What do these dictators have that he keeps his eye on?

God forbid, but if Kılıçdaroğlu were given a little authority in foreign policy, he shows at every opportunity how he would run Turkey, with whom he would form what alliances, and where he would tack us on. Hats off to anyone who can understand with what head the words he utters one after another and the so-called warnings he issues were thought out, and by what logic they were put together.

Like all illogical statements, these words in fact say far too much. Perhaps these words in fact express more than he wished to say.

On the one hand he voices support for Turkey's stance on the S400 and wants Turkey not to give up its rights in the Eastern Mediterranean, but on the other hand he accuses the policies Turkey is pursuing as a whole precisely to secure these of being adventurist whims.

Giving up sending weapons to Libya, repairing relations with Egypt despite all the human rights violations and unthinkable practices there, holding direct talks with Assad, whose hands are dripping with the blood of a million people.

What is all this for, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu? What will we gain by doing all this? Is doing all this any less adventurist than what you now attribute to Turkey's policy? Do you not see that our decision today to repair relations with Egypt, which Sisi has seized by a coup and is ruling unjustly, would mean directly surrendering to a bloc that is openly acting with hostility toward Turkey and has set out to take Turkey captive too?

Even the deaf sultans have heard that the coup in Egypt was made not only against Morsi but also against Turkey. Perhaps Kılıçdaroğlu still does not know, but Turkey is a very important country. It is a country so favored that it was the source of inspiration for the whole Arab Spring process. That is why it is cared about, and even if it did nothing (and indeed it did nothing during the Arab Spring process), it is targeted merely for its rise, its democracy, its development, its quality of being a model.

That is why a sibling of the coup that set out as Temerrüt to overthrow Morsi was also operating in Turkey, simultaneously with the Gezi incident. Indeed, Kılıçdaroğlu was in the front ranks of this coup attempt, which came to nothing in Turkey. Of these movements undertaken simultaneously in both Turkey and Egypt, the one in Egypt reached its goal, and we see what has happened since. So if it had reached its goal in Turkey too, the scene we would see would not have been different from what we see in Egypt today.

Kılıçdaroğlu regards Turkey's interest in Libya as adventurism, but he surely cannot be unaware that Turkey's security extends that far if we are to secure our rights in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Libya, where everyone is involved, from France to Italy, from Egypt to the UAE, from Italy to Russia, according to Kılıçdaroğlu there is nothing that concerns Turkey.

Yet we do not know whether Turkey sent weapons, but even when it merely announced that it was present in the equation, all the balances changed. The coup of the former General Haftar, backed by the UAE, which had become the head of every kind of activity against Turkey, collapsed all at once, and having surrendered most of his mercenary militias, he had to pull back even those he managed to save.

Does this not sufficiently show that Turkey is the party with the most natural right to intervene there? In that case, on behalf of which of all these involved countries might Kılıçdaroğlu be speaking? On behalf of whom might he be demanding withdrawal from a place where Turkey is the most natural party to have a say?

What is the meaning of not only saluting Assad in Syria, Sisi in Egypt and Haftar in Libya, but also recommending this to Turkey as some grand foreign policy?

Let us say we did all this; what will we have gained? The Egypt that Sisi rules is being dragged rapidly toward bankruptcy right now. Even if we mended ties with Sisi, with his incapacity to govern his own country, there is no project, no possibility of cooperation we could conduct with Egypt. If the matter is mending relations, in a way it is not that hard. You forget everything that has happened, if you can forget, and you establish diplomatic relations. But the matter does not end with that. The matter is, let us say, how you will sustain these relations once you have mended them, what you can do, what you will rely on. The bloc to which Sisi belongs does not hold back from activities (coups, interventions) that try to undermine Turkey even in the periods when its relations with Turkey are at their best.

Even if we turn to the economic side, today in Egypt there is no possibility of safely opening and running even a small tradesman's shop. Corruption and bribery are at their extreme. No economic index promises the slightest hope for tomorrow. Because coups corrupt everything to the end and obstruct the routine functioning of any work.

Therefore Egypt, unfortunately, is at present a lost country. Do not set your eyes on it, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu; those who keep up good relations get nothing from there either. Relations with the Egypt that Sisi rules only lose, do not gain; they become a burden and bring no benefit whatsoever.

You can ask the same questions about the Syria that Assad rules, too; the answers you will get are even worse.

What it is in these bloody-handed dictators that Kılıçdaroğlu has his eye on, it is impossible to understand.