Pope Leo XIV’s visit to Istanbul and Iznik on November 28, 2025, for the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Declaration of Faith (Credo)—in which Jesus was declared to be of the same essence as God—is not merely a simple act of faith.

At the same time, the gathering in Iznik of the representatives of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which separated 971 years ago by mutually excommunicating each other (the Great Schism), is a serious move that contributes to the geopolitics of the rimland encircling the Western heartland in today’s world, where the pains of establishing a multipolar global order are being experienced. This move draws its power from the mind of the hegemon who instrumentalizes revelation.

The Return of Religion to Geopolitics

Today, religion is used extensively—both in eschatological (apocalyptic-centered liberation narratives) and theopolitical (directing politics in search of divine legitimacy) forms—in politics, the economy, war and the construction of social identity, at a time when global hegemony is changing hands. In a sense, today’s geopolitical conditions are being carried back 400 years to the religious, pre-Westphalian (1648) era. Now, revelation is treated as science; faith has replaced thought. Politicians do not mind this, because religion—especially for finance capital—is never an end, but a perfect instrument of governance.

In earlier centuries, religion was the main source of legitimacy for state sovereignty; kings ruled in the name of God, and wars were waged for the sake of “truth and religion”. The Westphalian order destroyed this theopolitical unity, introduced the principle of secular sovereignty, and formally separated religion from politics. However, today, the ruptures in the global order, crises of hegemony and identity conflicts have once again made religion a political tool. Thus, the world is abandoning the secular framework of modernity and entering a period in which the concepts of God, destiny and salvation are once again at the center of geopolitical language, just as they were before Westphalia.

Another feature of this period is that, while the influence of religion continues to increase in every field, corruption, immorality and collapse also grow. It is as if these two domains—religion and decay—are competing with one another.

The Changing Global Order

The first quarter of the 21st century is a period of restructuring in which world politics; the economy and military balances are rapidly changing. The shift of production and trade centers to Asia, the creation of new corridors by energy and financial flows, and the challenge to American maritime dominance in the Western Pacific, the Arctic and the Red Sea are transforming the infrastructure of the global order.

The neoliberal paradigm was shaken by the 2008 crisis and collapsed with the pandemic, energy shocks and regional wars. The sevenfold increase in financial assets compared to the real economy and the peak of income inequality demonstrate the system’s unsustainability. The USA is no longer the sole superpower; it is weakening under a weakening dollar, debt burden, social polarization and deindustrialization. Its navy has shrunk and lost its capacity to wage war on three fronts simultaneously. Technological superiority no longer guarantees victory; asymmetric resistance models and strategic patience have come to the fore.

While China and Russia advance with long-term strategies, the USA and the West attempt to maintain dominance by continuously generating crises, which in turn deepens global chaos. On the other hand, the Iran–Israel war and the Red Sea crises have shattered the West’s image of invincibility. Israel’s inclusion in the geopolitical equation with its eschatological and financial power has further complicated the process.

The USA, like every hegemon whose economic, moral, political and military system is decaying and moving toward inevitable collapse, is trying to use time in its favor: to reposition itself for the new era and to close this period with the least possible damage. It is not simply US hegemony that is collapsing; rather, the 500-year Atlantic age, which began with the Age of Discoveries, is giving way to Asia.

Today, the cycle of war, credit, debt and arms sales has become a vital tool for the oligarchy of finance capital, which is never satisfied with ordinary profit. However, the West is no longer strong enough to maintain its five-century hegemony. With the Ukraine war that began in 2022, the global showdown continues—and the West has effectively lost this war.

Why Is Religion Being Politicized?

The main reason for the intensive use of religion as a political tool today is that it helps to make societies forget their socio-economic problems—income inequality, the withdrawal of the state from health and education, and the normalization of shrinking union and social rights—by placing them into a fatalistic cycle. In this way, religion serves to cool the energy of the boiling masses. At the same time, through the polarization it creates, it helps legitimize the war waged for the impoverished masses.

For example, for a fundamentalist Israeli, a Muslim Palestinian has no value. Moreover, although both are Orthodox Christians, Ukrainian Orthodox churches and patriarchs have been divided and turned into enemies. Similarly, Catholic Ukrainians living in the West may hate Russian-speaking Orthodox Ukrainians living in the East.

The Reconciliation of Jesus and Judas in the USA

Today, the USA is one of the countries where religion is used most intensively in politics. In this context, two obvious reasons stand out for the rise of religion: the increasing influence of Israel and Zionism in the USA, and the collapse of US hegemony. As the collapse accelerates, clinging to religion increases.

Religion has become so prominent in the USA over the last 75 years that, with the rise of Evangelicalism, the political and theological rapprochement between the Christian world and the Jewish tradition has become one of the main pillars of Western ideology under the name “Judeo-Christianity”.

Evangelicalism, also referred to as Christian Zionism, politically links the promises of the Old Testament to the State of Israel and centers on the belief that the Jewish people are “God’s chosen nation”. Two separate revelations, which had been hostile to each other for centuries, have now become one body. The Old and New Testaments are now treated as one unified narrative.

For centuries, Christianity’s deep-rooted tradition of hatred and exclusion of Jews—symbolized through Judas—was radically reversed in the USA due to the moral shock caused by the Holocaust, the ideological needs of the Cold War, the evangelical eschatological view that “Israel must be strengthened for the return of the Messiah”, and the influence of the American Jewish community in media, academia and finance. Thus, the concept of “Judeo-Christianity”, which never existed in historical reality, was deliberately constructed in the mid-20th century through political engineering, intelligence apparatuses and evangelical apocalyptic theology, and was embedded into the ideological foundations of American identity.

While the feeling of guilt after the Holocaust offered the West an opportunity for moral rehabilitation, US strategists gathered Christians and Jews into a single bloc against communism under the slogan of a “God-believing Western civilization”. The post-1967 evangelical movement declared Israel a necessary actor in the apocalyptic process. The American Jewish community, which held significant influence over much of the cultural sphere, carried this new narrative of unity into all layers of society.

In this way, it formed the ideological backbone of today’s American foreign policy, Middle East strategy and the Zionist–Evangelical alliance. With the contribution of the finance-capital oligarchy, imperialism transformed Islam—a religion of conscience and peace—into an ideology of armed struggle, especially after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Western intelligence organizations took this even further, exposing these groups to terrorism and using them for their own interests. It is striking, for instance, that ISIS has not attacked Israel even once. How else can one explain the fact that former al-Qaeda commander Jolani was effectively whitewashed and given legitimacy in Western media and politics as the President of today’s Syria?

Today, neocons, evangelicals, Zionists, masonic structures and techno-feudal elites in the USA are all waging a power struggle, each using religion with different agendas.

The Awakening of the Philosophical Society: China

In this multi-layered, uncertain and complex process, the most important competitor of the USA is China. Unlike the West—which has interrupted its secularization process and has turned into a fundamentalist and warlike religious society—China, traditionally a philosophical civilization, has effectively replaced the USSR in Cold War geopolitics, albeit with a crucial difference.

China, which practices state capitalism, is not an ideological competitor to the USA. The competition is over the establishment of a global order whose economic and military dimensions will inevitably have far-reaching consequences. This challenge is not a simple one. It is not easy for Western hegemony, which has accumulated 500 years of financial capital through colonialism, dozens of regional wars, two world wars and a cold war, to accept defeat.

In this struggle, war, terrorism, religion, coups, embargoes, sanctions, drugs, mafia networks, false-flag operations and every conceivable method will be tried and are indeed being tried.

The West That Cannot Get Enough of War

Today, seven major wars/crises constitute the main battlefields of Western hegemony: Ukraine, Iran, Gaza, Taiwan, the South China Sea, the Red Sea and Venezuela. Every crisis in these areas has been triggered by the West.

Without the 2014 Kiev coup in Ukraine and NATO’s expansion, Russia would not have intervened in the Donbas region to protect ethnic Russians. If Israel, under the full protection and support of the USA, recognized a Palestinian state, abandoned the Greater Israel project and lived peacefully with its neighbors—especially Lebanon—in the Eastern Mediterranean, it would not have turned the region into a bloodbath bordering on genocide, nor would it have carried out a surprise attack on Iran. In such a situation, the Yemeni Houthis would not have closed the Red Sea through asymmetric warfare.

If the USA had continued to recognize the Chinese maritime jurisdictional zones in the South China Sea—which it did from 1945 onward—and had not provoked change in Taiwan’s status under the One-China policy, and if it had not sent its own warships and those of former colonial powers (France, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany) to the region under the name of “freedom of navigation” (FON), these waters—through which 5 trillion dollars of trade passes annually—would not have turned into high-risk areas.

Similarly, the situation would have been different if the USA had not been driven by a sense of revenge against Maduro, who has defied the American regime, and by its ambition to control the world’s largest and highest-quality oil reserves in Venezuela.

Why does the USA want these crises and wars? There are three main reasons: the first is geopolitical, the second financial, and the third religious (eschatological).

Geopolitical Reasons

When monotheistic religions emerged, humanity had not yet begun to fight for dominance on the oceans. The 15th century—known as the Age of Discoveries—marked a turning point. Many cultures, such as the Vikings, Arabs and Chinese, had made transoceanic voyages before this century, but these voyages did not turn into systematic state policy. The global order was Eurasia-centric. For the 4.5-billion-year-old planet, the World Island (Asia, Europe and Africa) remained the geopolitical center until the 15th century. These three continents, connected by the Silk Road and the Spice Road, formed the core of the global economy. China, the Turkic world and India were the economic and civilizational centers of global history. Global balance was achieved through polycentric land-based networks.

The process that began with the transoceanic voyages and discoveries initiated by Columbus at the end of the 15th century disrupted this balance. There were not many “undiscovered” places in the world; rather, for the first time, the European world tried to reach the West and establish a systematic colonial order using state and Church power together. Thus, the different centers of the World Island began to be encircled by oceanic powers.

According to Halford Mackinder, who lived at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, these three continents—the World Island—were of central geopolitical importance because they contained most of the world’s population, resources and productive power. The American continents and Australia, which surround the World Island, were defined as “outer islands” or “fringe islands”. Therefore, in his strategic formula, Mackinder defines the “Heartland that governs Eastern Europe”—that is, the area protected by natural defensive barriers extending roughly from the Volga to Siberia and from the Himalayas to the Arctic Ocean—as follows: “Whoever controls the Heartland rules the World Island (Eurasia and Africa), and whoever rules the World Island rules the world.”

With the industrial revolutions and capitalism’s transition to the imperialist stage, the thesis that “who controls the oceans controls the world” gained prominence. In this way, Britain kept Europe fragmented for 150 years, controlled the world’s seas and key maritime choke points, and ruled an empire of 21 million square kilometers over which the sun never set.

In this process, Britain sought to move eastward toward the Heartland. In the 19th century it clashed with Napoleonic France, and in the 20th century with Hitler’s Germany. However, it conducted its decisive wars mainly at sea. Except for Waterloo (1815), the British Army did not win many major battles in continental Europe. Yet British strategists knew that, if Eurasia were to unite, their maritime empire would collapse, because the resources and depth of Eurasia gave it a unique capacity for long-term resistance and power projection.

Throughout history, powers that arose in Europe and penetrated deep into Asia have been defeated for this very reason. Napoleon and Hitler both tried this and lost.

After 1945, the USA took over Britain’s paradigm. By controlling the littoral belt—Spykman’s rimland, where the World Island meets the sea—and implementing Mahan’s theory of sea power, it established dominance over the oceans, prevented the unification of Eurasia and blocked Asian powers from going to sea.

In this process, the USA persistently tried to divide Asia to maintain the 500-year maritime superiority of the West it represented. But this success lasted only about 75 years. In other words, the USA and the West, through a series of strategic mistakes, have today triggered the unification of the Asian powers. For example, the Ukraine war, encouraged through NATO enlargement, led to Russia’s full separation from Europe, its return to Asia and its rapprochement with China—thus accelerating Eurasian integration.

Today, in Eurasia, a new continental order in finance, energy, data and logistics is being built around the axis of Russia, China, India, Iran, the BRICS and the SCO. In other words, the emerging structure is a polycentric continental partnership leading to a multi polar world order.

In addition to its economic growth, two important geopolitical factors act as force multipliers in this process: China’s expansion from the Western Pacific into the world’s oceans as a rising maritime power, and Russia’s full control of the Arctic coasts and its opening of the new Northern Sea Route to international shipping.

Thus, geopolitical superiority today is shifting from mere naval supremacy toward the efficiency and density of logistical cycles linking the continents. China is simultaneously building land-based communication networks and blocking maritime dominance through BRI.

The USA itself triggered the rise of Asia during a period of constant wars. Now, it is trying to do to China what Britain did 100 years ago to prevent Germany from becoming a major naval power. In this process, it is trying to wear down Russia so that it remains weak in the final confrontation with China.

It is pursuing a strategy to prevent China from gaining time: balancing China with its proxies without letting it reach a critical threshold and using military, financial and technological instruments—above all, by shaping perceptions through the media. Still, this time-buying strategy is not enough to construct a secure future. The most striking factor in this process is that both global finance and global media are largely under the command and control of Zionist and Anglo-Saxon centers.

Finance-Capital Factors

The City of London and Wall Street form the two main axes of global finance capital, determining world capital flows, investment norms and the overall financial order. The City of London has established historical hegemony over international banking, derivatives markets, insurance, offshore tax regimes, shipping finance and the global legal–financial architecture; Wall Street, thanks to the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, exercises hegemonic power through the combination of giant investment funds, stock exchanges, credit rating agencies and technology–finance (fintech) institutions that steer global liquidity.

Working together, these two centers regulate the cross-border movement of capital, shape the borrowing costs of states, control global risk appetite, indirectly influence geopolitical decisions, and create a “supranational corporate finance network” that transcends the economic sovereignty of nation-states. In this sense, they maintain their character as the command-and-control centers of modern capitalism. The Vatican, as a major financial-capital owner, also occupies an important position and role within this structure.

Although the Ukraine war and regional conflicts are ostensibly explained by geopolitical reasons, the real determining dynamic behind them is the interests of finance capital, which has historically been on the side of wars. This structure, which acts with the aim of continuous expansion and profit increase, encourages wars for new markets, raw material sources and easily indebted countries, and uses war as a mechanism of economic revitalization in times of crisis. The way the USA overcame the 1929 Great Depression through the Second World War is a typical example.

Today, against a real global economy that produces about 110 trillion dollars of output, a derivatives volume of around 730 trillion dollars has been created. This enormous financial power has turned into an oligarchy largely controlled by American- and British-based, banks, funds (mainly owned by Jews) and technology–finance giants. This structure has the capacity to influence governments, elections, coups and war decisions.

Although the need for security decreased after the Cold War, NATO has transformed into a geopolitical executive tool for finance capital’s demand for sustainable threats, continuous armament and ever-rising defense budgets; it has effectively adopted war as its raison d’être. The “cheap blood” strategy of the collective West in Ukraine, the pressure on Europe to increase defense spending, and the attrition line pursued by the USA from the Pacific to the Middle East are all part of the effort to maintain the global hegemony of finance capital.

Today, the rise of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and various resistance centers has changed the balance of power. Yet the war-economy approach of finance capital is based not on closing conflicts but on opening new fronts to protect the hegemonic order. In this framework, it is this oligarchic structure—not nation-states—that ultimately determines when wars end.

Eschatological (Apocalyptic) Factors

When we look at today’s geopolitics, we see a picture reminiscent of the religion-based power struggles of the pre-Westphalia period of 1648. Different faith communities around the world today feed the same explosive dream, even though they appear disconnected from one another.

Evangelicals in the USA and Latin America speak of the second coming of Jesus Christ and the war of Armageddon. Messianic Zionists in Israel await a Messiah from the Davidic line and the construction of the Third Temple. The Shiite world anticipates the appearance of the Mahdi, and a significant portion of the Sunni world expects the Mahdi–Jesus duo in the “end times”, who will “fill the earth with justice”. In short, millions of people in different geographies believe that history will at some point be reset by a great divine showdown and a bloody finale.

When this expectation—especially in the Evangelical–Zionist bloc—ceases to be a mere personal faith and begins to seep into state strategy and security doctrines, Armageddon transforms from a symbolic prophecy into an active mindset that shapes geopolitical roadmaps, war decisions, alliance patterns and enemy definitions. This is where the danger begins: revelation texts, doomsday scenarios and hadith corpora can start to take precedence over sober reasoning, rational risk assessment and international law.

Since 2000, and especially in the new period shaped by the neocons after September 11, 2001, the increasing influence of evangelicals on the White House, the Pentagon and Congress; the theological partnership with Israel; the declaration of Jerusalem as its capital; preparations for the Third Temple; red heifer rituals; Armageddon discourse; and the West Asian wars justified in terms of “God’s plan” all evoke the same dilemma that haunted the Thirty Years’ War: “sect or hegemony?” Both faith and power-sharing struggles are intertwined.

Just as papal or imperial edicts determined political and military decisions before Westphalia, so today the discourse emanating from Washington, from Israeli–Evangelical lobbies and from tech corporations infuses concepts such as “God’s calendar”, “Armageddon”, “chosen nation” and “return of Christ” into the implicit justification of geopolitical decisions. From Ukraine to Iran, from Gaza to the Taiwan Strait, theological images such as “good vs. evil” and “order vs. chaos” operate alongside geopolitical interest calculations on many crisis lines.

Global finance capital, under the strong influence of Zionist and Anglo-Saxon structures, instrumentalizes not only money, media and technology, but also religion. This oligarchic network, which is in close contact with US, UK and Israeli intelligence services, contributes to scenarios designed to enable geopolitical interventions through the petrodollar system, Gulf capital, foundations and crypto–offshore networks. It also helps create a climate of fear that legitimizes a technocratic surveillance regime in the West.

Thus, the obedience generated by religious groups that commit radical violence through fatwas and the digital obedience established by technocracy through data, algorithms and artificial intelligence codes can become two simultaneous forms of control, nourished by the same financial arteries. Algorithmic invisibility, media monopolies and the attention economy keep the “fear economy” alive by concealing the true intentions of this structure.

In today’s world, war and peace are waged not only on land or at sea, but in mental and perceptual domains. Finance capital uses both religion and technology together for consciousness management. The resulting configuration uses the post-Westphalian nation-state system as its formal shell and the secular language of human rights and democracy as its discourse. But in substance, as before 1648, it is evolving into a far more advanced “digital theocracy” that divides the world into “chosen and damned”, “believers and heretics”, “God’s side and the devil’s side”, and fuses algorithms, big data, artificial intelligence and global financial networks.

Religion has returned to the center of geopolitics, but this time the pulpit is not only the church; it is also the screen. Its sacred text is not only the Bible; it is also the code. The crusader army is not composed only of soldiers; it also consists of capital flows, media networks and platform economies.

While humanity sits atop thermonuclear weapons, ballistic missile systems, cyberwarfare capabilities and AI-supported targeting technologies, the fact that an eschatological mindset— “this order will collapse anyway; God’s plan will be completed through war”—takes root among decision-making elites or among actors who mobilize the masses, turns every diplomatic crisis into a potential apocalyptic threshold.

Although we live in the information age, deep ignorance, dogmatic stubbornness and one-dimensional, decontextualized readings of sacred texts can nevertheless drag a civilization that has already seen Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Cuban Missile Crisis back to the edge of the abyss. In short, as the number of those waiting for the Messiah, the Mahdi or Jesus increases, to the extent that we allow absolute interpretations of revelation to prevail over reason, science and a shared human legal order, the nuclear arsenals and rampant ignorance at our disposal make the planet more fragile than at any time in history—dependent on a single wrong decision, a single fanatical move.

The Pope’s Visit to Türkiye

Image: Pope Leo XIV  (@Vatican Media)

In the light of what has been emphasized above, we can identify theological, geopolitical, eschatological and psychological dimensions in the visit of the American Pope Leo XIV to (Nicea) Iznik. There is a theological message in the return to Nicaea—the place where the first Christian dogma was codified; a geopolitical message in the attempt to legitimize the Fener Orthodox Patriarchate as a fully politicized institution by bringing it along as the representative of the East; and an eschatological message in the attempt to re-establish East–West Church unity.

In this context, by recalling the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), one of Christianity’s most important milestones, the message being conveyed is: “Just as we were once one, we will be one again.” If Evangelicalism has been able to make two historically hostile religions (Judaism and Christianity) into allies on American soil after 2,000 years, why should Catholics and Orthodox Christians not also become one again?

According to this narrative, once unity is achieved, the era of the return of Jesus Christ begins. Thus, the discourse that “History continues through the legacy we have established” will be reinforced, granting the Christian world a sense of psychological superiority. In other words, Pope Leo XIV’s call for a “return to Nicaea” is ultimately based on the idea of the final reunification of a divided Christianity.

The reunification of the East–West Church, in turn, involves not only theological goals such as accelerating the doctrine of the second coming of Christ, but also the reaffirmation of Jerusalem as the central holy site. For Evangelicals, this would serve to unify the Church, make Jerusalem the center, and prepare the eschatological finale.

Evangelicalism is now officially embedded in US domestic politics. There are around 70 million evangelical voters in the USA. They are directly represented in the Senate and Congress. In his first term, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said of President Trump: “God sent Trump to save Israel.” Mike Pence, who was Vice President at the same time, said: “We have placed Jerusalem in God’s calendar.” These words were spoken after Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in a political climate where donations from figures such as American casino magnate Miriam Adelson played a role.

In short, we are living in a period in which religious structures have reached their highest level of intervention in an extremely complex geopolitical environment. The universalist–centralized authority emphasis of the Catholic world represented by the Pope, the ecumenical legitimacy claims of the Orthodox world, and the apocalyptic, accelerating politics of the Protestant–Evangelical and Zionist world are now intertwined along many crisis lines—from West Asia to Eastern Europe, from the Pacific to the Caucasus.

Thus, the civilizational fault lines described by American historian Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations thesis have, when combined with papal diplomacy, Orthodox ecumenism and the interventionist politics of evangelical eschatology, pushed modern geopolitics back toward a pre-1648 theopolitical order. Rational statecraft is being replaced by scriptural interpretations; security is being replaced by prophecies; international law is being overshadowed by eschatological visions. Humanity is entering one of the most dangerous periods in its history—an era shaped by an irrational amalgam of faith and politics in the shadow of nuclear weapons.

Lessons for Türkiye

The rapid shift of the geopolitical equation in favor of Asia opens a unique window of opportunity for Türkiye, which must be managed with great care. Thanks to its unique location between the Heartland and the Rimland, its energy routes, logistics corridors, trade flows, defense-industrial capacity and maritime geopolitics, Türkiye should both increase its strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Western pressures and build balanced, long-term and egalitarian partnerships with Asian powers.

However, this orientation should not mean a break with the West. Instead of completely severing relations as the crisis deepens within the Atlantic system, Türkiye should pursue a “doctrine of balance and flexibility” that prioritizes national interests while keeping bridges open. The right path for Türkiye is to benefit from Eurasia’s rise without being locked into a posture of mere opposition to the West; it should aim to become one of the founding actors of the new world system with a geopolitical vision centered on multilateral diplomacy, economic diversification, defense autonomy and the Blue Homeland maritime doctrine.

At the same time, in an era when rapidly theopoliticized and irrational, unscientific combinations of belief and politics are shaping global decision-making processes, Türkiye must never compromise on secularism, the cornerstone of its republican identity. Secularism is not only a principle of governance; it is also the strongest shield protecting national sovereignty, social peace and state reason in an age when religion, combined with politics, technology, finance and security apparatuses, generates eschatological tendencies.

The weakening of secularism would make Türkiye vulnerable to a geopolitical drift that pulls it into regional sectarian conflicts and global doomsday scenarios. Therefore, in the coming period, Türkiye must carefully analyze the global atmosphere in which religion is instrumentalized; strengthen state reason on the basis of science, rationality and national interest; and resolutely preserve a secular public sphere that keeps the social fabric strong.

[As of October 29, 2025, I have established my own YouTube channel under the name “Blue Homeland and Beyond with Cem Gürdeniz-Cem Gürdeniz ile Mavi Vatan ve Ötesi”. Together with my esteemed journalist colleagues Gökhun Göçmen and Emre Öztürk, we provide new evaluations every Wednesday and Saturday at 17:00. I look forward to the participation of my readers and followers. 

The link to the channel: click here]

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on Mavi Vatan.

Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM. 

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.