Russia Keeps Burning Books

~ Clarissa

Russian authorities continue the destruction of the Turkish school in the occupied Crimea that they started back in 2014.

Today, they burned all the books in Turkish and fired all the teachers of the Turkish language. Mind you, though, the persecution against the Turkish school in the Crimea began over a year ago.

There is a narrative being promoted by the very clueless that Turkey’s decision to shoot down the Russian fighter jet that breached the country’s air space was sudden and unexpected. Nothing could be further from the truth. Russians have been provoking Turkey in every way they could for quite a while. Erdogan actually showed an uncharacteristic restraint in not responding for as long as he did. The current conflict between Russia and Turkey was a long time coming.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

19 thoughts on “Russia Keeps Burning Books”

  2. The problem is that Putin and Erdogan are too similar. Turkey violated Greek air space over 2000 times in 2014.

    It usually takes two agressive hotheads to turn a tense situation into an all out brawl and they fit the bill…..

    Like

    Reply

    2. Turkey is worried about the potential for Kurdish independence, and also hates Assad far more that it hates ISIS. Nothing in the near future is going to change either of those facts.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Kurds (with low educational attainment , higher more conservative religiosity and other dismal social capital indicators) are outbreeding ethnic Turks (who do better on just about every possible social metric) by a large margin.

        The big Turkish fear is Kurds becoming the majority in the country (which would probably precede the dismantling of just about everything good in Turkey).

        Like

        Reply

        1. Cliff that is interesting to here. The kurds have always seemed the most friendly to America in Iraq, and seemed less violent / ideological than either the current SHIA govt. or Saddam’s Bathist’s and other Sunni factions.

          So since you seem to know something on this topic would the logic follow this way?

          (most advanced / highest social norms by western standards)

          The West / Europe > Turkey > Kurds > Iraq sunni and Shia ???

          Is there any merit to making a Kurdish state of Northern Iraq and Syria, and Turkey encouraging outward emmigration?

          To be honest never gave Joe Biden’s theory of splitting up Iraq much credit, and not sure I still do, but perhaps the Kurds would be able to help but themselves, and Iraq, Syria, and Turkey?

          Any thoughts?

          Like

          Reply

          1. Kurds are not a monolithic group and have to some degree been shapped by the countries they were parceled out to.

            Iraqi Kurds probably have a lot higher social capital (and have been running a de facto independent Kurdistan in the north of Iraq for the past ten years or so). But a wider greater Kurdistan is a non-starter, just like the old Pan-Arab dreams (and for similar reasons).

            Turkish Kurds also have the problem of systematic and longstanding oppression by a series of governments. The oppression never goes away it just takes on harsher or more lenient form.

            There’s also the issue of oppositional identity. To stand out more and to keep ethnic lines sharp it makes sense for a minority to cultivate different values. In Turkey, never noted for the harshest forms of Islam, that means becoming more orthodox, in an Arab majority country that might mean de-emphasizing religion. Especially since the other two major groups define themselves by religion.

            And there is no longer any real political unit called Iraq (even if it exists on paper that’s they only place it exists) or Syria for that matter. I really doubt if either will ever return to their previous borders as single national entities.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Thanks for the info. Only thought is that if Iraq isn’t really a functioning political entity, something I partially agree with, then maybe that makes a little more sense for iraq and syria combined to break into three different states. One shia, one sunni,, and one Kurd based

              I get that is not that likely, but clearly current solutions aren’t working.

              Also, the other thing that comes to mind is how much oil really drives all of this. Without oil it would be much easier to either break up states, or make a more democratic form of govt. As I have heard, but could be wrong, one reason the Kurds in Iraq can’t form their own govt. is that much of the oil is in the north (either in a proposed kurdish state or near it), and both the Iraqi state and teh Kurdish one would want / need / require the oil.

              I’m sure you have heard of the resource curse, and how this crowds out other development and allows dictatorial or despotic rulers to use that immense, unearned wealth to rule and stop any challenges.

              I get these are a bunch of random / rambling thoughts, but I think the big take-away is that moving away from oil should be less about climate change and more about bringing about a more properous, free, safe world for developed and devloping economies. I have made this argument many times here and in other websites and in casual conversations THIS should be focus of the climate talks, not inane hype over “2 degrees celsisus or the world ends” crap

              Like

              Reply

              1. “THIS should be focus of the climate talks, not inane hype over “2 degrees celsisus or the world ends” crap”

                • Very true. An enormous number of people is repelled from participating in the crucial discussions of the climate by the unhinged apocalypse-mongering of the climate crowd. It’s impossible simultaneously to be a psychologically healthy person and stand over two minutes of their drama-queenish ranting about the end of the world. It would be so much more productive if people could tone down the hysteria and discuss this calmly. Like you do, for instance.

                Like

              2. ” Only thought is that if Iraq isn’t really a functioning political entity, something I partially agree with, then maybe that makes a little more sense for iraq and syria combined to break into three different states”

                Decisions that are made from outside will fail. The US has no political power in the ground in the middle east (that is positive power to get anything done).

                “clearly current solutions aren’t working.”

                I know someone (former co-worker) who’s living in Erbil (capital of former Iraqi de-facto Kurdistan) and he says it’s working reasonably well. He was in Poland earlier this year and went back at the beginning of the summer very unconcerned about ISIS (which he says has no chance of taking Erbil – I know, famous last words, but everything else I’ve seen tends to confirm that). But that’s a locally controlled thing and not part of any US plan.

                Like

              3. Cliff, your example of erbil is instructive. I didn’t properly clarify what I was saying. It is working for the Kurds because they seem to be effectively working as their own state, which you rightly point out had a lot to do with them doing it on their own.

                I guess formalizing that, and including other Kurds (which I know you described pretty well above why that may not work) could help every state.

                I sort of think its like why a two state solution is so important in Israel. If the arabs that currently live in Israel can be allowed to be part of Palestine both states can prosper, because obviously a jewish Israel can’t have a majority arab / muslim population and still have teh same type of society. I mentioned this, because it sounds a lot like the Turkey / Kurd dynamic you talked about. Similar dynamics could be for Syria and Iraq, if you can minimize ethnic / religious divides you may then allow their own form of civilized societies to form.

                And the US can DEFINITELY still project power in the region. That is obvious (i feel) that we CAN, we have just decided not to under Obama. Our mistake in Iraq (after we went in, which people can debatte forever) was that we didn’t project ENOUGH power to provide stability for the region. Bush didn’t leave enough stabilization forces, and then Obama has belived in very weak projection of our power. No doubt this has led to lwoer short-term direct military costs, but I think that was a fools bargain in the long run.

                I don’t think we should ever or could determine evertyhing in those countries, but absolutely we can provide a difference like we did in Germany and Japan post wwII and in South Korea post korean war. There are differences, but many similarities too. Its just like winning back inner cities from gangs today or mobsters in the 1930’s to the 1970’s. Security (from either the military internationally or police locally) are necessary but not sufficient to enable the conditions for local economic and political policies to be formed.

                (super super long comment, so apologize if boring, if anyone reads it all..lol)

                Like

              4. “And the US can DEFINITELY still project power in the region. That is obvious (i feel) that we CAN, we have just decided not to under Obama.”

                • Let’s hope so. Of course, ideally the people of the region would find their own way out of the mess. Realistically, though, what’s the likelihood of that happening any time this century? And it’s not like one can say, “Nah, let’s just leave them be to figure out their own shit.” This is a globalized world. There is no “their own shit” any longer. If Syria and Iraq continue being a mess, the flood of refugees from the region keeps growing, and we all keep getting even more involved. Isolationism is forever dead.

                Like

        2. I hear that Erdogan is actually planning to start negotiating with the Kurds, trying to promote peace. I read this on Ukrainian websites, though, so this might be Ukrainian wishful thinking.

          Like

          Reply

  5. Wikipedia lists 12 Russo-Turkish wars, with the first in the 16th century and the last a side campaign during WW I. I guess they’re overdue…

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to cliff arroyo Cancel reply