Turkey needs to be prepared for geopolitical shocks

106 years have passed since the signing of the Sykes-Picot agreement on the partition of the Ottoman Empire. It's not a round date, but there is always an acute reaction to it both in Turkey and in some other countries of the Middle East. There are serious reasons for this.

In May 1916, at the height of the First World War, British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and Georges Picot signed a secret agreement dividing the possessions of the not yet collapsed Ottoman Empire.

England gained control over the areas covering the territory of Jordan and Iraq and over Egypt, as well as a small area around Haifa. Most of today's southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon went to the French. Palestine was supposed to be placed under international control.

The Turkish Straits, including the Gallipoli Peninsula, as well as the eastern part of present-day Turkey (Western Armenia) came under Russian control. Some of the Aegean Islands were ceded to Italy, as well as the sphere of influence around Izmir and the southwest of present-day Turkey.

The Sykes-Picot agreement formed the basis of the later Treaty of Sevres in 1920, according to which an Armenian state was to be formed in the east of Turkey, and a Kurdish state in the southeast.

But after the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, the situation changed dramatically. In November 1917, the Soviet government opposed the secret treaties. The text of the Sykes-Picot agreement was published and described as an "imperialist conspiracy" behind the backs of the peoples, and a manifestation of the policy of annexations and indemnities. Russia dropped out of the war and ceased to be a party to the agreement of the Entente powers.

At the Sanremo conference in April 1920, Damascus and Mesopotamia were placed under a mandate, and Palestine remained under British rule until 1948. The same thing happened with Iraq. On the other hand, France ended its mandate and patronage of Syria only in 1946. The borders of modern Turkey were proclaimed by the "National Oath" adopted by the Turkish Parliament in 1923.

It would seem that all this is just history. But it is such history that is still bleeding. It is no coincidence that Erdogan speaks of "the threat of a new redistribution of the borders of the region" and "the inadmissibility of the adoption of a new Sykes—Picot agreement on the partition of the Middle East."

This is due to the fact that the United States, like other Western partners of Ankara, do not hide that they are hatching a project to create a Kurdish state covering the territory of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. It is no coincidence either that American experts from the authoritative publication Foreign Policy in Focus make a forecast about the potential partition of Iraq and Syria and the emergence of at least six new micro-states, homogeneous in ethnic and religious composition.

Erdogan's concern about this sounds quite reasonable. He fears that Turkey may be brought to a point on the basis of which any game can be played through the increase of centrifugal processes in the Middle East. In addition, the West has not abandoned the geopolitical project of the Greater Middle East (GME).

However, a lot of things did not work out for the Americans from what they had planned. Nevertheless, the most far-sighted Turkish experts urge Ankara not to be under the delusion with this. The well-known Turkish columnist Yusuf Kanli from the newspaper Hürriyet raises the question:

"Why do American magazines and semi-official websites often publish a new map of Turkey, on which a Kurdish state with its capital in Diyarbakir is listed in its eastern part (in 13 provinces)?"

In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the map of the future of the GME, which was prepared by a veteran of American intelligence, Colonel Ralph Peters, and in 2006 was given in an article for the Armed Forces Journal with the symbolic title "Blood Borders".

Peters makes no secret of the fact that "almost a hundred years after the signing of the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Middle East will burn again, balancing on the verge of redistribution of spheres of influence”. If so, Turkey needs to be prepared for geopolitical shocks.

Elena Panina, Director of the RUSSTRAT Institute