Sofagate, a Michel-marked mess.

I am following the Erdogan "scandal" that would have humiliated Von der Leyen, but honestly the more I read the more it seems to me that the problem is not Erdogan, but Michel. And if we consider that Erdogan is as unpleasant to me as a Muslim Cossiga can stand on my balls, I would say that my Bias is revealed. However, the facts are facts.

First of all, it is necessary to understand that in these meetings the embassies and diplomats agree on everything, from the number of chairs to their arrangement. This depends on the message they want to give: if there is friendship, the two sit side by side, perhaps on the same large sofa. If there is tension, facing each other, and so on. There is a whole signal protocol that is carefully defined.

Usually the number two sits on a sofa, while everything is played on the position of the two leaders. Muslim morality forbids showing a man and a woman alone in a room (which is why Michel does this) and sitting them on the same sofa. So the sofas were out of the question, and the two chairs were under the flags, allowing the two to appear close to photographers filming them from the side. Enough not to bother Erdogan's conservative base.

But the two chairs were close enough when compared with the distance of the sofa, that they wanted to show closeness between the countries. On this point the diplomats are so precise that in comparison Feng Shui is the stuff of amateurs.

And here we go to the first point:

It was a summit meeting. And in a summit meeting the chairs are for the top. One for Ursula von der Leyen, one for Erdogan. Two. Not three. Not one. Two. If there are two nations, a summit meeting has TWO chairs. One for each flag. Point.

First of all, from the location it would seem that everything had been conceived to indicate a meeting of the utmost importance. The reporters have been let into a room that appears immense, and the furnishings are of the most sumptuous kind possible. The place where the meeting takes place is also adequate. There appears to be no intention to indicate that the Turks were unwillingly hosting Europeans.

Throughout the time he is being filmed, Erdogan always turns to Von der Leyen and not to Michel, asking her to follow him and being her host. Also in this sense, the protocol indicates that Von der Leyen is the more important guest of the two.

The mess begins in the huge room that was used for the meeting, because as far as we can see Michel is quickening his pace more than the Von der Leyen (which is definitely not the classic two-meter Teutonic), and sits first.

But not only does he sit down first: when the president stands up to indicate unease, Michel remains in his seat, ostentatiously. And as if that weren't enough, it is Erdogan's face that is embarrassed and surprised.

Question number two: Could Von der Leyen leave the match?

• no. From the host's point of view, being left alone with the number two would have been interpreted as a disgrace.
• no. Internally, it would have been as if Von der Leyen had abdicated in favor of Michel.

Could Erdogan do anything about it?

• No. He went to sit in his designated chair. And he certainly couldn't ask the two to change places. The position of the chairs was known to all from the very beginning.

It never happened that Erdogan took the chair out of Von der Leyen. It happened that Michel took his place. An internal issue within the EU.

There are ALWAYS two chairs for the leaders, and a sofa for the third defendant (if any). It is up to the Michel of the situation to understand that if there is only one chair under the European flag, and next to the Turkish one, the president must sit.

There is also a question of stereotypes about it. Let's understand, if this had happened in a less Islamic country (I know, Japan) or even in Turkey with an ultralaic premier, we would have talked about Michel's slap, not Erdogan's. I don't like Erdogan, but the facts are facts.

Erdogan is responsible for the fact that he is an Islamist, moreover known for his conservative positions on the role of women. So immediately a fairly trained press reacted immediately: but the protocol was all of the utmost respect, and Erdogan's face (despite a certain poker face) betrays amazement.

What's going to happen now?

• the Turks will point out that the protocol had been agreed in all respects by their respective diplomacies, right down to the details.
• Sooner or later the press will realize that it was normal to have two chairs, and will begin to hold "Michel's slap at Von der Leyen".

Now let's ask ourselves: but why would Michel do such a thing? The reason can be found between the French positions on Turkey (rival in the Aegean, where France sent the fleet to oppose the Turkish one, and rival on Libya) and the EU, which instead attempts a balance of compromise. It is easy for Michel to have had to act in this way, since Belgium is only France's broom closet.

On the other hand, the stereotype of the Turk who treats women badly is being exploited a little too much, and if this were to continue too long, the Turks would only have to raise their voices by saying something like "but what was Erdogan to do, take off Michel from the chair? "

It is also difficult to think that it was Erdogan who organized this thing, for a simple reason: if it had been Erdogan, Von der Leyen could have simply replied that "he wanted to keep his distance" and the slap would have come to the Turk. Nobody shows their side in this way, even if it wasn't clear from the rest of the setup that the Turks had organized the meeting in the most respectful way.

What I see is:

• Michel's will to worsen relations with Turkey, and perhaps to trip the von der Leyen style.
• the stupidity of the press, which falls like a pear into the stereotype (deserved by Erdogan, but still a stereotype) of a Turk who does not respect women.
• the EU will try to hide Michel's behavior as long as it can, but in the end his embarrassed silence speaks for itself.

But the slap, I'm sorry, didn't come from Erdogan, but from Michel.