Federico Bordonaro

Analysis written for the CTC Sentinel. The October 2010 issue can be downloaded in PDF format here.

[…] findings show that what initially appeared to be the work of a lone wolf or of a totally independent cell may instead be the act of a small unit linked to a wider network.

[…] A possible conclusion is that a new type of terrorist model is taking shape in Europe. It is in the form of several small, independent cells whose main “fuel” is a militant ideology spread mainly through the internet, which try to target a variety of civilian and military sites, apparently without an overall strategy and unified command.

Interesting commentary written by Reuters’ analyst Paul Taylor:

Turkey’s bid to join the European Union is fading away with surprisingly little drama because investors no longer see the prospect of accession as an essential policy anchor.
But EU leaders should keep Ankara’s entry negotiations alive on the back burner rather than trying to engage Ankara on alternatives to membership, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy would like to do.
In a version of the old Soviet workers’ joke, “they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work,” the buzz on Turkey in the European Commission’s enlargement department is, “they pretend they’re reforming and we pretend we want them”.

Since too many years, EU rotating presidencies simply pass the buck on the next one when it comes to Turkey’s accession bid. However, in the last couple of years the issue has been discussed less heatly than it was before.
While Europe may choose to “indirectly” exhaust Turkey’s patience on the bid issue, it also fears that Ankara might turn less Western-oriented, as this analysis explains:

For decades, Turkey was a junior player in the West’s Cold War alliance, run by military generals; now it has its own voice and enough clout to spar at times with its NATO partners.
Despite harsh rhetoric, Turkish pragmatism has kept military business with Israel largely intact. Israel is involved in two major military projects — tank and fighter plane upgrades — worth more than US$1 billion in Turkey. The Turkish military has also bought Israeli drones to help fight Kurdish rebels, whose strength has waned since their heyday in the 1990s.
“Relations between Israel and Turkey are strategic and decades-old,” said Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “Despite the ups and downs, Turkey continues to be a key player in our region. We shouldn’t be drawn into frenzied statements about it.”
Alon Liel, who was Israel’s No. 1 diplomat in Turkey in the 1980s, described the situation as a “crisis” and said Israel had received “very harsh signals” from an increasingly assertive government.
“Today there is a new foreign policy that doesn’t rely only on the West. They see themselves as a player in many regional circles,” he said. “All this assertiveness in the region gives Turkey a self-confidence that allows it to be tougher to us.”

Interview for RFERL quoted by Brian Whitmore in his article on the Azeri-Turkish gas row:

Azerbaijan has apparently decided to play its energy card.

As much of the world applauded Turkey’s historic rapprochement with Armenia last week, Azerbaijan felt left out in the cold and abandoned by its closest ally.

Baku had argued strenuously that a deal to reestablish relations between Ankara and Yerevan should not be signed while Armenia continued to occupy Nagorno-Karabakh, and it threatened to take unspecified countermeasures if one was.

Speaking at a nationally televised cabinet meeting on October 16, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev revealed one of those steps: “It is not a secret to anyone that for many years Azerbaijan has been selling its gas to Turkey for one-third of market prices.”

Aliyev added: “What state would agree to sell its natural resources for 30 percent of world market prices, especially under current conditions? This is illogical.”

E’ in uscita per Guerini e Associati la mia monografia sulla geopolitica anglo-americana dalle origini ai nostri giorni.

Dalla quarta di copertina:

La disciplina geopolitica si occupa dell’influenza della geografia sul carattere politico degli Stati, sulla loro storia e sulle loro istituzioni, e soprattutto sulle loro relazioni politico-strategiche. È anche, però, il frutto di una cultura e di una visione del mondo influenzate dalle rappresentazioni geopolitiche. In quanto tale, la riflessione geopolitica risente inevitabilmente degli interessi nazionali e diviene ispiratrice di «grandi strategie».
Comprendere la tradizione geopolitica anglo-americana è quindi importante per l’analisi della politica estera statunitense e delle strategie della NATO. Ciò è tanto più vero alle soglie del secondo decennio del XXI secolo, in una fase in cui Washington e l’asse euro-atlantico, seppure indubbiamente dominanti sul piano tecnologico-militare, sono più che mai condizionati dai mutamenti geopolitici in atto, dall’Eurasia orientale al Medio Oriente, dall’America latina all’Africa.
Questo volume presenta al lettore italiano i principali autori del pensiero geopolitico anglosassone dalle origini ai giorni nostri, attraverso l’analisi dei testi teorici e della loro influenza politico-culturale. Particolare attenzione è rivolta al pensiero dei classici (Mahan, Mackinder, Spykman) e a quello dei loro eredi nel periodo dalla Guerra fredda. Infine, lo studio prende in esame le diverse scuole scaturite dalla rinascita della disciplina, in tutto il mondo anglofono, nel tardo Novecento.