The juxtaposition is genuinely bizarre: one report says...

Editor's note: ...a Turkish company and 15 crew members intend to take Ukraine to the ICC over the deadly attack on the Turkish-flagged Reyhan Sarı, while the U.S. Congress has been notified, by who is anyone's guess, of a proposed Turkish transfer of 70 U.S.-made ATACMS missiles and 12 M270 launchers to Ukraine. The reference to "geopolitical schizophrenia" used below is deliberately sarcastic, not a clinical diagnosis. It describes the bizarre contradiction in policy: Turkey is reportedly preparing legal action against Ukraine over an alleged attack on a Turkish vessel, while at virtually the same time supporting Ukraine with a major shipment of weapons. In other words, Turkey is effectively saying, "Ukraine committed a serious crime against us, so naturally we should give Ukraine more missiles." The absurdity is precisely the point. Every time you see "missiles for Ukraine" in the news, just remember: this segment is brought to you by the United States of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, because nothing says "peace in Ukraine" quite like a very profitable weapons contract.
________

Welcome to Geopolitical Theater: Turkey Takes Ukraine to Court While Sending It Missiles

Sometimes you don't have to make up satire. You simply have to put two consecutive news stories next to each other and allow the adults in the room to explain themselves.

First comes the headline: Turkish interests are preparing to take Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, accusing Kyiv of crimes against humanity following the deadly drone attack on the Turkish-flagged cargo ship Reyhan Sarı. One Turkish crew member was killed and three were injured when the vessel was struck in the Black Sea while carrying coal from Russia to Turkey.

And then, apparently before anyone has time to finish reading that story, comes the next headline: Turkey is preparing to transfer 70 American-made ATACMS missiles and 12 M270 launchers to Ukraine. The proposed package also includes thousands of cluster rockets and tens of thousands of artillery rounds.

Excuse me, but what the hell is going on here?

Is there a geopolitical meeting somewhere in Ankara where everyone has collectively forgotten what everyone else just agreed to?

"Ukraine has committed an alleged atrocity against a Turkish civilian vessel!"

"Excellent. We must immediately seek justice."

"Should we perhaps suspend military assistance to Ukraine?"

"Don't be ridiculous. Bring in the ATACMS paperwork."

Apparently, this is modern foreign policy: take your alleged perpetrator to The Hague in one hand and hand him 70 ballistic missiles with the other.

Imagine a Turkish prosecutor standing before the ICC:

"Your Honor, Ukraine attacked our ship and killed one of our citizens."

The judge looks up.

"That's serious. What action is Turkey requesting?"

"Justice."

"Good. And what else is Turkey doing regarding Ukraine?"

"We're giving them twelve M270 launchers."

The judge pauses.

"And the missiles?"

"Seventy ATACMS."

"You're giving Ukraine seventy ballistic missiles?"

"Yes."

"After accusing Ukraine of attacking your civilian ship?"

"Correct."

The judge removes his glasses.

"Perhaps I should take a recess."

This is not diplomacy. This is geopolitical schizophrenia with a procurement department.

And the funniest part is that Washington is apparently perfectly comfortable playing along.

The United States is not simply sitting on the sidelines watching Turkey hand over American-made weaponry. The proposed transfer involves U.S.-origin defense articles, which means Washington has to approve the re-export. The congressional notification specifically describes the proposed transfer and says it is intended to bolster Ukraine's offensive and defensive fire-support capabilities.

So let us understand the logic.

Turkey: "Ukraine attacked our ship."

Washington: "That's concerning."

Turkey: "We may take Ukraine to the ICC."

Washington: "We support international law."

Turkey: "We also want to transfer 70 ATACMS missiles and 12 M270 launchers to Ukraine."

Washington: "Absolutely. Here's the paperwork."

Turkey: "But we're angry about Ukraine attacking a Turkish ship."

Washington: "Understandable."

Turkey: "So we're going to sue them."

Washington: "Very understandable."

Turkey: "And we're going to give them missiles."

Washington: "Even better."

At some point you have to wonder whether anyone in this diplomatic circus is actually reading the previous day's media reports.

It gets even more absurd when you consider the political geography involved.

Turkey is simultaneously a NATO member, a neighbor of Russia, a major economic partner of Russia, a supporter of Ukraine, a supplier of military equipment to Ukraine, and now apparently a potential plaintiff against Ukraine at the ICC.

Turkey has somehow managed to occupy every chair at the geopolitical poker table.

Turkey isn't playing both sides. Turkey appears to have bought the entire deck.

And Washington is standing behind the dealer shouting, "Approved!"

There is, of course, a perfectly rational explanation underneath all of this: states do not conduct foreign policy according to the emotional consistency expected of ordinary human beings. They pursue competing interests simultaneously. Turkey can object to an attack on a Turkish vessel while still supporting Ukraine for strategic reasons. Washington can approve a weapons re-export while having no interest in adjudicating the specific allegations surrounding the ship attack.

That's how international politics actually works.

Unfortunately, that explanation is considerably less entertaining than the alternative.

Because from the perspective of an ordinary person seeing this news in the media, the message appears to be:

"Ukraine is accused of committing a serious international crime against Turkey. Therefore, Turkey has decided to give Ukraine more weapons."

This is the sort of logic that would get a child sent to the principal's office.

"Johnny, why did you give Billy the baseball bat after he hit you with it?"

"Because I'm angry with him."

"Then why did you give him the bat?"

"Because geopolitics."

Ah.

Of course.

The really impressive achievement here is the complete separation of cause and consequence.

A Turkish ship is attacked.

A Turkish citizen is killed.

Turkey considers legal action.

And then, almost in the same breath, Turkey prepares to provide Ukraine with the means to launch powerful strikes against targets hundreds of kilometers away.

Somewhere in Washington, Ankara, Kyiv and Brussels, there must be a gigantic whiteboard covered with arrows, alliances, sanctions, weapons contracts, legal complaints, energy deals and diplomatic exceptions where psychopaths are making all the decisions.

And at the bottom, written in red marker, is presumably:

"DON'T ASK QUESTIONS. IT'S COMPLICATED."

That may actually be the most honest foreign-policy doctrine ever invented.

The public is told that international law is sacred.

Then countries selectively invoke it.

We are told alliances are based on common values.

Then everyone makes separate deals.

We are told weapons are being supplied to defend peace.

Then increasingly powerful weapons arrive.

We are told an alleged attack on a civilian vessel is serious enough to warrant an ICC case.

Then the alleged victim helps arm the alleged perpetrator.

And if anyone notices the contradiction, somebody in a government press office will inevitably explain that the situation is "nuanced."

Yes.

Nuanced.

That's the diplomatic word for: "Please don't look at the other headline."

The entire spectacle would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so serious.

Because behind all the diplomatic theater are real people, real ships, real sailors, real missiles and real wars.

One Turkish sailor is dead. Three others were injured. A Turkish company says it intends to pursue legal action. At the same time, Ukraine is positioned to receive a substantial package of American-origin weapons from Turkey, pending completion of the U.S. congressional notification process.

So perhaps the most appropriate description of this latest episode in the great geopolitical comedy isn't hypocrisy.

It's something much more sophisticated.

It's bureaucratically organized insanity.

The kind where everyone is simultaneously outraged, armed, offended, allied, suing, negotiating and selling weapons to everybody else.

And apparently the only consistent policy is this:

Whatever happens next, make sure somebody has filled out the missile-transfer paperwork.