Claudio Mutti, Editor-in-Chief of the Italian magazine Eurasia, Manuel Ochsenreiter, Editor-in-Chief of the German journal Zuerst! and American Front’s national leader James Porrazzo discuss the situation in Turkey.

- The national revolution has started in Turkey. What are the forces behind it? Who is fighting whom?

Claudio Mutti: The slogans about «human rights» and «democracy», the Femen's performances, the solidarity expressed by Madonna and other hollywoodian stars, the antifa rhetoric peppered with «Bella ciao» (folk based Italian partisan song of World War II) as its soundtrack are the symptoms of an «orange revolution» or a «Turkish spring», rather than of a national revolution. At present it is impossible to know if the troubles have broken out in a spontaneous way, or if really foreign agents have provoked the troubles, as pretended by Erdogan. But we must consider that US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone has repeated twice in two days his message in favour of protesters and that John Kerry has made a declaration about the right of protesting. Certainly, among the protesters there are also militants and activists of national, anti-Atlantist and also pro-Eurasian movements (as, for example, the Workers' Party, İşçi Partisi); but I don't think that they are in the position to direct a so heterogeneous mass towards the goal of a national revolution.

Manuel Ochsenreiter: The demonstrations and riots in the Turkish cities show the deep gap within the Turkish society. But is it really a «national revolution»? Right now it seems that all the groups opposing Erdogan and also his AKP party are a quite colourful mix of ideologies and ideas. There are demonstrating Turkish nationalists as well as communists; we see flags of the labour unions and many other groups. But we shouldn't forget that Erdogan and his party never had the support of those people who are uprising now.

One problem: we get all the information about the situation in Turkey right now via the western mainstream media stations. The western commentators and politicians are celebrating the so called «Turkish civil society». In Germany for example almost all the established political parties gave statements that they support the demonstrators. In the mainstream media you will not find many nationalists or communists in interviews, but many westernized «activists».

James Porrazzo: Right now it is very unclear who is behind it, but our comrades like Turkish Workers Party and other Eurasianist forces are with the drive against Erdogan so I trust their judgment on the ground as to where our own support should be directed. The prospect of the globalist, capitalist and zionist enemy being driven out of control of Turkey is cause to rejoice.

- How is the Turkish revolution related to the geopolitical opposition of Eurasianism (Russia, Iran, Syria) and atlantism (NATO, USA, EU)?

Claudio Mutti: It is true that many people have been troubled by Turkey's envolvement in the Syrian conflict. Nevertheless, when the protesters claim «We are the children of Ataturk», they express a concern related to secularistic and laicistic beliefs, not to a Eurasianistic position. Unfortunately I don't see a significant anti-Atlantic trend in the present revolt.

Manuel Ochsenreiter: What we witness right now in Istanbul doesn't seem to have a lot to do with geopolitical contents. There are of course groups and parties involved who are strongly against an atlantist agenda.

But we shouldn't forget one important thing: The interest of the corporate media began a couple of days ago when the demonstrators in Istanbul clashed with the Turkish police. But in Turkey there are big demonstrations against Erdogan’s aggressive politics against Syria. Those protests have indeed a dominating geopolitical message. The protesters say: «We are on the wrong side of the conflict, we shouldn't support the western-Islamistic joint venture to overthrow the Syrian government. We should support Syria against the aggressors». They even criticised in a harsh way the NATO-membership of Turkey. But western mainstream media was not broadcasting those demonstrations, maybe because the message of the demonstrators doesn't fit into the political guidelines.

Ironically, the west promoted the «Turkish model» - the AKP-government - as a role model for the so-called «Arab Spring» countries. The elements are: moderate Islamism, friendship with Israel, strong ties with the western-transatlantic world. Western politicians always said: «Look to Turkey, there it functions so well!» Today we can say: obviously it doesn't.

James Porrazzo: Certainly the treacherous actions of Erdogan against Syria was one of the catalysts of this revolt. The Turkish people should be applauded for not turning a blind eye to their country being a staging point for our enemies in Eurasia generally and against Syria specifically.

- Your prognosis of the development of events in Turkey and how it will effect the situation in Syria?

Claudio Mutti: It is probable that the Turkish revolt will induce Erdogan to think about the saying «sow the wind and reap the whirlwind» and to devote himself more to Turkish affairs than to Syrian ones; probably he will take note of the fact that Americans are always ready to oust their collaborators, after making use of them. Two months ago his Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has signed a protocol of agreement with the SCO. If the Turkish government wants to be consistent with this decision, it must drop that kind of «neo-Ottomanism» which conceals a subimperialistic role, useful to North American interests. Even better, if Turkey really wants to be a point of reference for muslim peoples of Mediterranean Sea and Middle East, it must break off its ties with NATO and with the Zionist regime. It is schizofrenic to destabilize Syria and at the same time to accuse Zionism and Israel of being, according Erdogan's words, «a crime against humanity» and «a threat to regional peace».

Manuel Ochsenreiter: This is hard to say. We know right now that there might be also an inner conflict within the AKP going on. The Turkish president Abdullah Gül critizised Prime Minister Erdogan in public. What does that mean for Erdogan’s authority and his political future? The guidelines for Turkish politics towards Syria are not written in Ankara, but by the NATO-«partners». Erdogan turned Turkey within the last two years into a military base for terrorists, mercenaries, djihadists and simple criminals, who went to Syria to fight against the regime. Turkey gives them support even when they are in Syria. Turkey supports organized theft of industrial compounds from Syria and the transport via the Turkish border. Erdogan tried a couple of times to provoke a conventional war against Syria. When we talk about all those acts of aggression against Syria we should not forget one important detail: Erdogan is not just supporting the violence against Syrian civilians but also against his own citizens. The bomb explosions in the Turkish city Reyhanli killed 51 people, and 140 more were injured. Erdogan blamed the Syrian secret service, but we know today from leaked documents of the Turkish intelligence that the Al-Qaida affiliated group «Jabhat al-Nusra» («Front of Defence») was responsible for that horrible attack, exactly those same extremists Erdogan provides support to and a safe haven.

So what might happen if Erdogan resigns? Will the Turkish politics all of a sudden change? Will it be an AKP inside change? Would a change in the Turkish government automatically mean that the state changes its geopolitical program? Would the west accept this? I deeply doubt.

James Porrazzo: It's too early to say. Optimistically I would love to see the overthrow, trial and execution of camp Erdogan, the release of Doğu Perinçek and all our other comrades who are suffering as political prisoners and Turkey to enter into the realm of anti-globalist / anti-imperialist nations. More realistically I think this will throw a wrench into the works of the globalist efforts to interfere in Syrian affairs. The Free Syrian Army may soon meet the fate they deserve.