Is there another reason for Turkish haste in Libya: Is Russian involvement judging the conflict?

Strategically, the landscape on the Libyan front is now odder than before, with the latest developments raising serious suspicions that the Turkish movement in cooperation with the “Tripoli government” of Saraj may have accelerated their MoU in order to prevent imminent developments in Libya, driven by the support that Russian mercenaries have given Khalifa Haftar’s forces in recent months, tightening the noose around Tripoli. This inevitably complicates Greece’s options…

According to information circulating in the international media, Haftar’s forces have now approached dangerously to the capital Tripoli, backed by Russian mercenary forces (probably hired from WAGNER). Where such forces are involved, they are considered to serve Moscow’s geostrategic aspirations, while leaving room for formal denial of engagement by Russian diplomacy.

The involvement of Russian mercenary forces alongside Haftar’s forces implies a divergence of views between Ankara and Moscow. But Turkey’s peculiar quagmire situation in Syria, where it entertains no thought of adopting such proclivities as it does vis-a-vis Greece, seems to extend to the Libyan front as well.

Eventually, the opening of the Libyan front by Turkey might have been accelerated, with the aim of preventing a possible military takeover by Haftar forces and the collapse of the “Tripoli government”. That is, Turkey has been trying at the last minute to prevent its plans from collapsing and get something that it believes will allow it to negotiate on the day after.

Turkey has every reason to view the Syrian and Libyan fronts as “communicating vessels“, as a possible overstepping of boundaries in Libya could lead to retaliation on the Syrian front, which is more “defensive” for the Turks. rather than “aggressive” as the one it has opened in Libya, which is aimed against Greece.

Another parameter clearly complicates the situation, not only for the Turks, but also for Greece. The big question is what is the US policy in Libya. Last April (19/4), US President Trump’s had a telephone call with General Haftar surprising many as the US appeared to support him.

It makes sense to look at the relationships that Haftar has allegedly maintained – at least – in the past with the CIA. Coincidentally, during his many years in the United States, he was allegedly living in Langley, where the CIA headquarters is located. Not that this fact alone proves anything.

A few days ago, Russian anti-aircraft systems were allegedly responsible for the downing of an American drone, which has not even been returned to the US forces. Adding to the picture is the bipartisan initiative in the US Congress, which is preparing to impose sanctions on Russian “mercenaries” and “their enablers”! American chaos once again, exploited by Russia. But in the end, the question remains, who does the US support?

The US has reasons to be annoyed by ruthless Turkish neo-imperialism, to the detriment of all countries in the region, even against other allied NATO members, such as Greece. Turkey obviously exploits Donald Trump’s generally passive attitude towards all kinds of interlocutors.

But can Greek reactions be limited to purely rhetorical condemnations and the characterization of Turkish actions as “provocative” and be regarded as satisfactory, once Moscow has been actively involved in seeking to determine the outcome in Libya as well?

Another serious question that arises is whether the Americans support the side of the “Tripoli government” which explicitly serves the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters (Turkey-Qatar)? If this is so, should we conclude that the US is opposed to the “axis” of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on the issue of developments in Libya?

The next and most important question concerns Greek foreign policy. If the above holds true, while it is in fact proven that Russia is the only force that can effectively tame Turkey’s behavior in the region, does Athens’ strategy need to be reconsidered?

If one weighs in on the American “provocative” and on the other hand, Moscow’s clear confrontation with Turkey’s “strategic ally” when Russian interests dictate it, as in Libya, there is a qualitative and substantial difference.

The next and most important question concerns Greek foreign policy. If the above holds true, while it is in fact proven that Russia is the only force that can effectively tame Turkey’s behavior in the region, does Athens’ strategy need to be reconsidered?

If one weighs in on the American “provocative” and on the other hand, Moscow’s clear confrontation with Turkey as a “strategic ally” when Russian interests dictate it, as in Libya, there is a qualitative and substantial difference.

Especially in the case of the Turkey MoU with Libya where Ankara’s actions seek to annul fundamental Greek rights under international law, then rhetorical condemnation by the US and Greek allies is not enough. Greece has to go through actions, drawn up by forces whose interests appear to be aligned on a tactical level with those of Greece.

Because so far, the famous Greek diplomatic initiatives seem “trivial” and predictable. If there is a lesson in the evolution of international relations in our neighborhood in recent years, it is to discuss and negotiate actively on all fronts.

After all, Donald Trump says the United States is permanently … losing because others enjoy security while the US pays. If NATO’s role is called into question, then Greece cannot bet on being Turkey’s “replacement” as the first defense zone of the Western world to shield its security.

Greece has to find… a new narrative. Only in this way will Greece be taken seriously. Because it seems that when you are considered given, you will eventually be considered a convenient sacrifice since the absence of any reaction in the end will result in Greece giving in to what Turkeywants so it may “retutn to the fold” And this is simply INADMISSIBLE. Unless we have all “sold our souls” … to the devil.