Mediaboss Marketing

Ireland is wooing Indian companies that have plans of going global, especially if they are targeting the European Union, to set up operations in the country. With the UK exiting the European Union, Indian companies can use Ireland to tap into the larger European market, according to Brendan Ward, Irelands Ambassador in India.

Not every Indian company would wish to leave the United Kingdom after Brexit. Many of them were established specifically for the British market. But those that have European interests and that are looking at the wider European market, then a location in Ireland might very well make sense. A lot of them are looking at that at the moment. We are in contact with those who we think might benefit from having a presence in Ireland, Ambassador Ward, who assumed office in August, told BusinessLine here.

The Ambassador and his economic team met some Chennai-based companies last week, explaining to them the benefits of establishing a base in Ireland. Around 100 Indian companies already have operations in Ireland, according to Ward.

There is a substantial Indian population 35,000-40,000 in Ireland, accounting for almost 1 per cent of the countrys population. It means that there is a critical mass to allow community events, cultural and social events...slightly better Indian restaurants than we have had in the past, says Ward.

Some of the sectors that are important in Ireland are agriculture and food, pharmaceuticals, ICT, life sciences, financial services, future mobility and technologies such as artificial intelligence. These sectors are important to the Indian economy too and hence there are possibilities of synergies and for exchanges through research initiatives, according to him.

On his meeting with Chennai-based companies, Ward said most of them were quite positively disposed. What we focussed on in the meetings was in advising them of the advantages and how they could benefit if they were going to globalise, if they are looking to have a footprint in Europe, if they are interested in research cooperation, he said.

There are Irish Government agencies, with offices in Mumbai, that can assist Indian companies in setting up operations in the country.

Ireland, Ward said, offers a few advantages which many other European States dont, such as a competitive tax system and a very clear and simple one. Also, somewhat easier labour laws than many other European Union States. Of course, we have high standards for the protection of workers, but some of the measures in other European Union member States make for a very inflexible labour market. We do promote flexibility and a business-friendly atmosphere.

There are over 5,000 Indian students studying in universities and colleges in Ireland. This year, around 2,000 Indian students have gone to study in Ireland and the number is increasing every year.

The education system in Ireland is similar to that in Britain. Ireland, according to the Ambassador, offers students the opportunity of working for two years after they graduate; they can do part-time work even as a student to pay a part of their education expenses.

Besides, there are a lot of research collaborations between Indian companies and Irish universities.

Bilateral trade between Ireland and India was growing at a healthy rate. In 2018, overall trade in goods was about $1 billion, with the balance in Indias favour. However, trade in services was around $3 billion, heavily weighed in Irelands favour. This, the Ambassador said, was not a matter of concern for either of the countries.

Ward said Ireland could do a lot more to attract India film producers looking for exotic locales to choose the country for their films.

This, in turn, would push up tourism from India. Ireland had a fairly vibrant film industry. There was a lot of cooperation in post-production work, especially in special effects, between Indian film producers and Irish companies.

On the long-drawn discussions over a free trade agreement between the EU and India, the Ambassador said the positions of the EU and India were still far apart and work was going on to bridge those gaps, with agriculture being one of the major sticking points. He hoped that there would be significant progress in the discussions before the EU-India summit slated for next year.

We would like to see significant progress on the FTA and use the summit as an opportunity to give it a boost. But the current state of negotiations doesnt indicate that is likely, he added.

Read more from the original source:
Post Brexit, India can use Ireland as window to EU: Envoy - BusinessLine

Over the past year or so, the European Union has committed a string of strategic blunders in the Western Balkans that have destroyed whatever little influence and credibility it still had.

In June last year, Macedonia agreed to add the qualifier "North" to its name in a bid to end Greece's blockage of membership negotiations with the EU.

But having done what no other country in recent memory has done change its name in order not to offend a more powerful neighbour North Macedonia soon found a new, unexpected obstacle on its EU path: France's president, Emmanuel Macron. France led putting the brakes on opening membership talks in October 2018, despite the Prespa Agreement with Greece.

At a contentious summit of EU leaders in Brussels last month, an ill-tempered Macron strong-armed the EU into yet again postponing the opening of membership talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

This time, he insisted that no membership talks should begin before the EU has reformed the way the talks are conducted, and that no new member should be allowed to join before the EU had undergone a (still amorphous) deep internal reform.

To many in the Balkans, it looked like the EU was slamming the door in their face.

Since then, it has become obvious just how much first-mover advantage matters. Paris is, by default, now steering the EU's overall policy agenda toward the Western Balkans. This seems to be the opening volley and test bed for Macron's goal of recalibrating the entire EU agenda.

And despite early hopes that his election would usher in a reverse wave of progressive policy in the EU, Macron is demonstrating that political liberalism and elite accountability are not central pillars of his EU reform agenda.

France finally presented its ideas about how to reform the accession process in a thin briefing paper in mid-November.

The vacuous ideas outlined in the paper rearranging the current 35 policy chapters into which accession talks are divided into seven stages make it clear that France has no serious proposals to make. The fact that the paper was presented just days before EU ministers were supposed to discuss enlargement, and that as a consequence there was no time for meaningful preparation for that discussion, further underscored the shallowness of the French position.

It became evident that Macron's concern was not with the EU's enlargement policy but with something rather different. Suspicions that this was about seizing a leadership role for France in a post-Brexit EU, with Germany paralysed politically, seemed to be confirmed.

The French brief, as well as various other ill-thought-through ideas making the rounds following France's veto, did not present any fresh insights as to why the accession process in the Western Balkans has failed to be transformative as it was during earlier rounds in central and eastern Europe notwithstanding the fact that since their accession, Hungary and Poland have themselves reversed much of their democratic evolution.

The two-month window within which the largely supine Europe ministers tasked the European Commission to develop a revised enlargement policy, as per Macron's proposal, demonstrated the lack of seriousness and analysis.

We have been vocal for many years about the ways in which the EU's current approach has emboldened and enriched incumbent elites, weakened and alienated civil society, deepened economic inequality and failed to entrench democratic values, institutions, and practices in the region.

Our organisation has also offered practical as well as more philosophical ways in which the enlargement process should or could be reconstituted, notably by relying far less on incumbent elites and instead mobilising existing popular constituencies for reform.

But ditching the current enlargement policy and framework without understanding why it is not working is policy vandalism, not reform.

The full panoply of EU-led Western policies in the Balkans needs critical review before there is a reboot. Such a review must centrally involve independent actors, not just local elites and the EU's bureaucracy.

The lack of depth of analysis and reflection for a policy shift of the magnitude proposed is astounding. It also reverses the meaningful (but still insufficient) strides made toward an honest policy in the European Commission's "new strategy" toward the Western Balkans, unveiled less than two years ago.

The French policy amounts to prescription with only cursory symptomatic diagnostics. The prescription offered amounts to hospice care.

First, the French proposal as were many earlier unofficial proposals is overwhelmingly focused on economics. Flip-flopping between a political and economic focus has long been the EU's response to failing policies in the Balkans, while ignoring the reasons for such failures: all rooted in a lack of insistence on political accountability and direct civic engagement based on EU foundational values.

But this is particularly remarkable following the EU's belated recognition of state capture being a widespread phenomenon among candidate and aspirant countries.

These countries' politics have always revolved around dominating the economic sphere, formal and informal. Tellingly, the terms "state capture" and "corruption" are absent from the French proposal.

Perhaps most importantly, the proposal makes no mention of liberal values, freedoms, democracy, or political accountability. Advocates of these foundational concepts in the Western Balkans will find themselves on even shakier ground should the French proposal or a derivative thereof be adopted as the EU's policy.

The EU has long since largely accepted and often reinforced the dominance of a for-profit, illiberal political class, who are still allegedly "partners" in reform. Therefore, the proposal's lament of a lack of transformation rings hollow. When did the EU ever make transformation its overarching priority?

Increased transfusions of money are offered as social sedatives, easing the pain of exclusion for the foreseeable future from the EU.

The linking of increased "concrete benefits" with their stated goal to "prevent migratory movements" is revelatory of the mindset with which Macron's team developed this vision. What is desired is nothing less than a 'cordon sanitaire'. The policy might be summarised as 'containment with benefits' for the political elites of the Western Balkans.

Further, the relegation of foreign affairs to the sixth stage or circle is stunningly incongruent with the geopolitical angst long evident in Paris and other EU capitals.

It contradicts the current (weak) policy of "gradual alignment," implying that the EU should indulge the deeper rooting of illiberal actors in the political economies of the region. It also, cynically, might be viewed as consigning these countries to the permanent periphery, given the depth that Russia, China, Turkey, and the Gulf States may have woven themselves into the region after the first five stages.

Sadly, many in the region and concerned with it seem intent on finding a bright side in France's vision, out of desperation. But there is none.

Should these policies be adopted, citizens of these countries will be right to view the EU and other foreign actors in the same vein self-seeking parts of the problem, rather than part of the solution and align nonviolently against them all accordingly.

Should some EU member states cringe at such a prospect, as they should, they missed a good opportunity to speak up. They have precious little time left to do so.

More here:
Macron's Balkan cordon sanitaire will backfire on EU - EUobserver

Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Calling! VTB Capital Investment Forum on November 20, ... [+] 2019 in Moscow.

Ukraine: friend or foe?

Climate change: real or imagined?

And what about the European Union? Are they on their way to becoming the liberal, latte with almond milk peace-and-love version of the Soviet Union or not?

Last week, Russian president Vladimir Putin entertained questions from dozens of people from investment houses like DuPont Capital in Delaware and BlackRock in New York to executives of varying levels out of China, Italy and France during VTB Capitals Russia Calling! investment forum.

Putins Q&A with foreign investors is why everyone comes to the VTB Capital event. Two years ago, he gave his spiel on the economya mostly boring rundown of economic data he got from his finance ministry and central bankand then left the room. The standing-room-only crowd followed him out the door.

This year, Putin gave his two cents and more on the economy, praising his economic team because economics is not his strong suit, and then sat down in white, leather club seats with executives from Eni and elsewhere, manspreading and slouching in that commanding-the-room presence for which Putin is known.

Most of the questions are strictly business-related. They almost seem boring to Putin. Budget matters for bond lords doesnt really get him going. When the questions turn to geopolitics, Putin can talk a horse off a meat wagon.

Putin Sheds Doubts On Ukraines Domestic Crisis

Putin sews doubts that new Ukrainian leader Volodymir Zelenskiy can solve the crisis in the Donbass.

On Ukraines new president Volodymyr Zelensky, Putin was asked for his impression of the comedic actor-turned-president.

He seems very nice. He seems sincere, Putin says, on his usual best behavior in public forums like this.

Russia and Ukraine have been at loggerheads since 2014. Thats when Russia annexed Crimea following a decision by the autonomous government there to put up a Brexit-style vote. Crimeans largely voted to leave Ukraine. The Russian government swept in within two weeks of that referendum and took it over, securing their only warm water naval port, a port they would have surely lost in the eventuality of a Ukraine-NATO membership.

Things got worse in the relationship when ethnic Russia militias in the region of Ukraine known as the Donbass decided to build a separatist movement with tacit support from the Kremlin. An estimated 13,000 people have died in what many have referred to as a civil war between official Ukraine and the pro-Russian separatists. It led to harsher sanctions on Russia, further isolating the country from the West.

Now that Zelensky is in power, maybe things will change, one questioner speculated out loud.

Putin said, I believe Zelensky when he says he wants to change the situation for the better in the Donbass. But can he do that? I dont know. If the nationalist battalion forces return, there will be an immediate reaction from the (Luhansk and Donetsk) militias. We see issues that are being raised now on law changes and on the Minsk agreement that are counterproductive.

Ukraine sentiment indicators? Headwinds. Score status quo stalemate for the win.

The Dark Ages

Exhaust air rises into the sky from the chimneys of the Moorburg coal-fired power plant in Hamburg, ... [+] Germany behind a wind turbine.

Russia is the worlds leading natural gas producer, and one of the largest oil producers in the world, too. Their government budget depends on oil and gas exports. Their biggest marketthe European Unionis embarking on a policy to eradicate fossil fuel use within a few years, though these policies keep changing.

Russia is a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord and the Kyoto Protocol on CO2 emissions. Were do everything we can to make Russias economy cleaner and greener, he said, adding that a large portion of that is improved environmental practices in a country that, under the Soviet Union, had no real environmental standards.

Regarding pressure to get with the climate change program, Putin said that they had no money to make adjustments to factories to make them less polluting. Plus, following at least two major economic crises since the collapse of the economy since 1992, we had other priorities. But now we have the money and the growth to do it. Well implement fines and penalties on polluters first in the big cities, he said.

Putin also didnt seem too worried about Europe ditching Russian gas in favor of windmills and solar panels.

Theyll need to have a base load of something. Maybe it can be nuclear power. If its not going to be nuclear power, it will be natural gas, he said. If their demand falls, China and India are growing faster than Europe, and they will buy it. Getting rid of fossil fuels, unless youre replacing it with new nuclear reactorsyoure at risk of returning Europe to the dark ages.

EU as USSR?

The EU: Too commie? Nah, Putin doesn't buy it.

One of the more unusual questions at last weeks event came from a U.S. fund manager who asked if the EU was dangerously similar to the USSR. The European Central Bank is creating money out of pixie dust, the questioner said. Everything is pushed on people for the greater good. It sounds like the Soviet Union to me, he said.

(He really said that. Youll have to trust me on this one. I was there.)

The EU has more obligatory rules than the Soviet Union had, and the EU is more centralized, but beyond that I dont think they are similar, Putin said.

Putin said what he always says about the EU, that it is a reliable and important trading partner, and they dont want to see it fall apart.

At times jovial, he took the EU question seriously as opposed to another one on shale oil where he joked that maybe Russia can buy used shale drilling equipment from the Americans. He cannot, and he knows that. They are sanctioned from buying such things.

I think the EU understands its challenges, Putin said. An estimated 2,500 people were in attendance at the forum. They are not going to collapse like the Soviet Union collapsed. The Soviet Union didnt collapse because of a few revolts in the Baltics. It was because the economy was a failure and it had no one it was really trading with beyond its political borders. Thats not the case with Europe.

Continued here:
Putin Dishes On Ukraine, Climate Change, And Whether Europe Is Becoming Soviet - Forbes

26 November 2019, 11:12

Two activists disagreed on Brexit in a Youth Debate hosted by Iain Dale.

Darcy Iveson-Berkeley, a Brexit Party activist, said: "With regards to Brexit, there's no such thing as a hard Brexiteer or a soft Brexiteer in my opinion.

It was invented by the Remain Alliance. Leaving the European Union means leaving the European Union."

Chloe White, who supports Labour, responded: "With no deal? What is that going to do to people?"

She added: "That is going to cost 2.7 per cent of GDP."

Iain Dale asked Chloe: "How can you have somebody who wants to be prime minister sugge

sting a referendum on which they won't express a view? The electorate regard that as ludicrous."

She replied: "I think he's taking a pragmatic decision and that's what politics needs right now.

"We've got Boris Johnson, who's peddling some sort of odd disaster capitalism, which is going to hurt working families in this country.

"Or we've got Jeremy Corbyn, who's saying to people the country has been split, it's divided. We've got huge rising levels of hate crime, people are deeply unhappy.

Okay, let's organise and sort out a deal with the EU that is fair, that protects workers rights, which protects he environment."

Aleisha Stansfield, a Liberal Democrat activist, intervened in the debate.

She said: "We do, of course, have Jo Swinson who says stop Brexit and use the 50bn."

This clash was part LBC Election Youth Debate. All activists were 21 or under.

You can watch it in full here.

Read the rest here:
Young Labour and Brexit Party activists explosively clash over leaving EU - LBC

When did the relationship between the European Union and Turkey go completely off the rails? Its hard to say. Turkeys democratic backsliding has certainly contributed to the fracture in relations. In May 2019, the European Union released its latest report on Turkeys progress towards E.U. membership. On numerous topics the judicial system, corruption, the economy, and human rights the European Union found there was either limited progress or serious backsliding. And after decades of advancing relations with Turkey, any influence the European Union may once have had over the democratic trajectory of the country appears to be faltering. As long as the European Union fails to address its own institutional deficiencies in migration management, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will exploit rising anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe for the sake of political opportunism.

Turkey: A Frontline State to the War in Syria

Similar to other popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, demands for democratic reforms, economic opportunities, and an end to corruption and a tradition of impunity could be heard across Syria in the spring of 2011. Instead of introducing liberalizing reforms, President Bashar al-Assad followed in the footsteps of his father, Hafez al-Assad, and authorized Syrias security-intelligence apparatus to crush the civilian-led movement for a democratic state structure. Since the conflict mushroomed into a civil war, the magnitude of suffering borne by civilians has been enormous and unprecedented. More than 11 million Syrians have fled fighting and repression, to other parts of the country or to neighboring frontline states: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Over 500,000 people have been killed, wounded or disabled as a direct result of the war. Hundreds of thousands have been subjected to abduction, detention, and systematic torture by the Syrian regime.

Just across Syrias northern border, Turkey pursued an open-door policy for Syrian refugees, allowing them to enter its territory without official documents. Under the auspices of the Ministry of the Presidency, the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority and the Turkish Red Crescent delivered humanitarian aid and constructed temporary accommodation centers for those escaping the war in provinces located along the Turkish-Syrian border. In 2014, Turkey passed Law no. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection to regulate the legal parameters of protection and assistance. A special temporary protection status granted recipients access to public healthcare facilities, the state education system, and social services. Two years later, in 2016, Turkey eased the entry of Syrians registered under temporary protection into the formal labor market.

Yet, despite these modifications to Turkeys immigration policy, there is no comprehensive rights-based structure for asylum seekers; Turkeys geographic stipulation to the 1951 Geneva Convention means that it only grants full refugee status to citizens from countries within the Council of Europe, which excludes Syria. The economic integration and social inclusion of Syrian refugees were hampered by discrimination, particularly in the labor market, and protracted poverty. Some Syrians believed they could live a more dignified life in Europe. In 2015, reports indicated that up to 2,000 irregular migrants were crossing the Aegean Sea from Turkey to the Greek islands every day, with the intent of reaching mainland Europe. Images of refugees and migrants risking unimaginable journeys in the media posed a moral dilemma for Europe.

Refugees as Pawns: Turkeys Shift in Policy

By 2015, Turkeys governing Justice and Development Party had intensified the use of hard power mechanisms in its engagement with Syria. The overthrow of the Assad regime, aiding opposition militias, eliminating the threat of ISIL, and preventing the Peoples Protection Units from establishing an area of dominance along its border overshadowed attempts to establish a rights-based approach to the economic integration and social inclusion of Syrian refugees in Turkey. It is now eight years since the start of the war, and anti-refugee sentiment is intensifying across the political spectrum in Turkey. In a recent address to an audience of Justice and Development Party supporters a few days after the latest military incursion in Syria, Erdogan reduced human life to a commodity, to be bartered for his own political gains. He claimed he would, open the doors and send 3.6 million migrants, to Europe if Operation Peace Spring was questioned and categorized as an invasion.

The pressure to send refugees back to Syria is also mounting. A study conducted by Istanbul Bilgi Universitys Center for Migration Research revealed that more than 85 percent of respondents favored the repatriation of refugees from Turkey. This is extremely worrying. For the time being, the safe and dignified voluntary return of internally displaced people and refugees is not a viable prospect. Arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, the widespread use of torture, military conscription, and dire humanitarian conditions still pose a daily risk to civilians in Syria.

Alarmingly, Amnesty International reported that Turkish authorities have increased arbitrary arrests, detentions, and deportations of Syrian refugees from Turkey to Syria. Ankaras plan to establish a safe zone and repatriate at least one million Syrian refugees in northeastern Syria is nothing more than a project in ethnic re-engineering. Operation Peace Spring has displaced more than 200,000 people and significantly strained access to humanitarian assistance. Civilian casualties are multiplying, with reports of more than 200 civilian deaths and 650 wounded. According to a United Nations Human Rights Commissioner spokesman, Turkey may be held responsible for war crimes committed by its proxy militias that fall under the banner of the Syrian National Army, after video footage appeared to show Kurdish captives being executed. Turkey is also known to have used white phosphorous munitions over non-combatant areas in Syria.

European Union-Turkey Humanitarian Arrangement: Well-Intentioned But Inadequate

Amidst rising anti-immigrant sentiment and the increasing popularity of the authoritarian far-right, the European Union was compelled to devise a new action plan on migration. In 2016, the European Union proposed to strengthen cooperation with Turkey and intensify interventions to decrease irregular migration from Turkey to Europe. To do this, the European Union indicated it would designate funding to assist with the humanitarian response, advance the Visa Liberalization Dialogue for Turkish citizens traveling to Europe, reinvigorate negotiations over the European Union accession process, and accelerate the modernization of its customs union with Turkey. For Turkeys part, the government agreed to strengthen its border-management capacity, especially on the shores of the Aegean Sea, and accept any new irregular migrants who arrived in Greece from Turkey and whose applications for asylum in Greece were rejected. Finally, European Union member states were supposed to accept a designated number of refugees directly from Turkey, as an incentive for asylum seekers to register with the Turkish government and operate within formal immigration procedures. However, the proposal never fully materialized, and three member states, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, refused to comply with the European Union asylum quota system as proposed by the European Commission.

Despite evolving into the most comprehensive humanitarian endeavor in the history of the European Union, this effort was never intended to address the core factor instigating the humanitarian crisis: the war in Syria. The European Union and its member states should have invested every ounce of influence available to promote an inclusive political settlement at the onset of the war. Instead, the European Union launched two main initiatives, the European Union Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis (the Madad Fund) and the Facility for Refugees, to funnel more than 6 billion for humanitarian relief and development assistance.

In spending this money, the European Union emphasized livelihoods security to maximize the impact of assistance, prioritizing skills development, employment generation, entrepreneurship, and private-sector development. While these programming elements appeared positive, it is difficult to ascertain their overall impact in the absence of robust monitoring, verification, and evaluation systems. Donors should designate sufficient funding for implementing partners, especially smaller non-governmental organizations, to either develop the institutional capacity necessary to conduct robust assessments of their work or collaborate with firms that specialize in measuring the effectiveness of humanitarian and development assistance.

Furthermore, although some solicitations for development programming included requirements for recipient organizations to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches in their programming, there was usually no formal monitoring mechanism in place. It is important that implementing partners have an in-depth knowledge of local dynamics and political sensitivities in the areas in which they are operating, and of how their interventions impact communities. For instance, only including Syrian refugees in project activities could trigger negative sentiment among host communities that would be difficult to resolve. In an attempt to avoid the negative consequences of their programming, some organizations also recruited members from host communities. However, as I wrote in a piece in early 2019, if local cultural dynamics are not fully understood, such a simple adjustment in operations might still prevent organizations from properly addressing grievances and from pursuing inclusive practices, especially in multicultural and multi-ethnic communities. Equipped with the knowledge of how activities might impact local communities, implementing organizations can adjust their operations in order to prevent negative impacts and maximize positive ones.

Maximizing E.U. Leverage for Syrian Refugees

The European Union no longer has as much influence over Turkeys democratic trajectory as it once had at the height of the customs union and accession processes. With what leverage remains, the European Union should require recipients of funds from the European Union Regional Trust Fund in Response to the Syrian Crisis and the Facility for Refugees to adopt conflict-sensitive approaches in their programming. It is critical that implementing organizations understand how aid impacts the multidimensional layers of society in order to avoid any unintended negative consequences. Despite the absence of robust monitoring, verification, and evaluation systems, local administrations and civil society in Turkey have performed exceptionally well. Since the attempted coup in 2016, many organizations, including municipalities located in the south-east, have been operating under severe stress due to government crackdowns, restrictions on their functions, and increased pressure to operate without adequate resources.

Syrian refugees are still waiting. The political solution that remains the most viable path to reconciliation, justice, and sustainable peace is elusive. Unable to return home, Syrians have become victims of an increasingly authoritarian Turkey and its failing relationship with the European Union. Using its remaining leverage over humanitarian spending to ensure that Syrian refugees get the most out of humanitarian assistance is the best way for the European Union to move forward.

Christina Bache is a Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science, IDEAS and Chair of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education, Business for Peace working group. Up until March of this year, she was a Visiting Fellow at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, the official political think tank of the European Peoples Party in Brussels.

Image: President of Turkey

Read more:
Refugees at Risk: Managing the European Union's Declining Power in Turkey - War on the Rocks