Ireland as a top ‘good contributor’ to the the globe?
Another Eurocentric bit of twaddle.
Until we release ourselves from this relentless self affirmation, Europe can not move forward as a genuine force for ‘good’

I’m unsure of this “Armenia good, Azerbaijan bad” narrative in this article.
Unquestionably, Erdogan is part of the Brotherhood, a construct surreptitiously foisted on the Muslim world by the British empire to prevent the reemergence of a contiguous rival in the ME. Bear in mind that that ME political entity had been a major force for over 1000 years. In fact the post soviet plan for Russian breakup by the west was modelled on the decimation of the ME empire.
Erdogan will do what his NATO handlers tell him.
This situation needs deeper analysis than what Finian serves up here.

The ‘west’ cannot reform without an admission of its crimes. The mendacious doublespeak, having committed the worst genocidal atrocities in human history yet facetiously appropriating ‘western values’ as everything good has worked thus far so why change.
W European states are unique in their genocide of the Canadas, the 30 million indigenous citizens of The US, countless indigenous in Central America, S. America, the W. Indies, the brutal kidnapping of 30M Africans, the genocide of native Australians thru Abo hunting’, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, butchery of 40m E Europeans in WW1 & 2, the rape and theft of $40 Trillion from India and millions of Indians starved to death by induced famine, the ethnic cleansing of Spain, etc etc.. yet still they doublespeak the moral high ground.
It needs a moral renaissance in the ‘west’ to recognise our crimes before a true path back to civilisation can be found. It almost happened in the 70s following Vietnam, and we were briefly on a positive trajectory.

Mongol invasions in early 1300s.
One has to understand the historical context. The Muslim world at that time WAS the civilised world and stretched from Southern France through Spain, Africa, Arabia, Asia, to Samarkand. A single safe zone for scholars and scientists to travel, largely freely.

True sentiment but not quite historically accurate. Muslims follow the CONTEXTUAL interpretation of the Koran and the context is provided by the actions of the Prophet Mohammad, his companions, and then other scholars of deep standing.
Fundamental rules on rights and justice are codified in a powerful construct, meaning rulers are bounded.
Wahabbism was founded by Abdul wahab in mid 1700s, regarded as heretic by Muslims because of its legitimisation of murder.
It’s philosophical root is a book by scholar bin Taymiyyah during the destruction of the Mongol invasions. He was agitating for a fight back under the guise of holy war. However Islam is fundamentally inclusive, and the grandsons of Chingiz khan had professed Islam.
His book attempted to ‘raise the bar’ for being a ‘real’ Muslim and thus exclude the mongols Muslims and wage war against them. It was rejected and trashed by scholars. The bar can NOT be raised above where the Prophet Mohammad placed it. Isolated ascetic communities of ‘pure’ Muslims (salafis) aside, there was total rejection. Even bin Taymiyyah however balked at condoning murder.
Enter Abdul wahab who read the book in 1720 and constructed his own violent offshoot.
This violence was useful to the nascent British empire as a way of attacking its far more powerful rival, the Usmani empire. So they nurtured the wahabbis.
Colonel Lawrence was simply a former day Victoria Nuland.
Churchill was a former day Pompeo.

Finian’s analysis is misplaced. Abdul Wahhab b.1703 was rejected by the Muslims in Arabia for his extremist views. Dejected he found support from a desert chief in backward Nejd and signed a pact with Mohammad bin Saud. It justified Saudis banditry by allowing the murder and robbery of surrounding Muslims on extremist religious grounds. The British empire then nurtured these wahabi terrorists as a distraction to the Usmani empire, in its religious heartland. Saud and defendants were destroyed many times by the Muslim authorities latterly in 1895 when a dejected Abdullah, and son Abdul Ariz (father of current crop) were rescued to the British “protectorate” of Kuwait.
WW1 Abdul Aziz was used as the lever to get Arab backing to defeat the Usmani empire.
After victory in 1921 Abdul Aziz and his Wahhabi were used by Churchill as the dagger to stab the Arabs in the back, steal Palestine, and create irreconcilable strife in the Muslim heartlands by the British Empire making Saud ‘king’ of Arabia. Wahabbism makes a religion out of murder, particularly of Muslims.
The Saud family, and the so called Arab ‘monarchs’ have no historical legitimacy other than placement by the British Empire. The quid pro quo was support for the theft of Palestine. Hence they have NEVER spoken or acted against Israel.
The abolition of the Usmani state which had endured 600 years was to prevent its recreation. Similar to the attempted smashing of Russia into 33 states, and also India.
The ruling elites in Rump “turkey” were also placed their by the WW1 victors to further the same strategy of levered control via local elites.
Seen through the above historical context, the current event are very normal. Turkey will ALWAYS ally with Israel, as will the Saud family, and the other Arab rulers.
In areas where popular revolutions removed the British placemen, we have seen vicious counter revolutions instigated and executed by the AngloZio empire to recover these eg Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran etc..
there is no “neoOttomanism” in erdogans actions. He is simply following orders as he is supposed to do.