension between Turkey and both Washington and Moscow do exist. The challenge for the Greeks is to engage both of them, to remain friendly with both, and to work to convince both of them of the Turkish threat.

Recently, I have been involved in discussions surrounding American political parties and Greek issues. It remains my position based on historical and political factors that Greece and Cyprus were better off in the long term under the Trump administration. Trump is not necessarily a Republican.

Historically, both the Republicans and the Democrats have been staunchly pro Turkish because ultimately the foreign policy apparatus dictates to the administrations of both parties what the policies toward Greece and Turkey should be. For example, the Eisenhower administration did nothing to punish Turkey in the aftermath of the anti Greek pogroms of 1955. In fact, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles threatened to cut off aid to Greece if Athens did not back down.

It is also true that the Nixon administration and notorious Secretary of State Henry Kissinger instigated the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. In 2004, the Bush-Cheney administration attempted to pressure Cyprus into accepting the Annan Plan. There we have the record of the Republicans.

With regard to the Democrats. In 1965, the Johnson administration attempted to pressure the Greek government into signing an agreement that would have forced Cyprus to keep a Turkish base on the island and would have forced Greece to cede the island of Castellorizo to the Turks.

In 1978, the Carter administration lifted the Congressional Arms embargo on Turkey that Congress had imposed in 1974. In 1992, Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton promised not recognize the country of FYROM as Macedonia. In early 1994, he broke that promise. On January 31, 1996 Undersecretary of State Richard Holbrooke pressured Greece to withdraw from the islet of Imia that maps showed were part of Greece.

Furthermore, in August 1996 the Turks murdered Solomos Solomou and Tasos Isaac in Cyprus and the Clinton administration did nothing to punish Turkey. Therefore, the idea that the Democrats are pro Greek is pure myth. Democrats make promises to the Greeks that they always break.

President Donald Trump was far from perfect in terms of policies toward Greece and Turkey. However, the America first policies that the former President championed were preferable for Greece because the former President was opposed to further American participation in foreign wars. Trump differed from both Democratic and Republican Presidents because he did not believe in the propaganda that all American Presidents traditionally believe in.

Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden all believe in the myth that America has a mission to spread democracy around the world. The gullibility of the average President has been destructive in terms of the wars it has unleashed. No better example of an ignorant President duped by the foreign policy establishment exists than George W. Bush.

As long as American policymakers are looking to wage more wars, Turkey will increase in strategic importance to the United States. Now the new Democratic administration has made Russia into an enemy. This will inevitably lead to greater American dependence on Turkey.

American pro Turkish policies during the twentieth century were preceded by the pro Ottoman policies of the British Empire during the nineteenth century. Untangling this long entrenched policy may take some time. President Donald Trump’s policies were a start to undoing the historic pro Turkish policies of the west.

To begin with, Trump was pro Russian. It is of extreme importance for Greece and Cyprus that the anti Russian hysteria ends. An America reconciled with Russia will decrease dependence on Turkey. Now, Donald Trump did not campaign in 2016 on a pro Greek plat form. But, his policies were beneficial because his administration unlike virtually all previous administration going back sixty years did not pressure or bully Greece into making concessions to Turkey in any form.

For example, during the summer of 2020 Turkey sent ships to drill for oil near Greek islands. On at least two occasions, Athens successfully chased the Turks away. The New York Times ran an editorial slamming the Trump administration and compared this administration unfavorably to the Clinton administrations mediation during the Imia affair of January 31, 1996.

The Times ignores the fact the Imia “settlement” was reached to the disadvantage of Greece which was pressured to give up an islet that was Greek. For the interests of Greece, the lack of intervention on the part of the Trump administration was to the benefit of Greece as the Greeks were not compelled to renounce their own territorial rights and continue to fight to this day to counter Turkish aggression.

Another way in which the Trump administration was helpful to Greece was in pursuing detente with Russia. In 2015, under the Obama administration Turkey shot down a Russian plane. One has to wonder what would have happened under President Donald Trump? Would the pro Russian Trump sought to protect Turkey or would he with his America first policy have stayed on the sidelines and permitted the Russians to punish Turkey?

As of this writing, the Putin-Biden summit has ended. Some reports indicate that President Biden moderated his stance toward Russia and perhaps will work with the Russians for better relations. Such a stance would be most welcome. If Moscow does not have to fear NATO encroachments on its borders then perhaps the Russians will not be compelled to support Turkey?

Russian and Turkish interests are not compatible. The Russians have admittedly disappointed the Greeks up to now, and they did not support the Armenians after the aggressive war instigated by Azerbaijan. Armenia, Greece, and Cyprus face existential threats and a cold war between Washington and Moscow will put them in greater danger if the two great powers end up competing for Turkey’s support.

The future of Greece and Cyprus should not depend on the support of politicians of either party. Politicians will say whatever they need to get money and votes from the Greek community. The key to getting support for Greece and Cyprus lies with getting support from the foreign policy establishment, and that will be extremely difficult.

What Greece needed was an updated version of the Megali Idea. A political ideology based on the defense of all Greek and Cypriot territory. Greece has failed to exploit the Erdogan government’s collaboration with ISIS and its emergence as the future center of the next Caliphate. The problems that Greece and Cyprus face are immense and will not be solved by participation in mere partisan politics and loyalty to one or another political party.

There is a great deal of thinking to do in how to dislodge the ongoing western support for Turkey. One step is for Greeks to support the anti war movement that has taken hold in the Republican Party. War means being pro Turkish. Anti war means reform of traditional foreign policy.

While there are no guarantees as to what anti war politics would do for Greece and Cyprus, it would likely be better than the ongoing warmongering policies pursued by both the Democrats and the neocon controlled Republican Party in the past.

by

Theodore G. Karakostas

It has been obvious for years that Turkey was the major beneficiary of the Obama-Biden administrations war on Syria. Furthermore, Turkey has benefitted from the anti Russian hysteria rampant in America and Europe. The Russophobia that has been stirred up for nearly a decade by the Democratic Party in America and their counterparts in Europe has been to the detriment of Greece.

It would not be fair to blame the Democrats entirely for advantages that Turkey has gained over the last several years. The Bush administration set the stage for the Syrian war by launching an unprovoked invasion of Iraq and creating the tensions that have led to American and NATO anti Russian policies. However, the focus on the present day problems of Greece as they pertain to Turkey lie directly with policies undertaken by the Obama-Biden administration.

First, the Obama-Biden administration brought about the anti Russian Coup in Ukraine in 2014. It is a fact that both political parties supported the encirclement of Russia by NATO. It was the Clinton administration that began expanding NATO in 1998 and these policies continued under the neoconservative administration of George W. Bush. But the final straw came with the overthrow of the pro Russian government in Ukraine and the installation of the regime of Petro Poroshenko.

The regime change in Ukraine occurred because Washington wanted to bring Ukraine into NATO. The Russians as such have been on the defensive and responded by growing close to Turkey. Russian-Turkish relations grew close in large part because the Russians were treated as an enemy by NATO and this was before the widespread anti Russian hysteria took off following Hillary Clinton’s election loss in 2016.

Secondly, the Obama-Biden administration firmly embraced war in Syria. As a result of the Syrian war both Europe and Turkey were flooded with refugees from the war. Both of them have become exhausted by the endless arrivals of refugees. Turkey however has gained a serious advantage from the refugee crisis.

Turkey has a couple of million refugees within its borders and is in a position to threaten the terrified nations of Europe with a further flood of refugees. Turkey has in fact made out quite well from the Obama-Biden administrations policies in Syria. Ankara has been able to establish close ties with Moscow (for now) while the Europeans are inclined to appease Turkey in order to avoid another refugee crisis.

Turkey’s position looks to increase even further with the anti Russian policies pursued by Washington. Historically, the Turks have always benefitted from anti Russian hysteria. During the nineteenth century, the European powers backed the Ottoman Empire in its wars with the Russian Empire. The support for the Ottomans after the outbreak of the Crimean War in 1853 is the best example.

Greece and Cyprus face serious existential threats from Erdogan’s Turkey at the present time. There have been some positive signals from officials in Washington who have expressed support for Athens. However, positive statements are far from a formal commitment to Greece. The danger remains that the United States will seek to support Turkey as a counter to Russia.

Present day Russian-Turkish relations are a problem for Greece and Cyprus. The question needs to be asked whether the Russians would have gotten close to Turkey if NATO and the Americans had not provoked the Russians by attempting to expand to the Russian border. The Syrian war has also helped Turkey tremendously.

Turkey continues to occupy a portion of Syrian territory. Furthermore, Turkey has established an influence over its jihadist allies in Syria. With Turkish support, jihadist fighters from Syria travelled to Azerbaijan to help that terrorist sponsor fight against the Armenians in Artsakh. In addition, Syrian jihadists with the support of Ankara are present in Libya where they are fighting a rebel faction that is backed by the Russians.

Turkey was allied with the Islamic State and has become a collaborator with Al Quada. Despite these ties, and despite Turkish support for Syrian jihadists in Artsakh and Libya, Turkey has not been declared a state sponsor of terrorism. The problem for Greece, Cyprus, and Armenia is that Russia for the moment is allied with Turkey and America has not been willing to terminate formally its alliance and support for Turkey.

In the new Cold War that is emerging between Washington and Moscow, Turkey is a beneficiary despite its evolving jihadist character. The Trump administration held promise for Greece for a couple of credible reasons. This is based on the Trump administrations attitudes toward both Russia and the Syrian war.

The Trump administration was friendly toward Russia. If Washington had ceased in its anti Russian hysteria, policy towards Russia might have eased and which might have led Moscow to feel less threatened by NATO. Feeling threatened by NATO and on the defensive, Moscow has been trying to undermine that alliance by influencing Turkey. Therefore, NATO hostility to Russia may very well have led to Russian-Turkish cooperation.

The Trump administration was not permitted to adopt a friendly posture toward Russia that would have eased tensions. Furthermore, the Trump administration was opposed to the war in Syria. It should be remembered that Greece suffered considerably from the Syria war that the Obama-Biden administration supported once it began. The Greek islands were flooded with refugees on top of the migration from the Middle East that had already been well under way.

The Biden administration appears to differ from the Trump administrations policies in another significant way. The Trump administration viewed jihadist terrorism as a priority. Hence, the action taken by the Trump administration to destroy the Islamic State. The Trump administration cut off the flow of support that was being given to Syrian jihadists (the rebels were all terrorists) and stood aside as the Syrian government with the backing of the Russians defeated Islamic State in Syria.

In Iraq, the Trump administration armed and backed fully the Iraqi army which successfully liberated its own occupied territories from Islamic State. The Trump administration cannot be commended entirely. The betrayal of the Syrian Kurds will remain perhaps the most shameful act of the Trump administration in a gesture that fully appeased the Turks.

However, the Trump administrations commitment to fight jihadism might have been a precedent for future action against Turkey. The downfall of Islamic State has seen Turkey fill the vacuum as the center of jihadism. President Erdogan of Turkey could not have have been pleased by the claims of the Islamic State “Caliph” over political and spiritual leadership of the worlds Sunni Muslims. His own position and claims were heightened after the demise of Islamic State.

The Turkish President sees himself as the leader of the worlds Sunni Muslims (at least politically). The Turkish President desires the restoration of the Ottoman Empire. The building of a huge palace in Constantinople that would have filled the Sultans with envy, and the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a Mosque demonstrates the Turkish leader’s ambitions.

The ascension to power of the Democratic Party of Joe Biden remains problematic. First of all, Greeks have forgotten the historical betrayal of Hellenism by the Democrats when it counted. The anniversary of January 31 came and went without notice by the Hellenic world. On that date in 1996, the Turks made a claim over the Greek islet of Imia. Maps and Treaties showed the islet was Greek territory but the Clinton administration through its “mediator”, then Undersecretary of State Richard Holbrooke pressured Greece to remove its flag and to withdraw.

Secondly, the Democratic Party today is a party of political correctness whose understanding and appreciation of history, religion, and national conflicts is highly questionable. At least with the Trump administration the possibility existed of a continued anti terrorism policy that could have been aimed at Turkey at some point. The Democratic administration of Joe Biden is so inherently anti Russia, one has to consider whether it will consider any other foreign policy issues such as the problems posed by Turkey.

Greeks have failed to appreciate one serious difference between the Trump administration and all preceding administrations (Republican and Democratic alike). The Trump administration unlike its predecessors DID NOT bully Greece into making concessions to Turkey. This is in contrast to the Clinton administration’s pressure on Greece during the Imia affair, and the Bush-Cheney administrations bullying of Cyprus to accept the Annan Plan

As tensions mounted between Greece and Turkey as a result of Turkish aggression during the summer of 2020, many media critics attacked the Trump administration. The New York Times in an editorial lamented the absence of Richard Holbrooke. Greeks should remember Holbrooke as the bully who pressured Greece to surrender the islet of Imia.

The ignorant criticism directed at Trump on the matter of Greek-Turkish tensions is actually favorable for Trump. Trump’s refusal to get involved may have enabled the Mitsotakis government in Greece to maintain its tough and defiant stance against Turkey. Trump’s record on Greek issues is by no means perfect, but it was better than any of his predecessors.

Much criticism was directed at Trump over his relationship with Erdogan. But those critics have yet to name even a single American President who could ever be considered pro Greek. The Eisenhower administration presided over the anti Greek pogroms in Constantinople with no reaction to the Turkish crimes. The Johnson administration took no action against Ankara for the ethnic cleansing of Greeks from Constantinople in 1964. In fact, the Johnson administration personally threatened Greek Ambassador Alexander Matsas after the Greek government refused to accept a deal that would have given Turkey a base in Cyprus and would have forced Greece to give up the island of Castellorizo.

The Nixon-Kissinger administration brought about the invasions and ethnic cleansing of Cyprus. The Carter administration lifted the embargo on Turkey that was imposed by Congress after the invasions of Cyprus. The Reagan and Bush administrations viewed Turkey as a strategic asset during the Cold War and in Operation Desert Storm. The Clinton administration recognized Skopje as “Macedonia”, pressured Greece in Imia, and took no action after the murders of Cypriot protestors Tasos Isaac and Solomos Solomou in 1996.

The second Bush administration was hostile to Greece and Cyprus considering its attempts to force Cyprus to accept the undemocratic and racist Annan Plan. The Obama-Biden administration hurt Greece by the aforementioned policies mentioned above. The Trump administration for all its failings was better for Greece and Cyprus than any of the above mentioned administrations.

Regarding prospects for the future. There is still reason for some optimism despite some disappointment. The Erdogan government may very well reject any diplomatic gestures from Washington as the Turkish President is not known for humility or rational thinking. The strength of the Kemalist Army Officers in Turkey was they understood Turkey’s strategic advantages were based on maintaining close relations with America, NATO, and Israel. Turkish strategic positions for the West mean nothing if Ankara does not cooperate.

Turkey has harmed its relationship with Israel and its relationship with America and NATO remains cool despite their efforts to revive the old relationship. Israeli policies remain immoral and problematic owing to the support it continues to give to the genocidal government of Azerbaijan. The future of Russian-Turkish relations are also uncertain. Undeniably, the warm relations between Russia and Turkey is problematic but the possibility of a rupture in relations remains strong.

First, there is the precedent of what transpired in 2015. Even then, Russian-Turkish relations were warm. But the conflict of interests in Syria led Turkey to shoot down a Russian plane. Furthermore, the Russian Ambassador in Turkey was assassinated by a Turkish jihadist.

Russia and Turkey are on opposite sides of the conflict in Libya. Turkey sponsors and supports the Syrian jihadists. Those are the forces that the Russians opposed in Syria. Turkey is a jihadist state while Russia claims to be the heir of Byzantium by flying the old imperial flag which displays the double headed eagle. Ideologically and spiritually, Russia and Turkey have conflicting agendas.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has asserted that Greece is within its rights to extend its territory in the Aegean Sea to twelve nautical miles. Russia has condemned the opening of the beach of Varosha in the occupied territories of Cyprus. The Russians also reminded the Turks of the role of the Russians at the Battle of Navarino in 1828.

Greece cannot help but be weary of the Russians as long as they are in a formal friendship with Turkey. But Athens should recognize that the Russian government has expressed a desire for friendly relations with Greece. Athens should maintain friendly relations and maintain that its position on all national issues are non negotiable.

Greeks should remember that NATO has refused to criticize Turkey for its acts of aggression against Greece. Under no circumstances is western support for Greece guaranteed. It should also be remembered that Prime Minister Mitsotakis asked the Europeans to impose sanctions on Turkey specifically in connection to Turkish acts of aggression against Greece. The Europeans only imposed sanctions based on Turkish purchases of a Russian defense system.

When the Greek Prime Minister asked the Germans to stop selling arms to the Turks, they refused. The Greeks find themselves in a very tough situation as usual. But the Mitsotakis government has found itself in a position where it has been able to successfully stand up to Turkey.

Greece would have been in a stronger position without the cold war rivalry developing between Washington and Moscow. These type of rivalries always lead to Turkey’s strategic value going up. The best hope that exists is for the Turkish President to destroy his country’s relationships with both Washington and Moscow. The Turkish President is a narcissist and is capable of instigating a crisis with any country at any time.

Regarding American policies, Greeks may come to regret the departure of Donald Trump. Donald Trump’s pro Russian stance might have made a huge difference in 2015 after the Turks shot down that Russian plane had he been in office. If Russian-Turkish relations sour again, how likely is it that the Biden administration would stand on the sidelines and let the Russians move against Turkey?