What's new

Erdogan demands demilitarisation of East Aegean Islands, threatens operation in Syria

Not just Russia,the British and French wanted it as well,back in the 18th and 19th centuries. But since they couldn't get it,they prevented Russia from getting it.

When Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I were drawing their zones of influence on the map,Napoleon said should remain neutral because "it's the center of the world".

One of the reasons for British and French support against Russia in the Crimean War,was to keep the Ottomans alive as a constant threat to the Russians and to keep the Straits out of Russian control.

Then in near the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878:

"Under pressure from the British, Russia accepted the truce offered by the Ottoman Empire on 31 January 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople.

The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on 3 March, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, and the autonomy of Bulgaria.

Alarmed by the extension of Russian power into the Balkans, the Great Powers later forced modifications of the treaty in the Congress of Berlin. The main change here was that Bulgaria would be split, according to earlier agreements among the Great Powers that precluded the creation of a large new Slavic state: the northern and eastern parts to become principalities as before (Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia), though with different governors; and the Macedonian region, originally part of Bulgaria under San Stefano, would return to direct Ottoman administration."


Also,during the First Balkan War,Bulgaria was probably going for Constantinople as well,but they were stuck fighting outside Catalca(Chataldza),some tens of km west of the City.

View attachment 852908
You knew the story well, you are Greek.
 
Puahahahahahahahaaaa, this drunk former general made my day!

In the Greek media, these are dailly ordinary things. Especially some television channels do not pass any day without these charlatans. I say this for Pakistani friends to understand; Consider daily Pakistani agendas in Indian media; then multiply that by 10.

As I write these lines, Greece has started the construction of an anti-tank line 135 kilometers long and 7 meters wide on the Turkish border. Of course, at the same time, the famous twitter trolls are analyzing their future tank operation to Edirne and Istanbul. lol. Probably the contractor companies will make a big profit here, but these are not important for a country that both prepares for war and accuses the other side of agression.
 
Last edited:
In the Greek media, these are dailly ordinary things. Especially some television channels do not pass any day without these charlatans. I say this for Pakistani friends to understand; Consider daily Pakistani agendas in Indian media; then multiply that by 10.
The Irony is that...you do the exact same thing. It's obvious from your leaders' speeches and your media,that Turkey constantly talks about Greece. Just yesterday,Erdogan sent as a "message" through twitter,written in Greek.
And was it today that Akar spoke again somewhere,complaining about our politicians visiting the islands close to Turkey.

So...try not to be a sneaky bstard. Be a man. Admit your country's obsession towards us ;)


IN OTHER NEWS:

Menendez made it clear that Turkey is not getting any F-16Vs.

Of course, at the same time, the famous twitter trolls are analyzing their future tank operation to Edirne and Istanbul
Who the heck does that? Lol. Just like Turkish youtube comments that say "We will be in Athens in 3 hours!" or "Haha we go to Damascus in 8 hours" etc?

Puahahahahahahahaaaa, this drunk former general made my day!
First of all....ffs don't quote MEGA Channel's afternoon programs...lol

Second,there are no Rafale in Larissa,they have F-16s there. Unless he meant,they'd make a stop there.

Third,don't know what this guy was saying,but there's numerous former officers saying all kinds of nonsense on Turkish TV.
 
That map is stupid and unfair. Even a moron could see Turkey have the right to its sea. How can u occupy the whole sea while Turkey only 3 miles of coast?
 
That map is stupid and unfair. Even a moron could see Turkey have the right to its sea. How can u occupy the whole sea while Turkey only 3 miles of coast?
Stupid and unfair? Because you like Turkey?

What do you mean how can we occupy the whole sea? That's how our country is,we have thousands of islands and islets.
Turkey has a huge landmass and a clear opening in the Black Sea and southeast Mediterranean.

turkey-map.jpg
 
Last edited:
Greece made agreements, from Laussane and Paris treaty. It is forbidden to arm them. Montro convention does not apply for the Agean Sea.


We can build everthing what we want to build on our side. We can build 100 naval base, we can put the USS enterprise Star Trek ship. So Greece can not demand to close our bases on the Agean Sea.

You don't apply the treaty you will lose the islands.


you can go cry to USA or EU, in the end you will disarm them.
 
Last edited:
That map is stupid and unfair. Even a moron could see Turkiye have the right to its sea. How can u occupy the whole sea while Turkiye only 3 miles of coast?
Normally I don't like to repeat these topics over and over here. From our point of view, this problem's solves are crystal clear and too serious to be a propaganda material. But let me make a brief summary one last time for you again.

Greece claims that Meis Island has the right to a continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. Based on this claim, it creates a sea area 4,000 times larger than itself. How acceptable is this claim?

Greece claims that Meis Island has the right to a continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. Based on this claim, it creates a sea area 4,000 times larger than itself. There is no such example in the world. It's like the US claiming the entire east pacific ocean because of the Hawai Islands.

In fact, the Greek thesis tries to impose the hundreds of miles of sea areas between the Greek islands of Mesi, Rhodes, Kerpe, Kaşot and Crete as if there was a piece of land and a virtual uninterrupted coastline from Meis to Crete. It bases all its claims on this virtual shore, the vast majority of which is the open sea.

However, the International Law of the Sea determines that the states with a coast can only be drawn as a "Straight Base Line" provided that the coastal topography complies with the principles of Article 7 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Moreover, apart from the "Normal Base Line" and "Straight Base Line" drawings, as a special condition, UNCLOS Article 47 also includes methods for determining the "Base Line in archipelago", but this special method does only apply by the "Archipelago State" ( It can be used for states known as Islands State/Archipelago State. It is clear that Greece cannot benefit from the special provisions of Article 47 of UNCLOS since it is not an Archipelago or an Archipelago State. Because Greece is a state with a mainland, not a state like Indonesia, which consists of only islands.

Moreover, the faces of the Greek islands facing the Eastern Mediterranean have a total coastal length of 167 kilometers, and it is illegal for them to demand a maritime jurisdiction against the Anatolian coast of 1870 kilometers. In addition, islands more than 200 miles from the mainland do not produce EEZ, that is, they are included in the EEZ area of the mainland, they cannot form an EEZ above it. As a result, Greece's creation of a territorial sea border by drawing a straight baseline as if there is no sea between the islands of Crete and Rhodes and determination of the EEZ from this line is never acceptable in terms of Turkiye's maritime rights and interests, it is also against international maritime law and is a violation of law.

The fact that it is an exclusive economic zone, ignoring the Anatolian coasts, where Meis Island sits right behind and on the continental shelf, is in itself unlawful.

If we show an example of this; Spain has islands off the Moroccan coast. At the top of the map below, you can see the real EEZ of Spain, and at the bottom, you can see what the EEZ would have been if Spain had made unlawful demands like Greece.

By acting in accordance with the maritime law, Spain and Morocco take the mainland as a basis for delimitation, abide by the principles of geographical superiority, non-closure and proportionality, and do not recognize a maritime jurisdiction area other than territorial waters to the Spanish islands on the opposite side (in front of the Moroccan mainland). Therefore, the claim that Greece is the EEZ of Meis and other islands does not coincide with the legal and actual facts and is certainly not an acceptable situation in terms of international law.

screenshot_5.jpg

FU0pg4GXsAASsWa


Other issue: The maritime border between Turkiye and Greece has not yet been determined by an agreement. For this reason, the width of the territorial waters of both Turkiye and Greece in the Aegean Sea is considered to be 6 nautical miles, but Greece wants to increase this to 12 miles with a unilateral fait accompli.

By upsetting the balance of Lausanne in 1936 and increasing the width of its territorial waters to 6 miles, Greece now wants to increase it to 12 miles and transform the Sea of Islands into a Greek lake.

As it is known, the Turkish Grand National Assembly announced its determination to the world public opinion on 08 June 1995 that the vital rights and interests of our country will be protected if Greece expands its territorial waters. If Greece finds favorable conditions and extends its territorial waters to 12 miles; Without taking into account the EGAYDAAKs (Islands whose sovereignty has not been transferred to Greece), the rate of offshore areas in the Sea of Islands will decrease to approximately 20%, and the coverage rate of Turkiye's territorial waters will decrease to 8.7% and that of Greece' share will be 62%.

In this way, in the eastern Sea of Islands, which is important in terms of continental shelf sharing, Turkish territorial waters will increase by 17%, Greek territorial waters will increase by 60%, and open sea areas will decrease by 64% to 9%. If the EGAYDAAKs are accepted under Greek sovereignty, Greece's territorial water coverage ratio will increase to 72% in the entire Islands Sea and to 68% in the eastern Islands Sea.

Thus, the Sea of Islands would become a Greek inland sea, with the exception of two small offshore sections surrounded by Greek territorial waters. In such a case, Turkiye's territorial integrity will be disrupted; Approximately 90% of the Sea of Islands continental shelf and exclusive economic zone will belong to Greece; Turkiye's economic activities such as fishing, tourism and scientific research will be completely restricted by the extraction and exploitation of natural resources in the Islands Sea.

Moreover, our military ships will be unable to perform training and exercises. In short, by expanding its territorial waters to 12 miles, Greece will establish absolute dominance in the Sea of Islands by solving all problems in its favor, especially the continental shelf, exclusive economic zone and airspace.

As a matter of fact, the news and comments in the Greek media are in line with this expectation. In fact, even an increase of one mile in the territorial waters according to the 6 mile regime will cause a decrease of about 12% in the open sea areas in the Sea of Islands.

When the issue is examined from a legal point of view; While Article 3 of the 1982 UNCLOS gives the states the right to determine the width of territorial waters up to 12 miles; does not dictate the absolute width of the territorial sea as 12 miles, the provision also reveals the existence of situations where the territorial sea should be less than 12 miles. On the other hand, 1982 UNCLOS; Article 123 dictates that general rules cannot be applied for the Sea of Islands, which is a semi-enclosed sea.

Article 300, on the other hand, governs the provision that “the states parties must fulfill their obligations under the provisions of this contract in good faith and use the rights, powers and freedoms recognized in this contract in a way that does not constitute an abuse of right” and this article actually prevents Greece from expanding its territorial seas unilaterally.

In view of this legal situation, the problem mainly arises from the policy of unilateral and unlawful expansion of the territorial seas of Greece.

At this point, I think the issue that should be demanded should be to return to the balance of Lausanne and to lower the territorial waters to 3 miles. As a result of the 3-mile territorial waters to be re-established in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne, peace, stability and security will be re-established in the Sea of Islands.

3- The 12 Islands/Menteşe Islands(Dodecanese) were ceded to Greece by the Treaty of Paris in 1947 by Italy on the condition of not having weapons on these islands, but now Greece violates this precondition.

In accordance with the relevant provisions of the 1923 Lausanne and 1947 Paris Peace Treaties, Thassos, Ipsara, Bozbaba, Samothrace, Lemnos, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Ahikeria, Batnoz, Lipso, Ileryoz, Kelemez, Kos, Incirli, Symbeki, Iki, Herke, Rhodes, Kerpe , Çoban Island, Istanbulya and Meis Island are in non-military status.

This non-military status; prohibits all kinds of weapon deployment, including exercise/training, all kinds of flights, transit, permanent/temporary deployment of military aircrafts, excluding those of the base establishment of the Land, Naval and Air Forces, and the internal security forces on them. .

The "NonMilitary Status" of the Islands includes their territorial parts as well as their territorial waters and airspace.

The reason why the islands are placed under non-military status is the importance of these islands in terms of their proximity to Turkiye and therefore Turkiye's security. Turkiye's security is essential. Greece has accepted and signed each of these agreements.

Greek sovereignty over the islands and Turkiye's security concerns were only balanced by placing the islands under non-military status.

When the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty conference minutes and documents are examined; It was stated that the definitive provisions regarding the demilitarization of the islands so that they would not be used as land, naval and air bases in attacks against Turkiye were also included in the text of the agreement.

In particular, I would like to draw attention to the islands, which were transferred to Greece on condition of non-military status, but where the transfer condition was abolished by Greece itself by militarizing and arming, and their positions right near our Anatolian coasts.

In this case, it is clear that the sovereignty transfer condition of these islands is to be in non-military status. While it should have been in this non-military status, Greece, which broke this status, essentially abolished the condition of transferring the sovereignty of these islands to itself. I think that Turkiye should urgently demand the demilitarization of these islands and take all kinds of legal and diplomatic initiatives.

The 'Seville MAP' drawn in 2002 is a map that is completely against Turkiye's interests. Why did this map appear and what is its purpose?

According to the map commissioned by the European Union to the University of Sevilla and ignoring Turkiye's rights, the area given to us is 41 thousand km2, and the area that we should actually claim is 189 thousand km2. In other words, they wanted to take 148 thousand km2 of homeland from us. This map has been used and is being used by many institutions and organizations of the EU, especially the energy agency. Considering the points that the EU has criticized and objected to Turkiye, it is understood that this map is politically based. The aim is to share the Eastern Mediterranean, which is known to have very rich hydrocarbon deposits, excluding Turkiye.

sevillemap1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Greece made agreements, from Laussane and Paris treaty. It is forbidden to arm them. Montro convention does not apply for the Agean Sea.
Greece’s right to militarise Limnos and Samothrace was recognized by Turkey, in accordance with the letter sent to the Greek Prime Minister on 6 May 1936 by the Turkish Ambassador in Athens at the time, Roussen Esref, upon instructions from his Government. The Turkish government reiterated this position when the then Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Rustu Aras, in his address to the Turkish National Assembly on the occasion of the ratification of the Montreux Treaty, unreservedly recognized Greece’s legal right to deploy troops on Limnos and Samothrace, with the following statement : “The provisions pertaining to the islands of Limnos and Samothrace, which belong to our neighbor and friendly country Greece and were demilitarized in application of the 1923 Lausanne Treaty, were also abolished by the new Montreux Treaty, which gives us great pleasure” (Gazette of the Minutes of the Turkish National Assembly, volume 12, July 31/1936, page 309). During the same period, Turkey gave similar assurances on this subject to the governments of interested third countries.

The status of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Ikaria



The Lausanne Treaty makes no mention of these islands having been granted demilitarized status.


The Greek government simply commits to not establishing naval bases or fortifications there in accordance with Article 13 of the Treaty. More specifically, this article specifies that :


“With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria:


• No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.


• Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.


• The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory”.


The Status of the Islands of the South-Eastern Aegean (the Dodecanese)

The Dodecanese islands were ceded to Greece in full sovereignty by the Paris Peace Treaty between Italy and the Allies in April 1947. The provisions of this Treaty provided for the demilitarization of these islands: “The above islands shall be demilitarized and shall remain so”. There is a National Guard presence on the Dodecanese islands, which has been declared in accordance with CFE provisions.


With regard to Turkish claims on the demilitarization of the Dodecanese islands, it should be noted that:


Turkey is not a signatory state to this Treaty, which therefore constitutes a "res inter alios acta" for Turkey; i.e., an issue pertaining to others. According to Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty does not create obligations or rights for third countries.


Normally I don't like to repeat these topics over and over here. From our point of view, this problem's solves are crystal clear and too serious to be a propaganda material. But let me make a brief summary one last time for you again.

Greece claims that Meis Island has the right to a continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. Based on this claim, it creates a sea area 4,000 times larger than itself. How acceptable is this claim?

Greece claims that Meis Island has the right to a continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. Based on this claim, it creates a sea area 4,000 times larger than itself. There is no such example in the world. It's like the US claiming the entire east pacific ocean because of the Hawai Islands.

In fact, the Greek thesis tries to impose the hundreds of miles of sea areas between the Greek islands of Mesi, Rhodes, Kerpe, Kaşot and Crete as if there was a piece of land and a virtual uninterrupted coastline from Meis to Crete. It bases all its claims on this virtual shore, the vast majority of which is the open sea.

However, the International Law of the Sea determines that the states with a coast can only be drawn as a "Straight Base Line" provided that the coastal topography complies with the principles of Article 7 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Moreover, apart from the "Normal Base Line" and "Straight Base Line" drawings, as a special condition, UNCLOS Article 47 also includes methods for determining the "Base Line in archipelago", but this special method does only apply by the "Archipelago State" ( It can be used for states known as Islands State/Archipelago State. It is clear that Greece cannot benefit from the special provisions of Article 47 of UNCLOS since it is not an Archipelago or an Archipelago State. Because Greece is a state with a mainland, not a state like Indonesia, which consists of only islands.

Moreover, the faces of the Greek islands facing the Eastern Mediterranean have a total coastal length of 167 kilometers, and it is illegal for them to demand a maritime jurisdiction against the Anatolian coast of 1870 kilometers. In addition, islands more than 200 miles from the mainland do not produce EEZ, that is, they are included in the EEZ area of the mainland, they cannot form an EEZ above it. As a result, Greece's creation of a territorial sea border by drawing a straight baseline as if there is no sea between the islands of Crete and Rhodes and determination of the EEZ from this line is never acceptable in terms of Turkiye's maritime rights and interests, it is also against international maritime law and is a violation of law.

The fact that it is an exclusive economic zone, ignoring the Anatolian coasts, where Meis Island sits right behind and on the continental shelf, is in itself unlawful.

If we show an example of this; Spain has islands off the Moroccan coast. At the top of the map below, you can see the real EEZ of Spain, and at the bottom, you can see what the EEZ would have been if Spain had made unlawful demands like Greece.

By acting in accordance with the maritime law, Spain and Morocco take the mainland as a basis for delimitation, abide by the principles of geographical superiority, non-closure and proportionality, and do not recognize a maritime jurisdiction area other than territorial waters to the Spanish islands on the opposite side (in front of the Moroccan mainland). Therefore, the claim that Greece is the EEZ of Meis and other islands does not coincide with the legal and actual facts and is certainly not an acceptable situation in terms of international law.

screenshot_5.jpg

FU0pg4GXsAASsWa


Other issue: The maritime border between Turkiye and Greece has not yet been determined by an agreement. For this reason, the width of the territorial waters of both Turkiye and Greece in the Aegean Sea is considered to be 6 nautical miles, but Greece wants to increase this to 12 miles with a unilateral fait accompli.

By upsetting the balance of Lausanne in 1936 and increasing the width of its territorial waters to 6 miles, Greece now wants to increase it to 12 miles and transform the Sea of Islands into a Greek lake.

As it is known, the Turkish Grand National Assembly announced its determination to the world public opinion on 08 June 1995 that the vital rights and interests of our country will be protected if Greece expands its territorial waters. If Greece finds favorable conditions and extends its territorial waters to 12 miles; Without taking into account the EGAYDAAKs (Islands whose sovereignty has not been transferred to Greece), the rate of offshore areas in the Sea of Islands will decrease to approximately 20%, and the coverage rate of Turkiye's territorial waters will decrease to 8.7% and that of Greece' share will be 62%.

In this way, in the eastern Sea of Islands, which is important in terms of continental shelf sharing, Turkish territorial waters will increase by 17%, Greek territorial waters will increase by 60%, and open sea areas will decrease by 64% to 9%. If the EGAYDAAKs are accepted under Greek sovereignty, Greece's territorial water coverage ratio will increase to 72% in the entire Islands Sea and to 68% in the eastern Islands Sea.

Thus, the Sea of Islands would become a Greek inland sea, with the exception of two small offshore sections surrounded by Greek territorial waters. In such a case, Turkiye's territorial integrity will be disrupted; Approximately 90% of the Sea of Islands continental shelf and exclusive economic zone will belong to Greece; Turkiye's economic activities such as fishing, tourism and scientific research will be completely restricted by the extraction and exploitation of natural resources in the Islands Sea.

Moreover, our military ships will be unable to perform training and exercises. In short, by expanding its territorial waters to 12 miles, Greece will establish absolute dominance in the Sea of Islands by solving all problems in its favor, especially the continental shelf, exclusive economic zone and airspace.

As a matter of fact, the news and comments in the Greek media are in line with this expectation. In fact, even an increase of one mile in the territorial waters according to the 6 mile regime will cause a decrease of about 12% in the open sea areas in the Sea of Islands.

When the issue is examined from a legal point of view; While Article 3 of the 1982 UNCLOS gives the states the right to determine the width of territorial waters up to 12 miles; does not dictate the absolute width of the territorial sea as 12 miles, the provision also reveals the existence of situations where the territorial sea should be less than 12 miles. On the other hand, 1982 UNCLOS; Article 123 dictates that general rules cannot be applied for the Sea of Islands, which is a semi-enclosed sea.

Article 300, on the other hand, governs the provision that “the states parties must fulfill their obligations under the provisions of this contract in good faith and use the rights, powers and freedoms recognized in this contract in a way that does not constitute an abuse of right” and this article actually prevents Greece from expanding its territorial seas unilaterally.

In view of this legal situation, the problem mainly arises from the policy of unilateral and unlawful expansion of the territorial seas of Greece.

At this point, I think the issue that should be demanded should be to return to the balance of Lausanne and to lower the territorial waters to 3 miles. As a result of the 3-mile territorial waters to be re-established in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne, peace, stability and security will be re-established in the Sea of Islands.

3- The 12 Islands/Menteşe Islands(Dodecanese) were ceded to Greece by the Treaty of Paris in 1947 by Italy on the condition of not having weapons on these islands, but now Greece violates this precondition.

In accordance with the relevant provisions of the 1923 Lausanne and 1947 Paris Peace Treaties, Thassos, Ipsara, Bozbaba, Samothrace, Lemnos, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Ahikeria, Batnoz, Lipso, Ileryoz, Kelemez, Kos, Incirli, Symbeki, Iki, Herke, Rhodes, Kerpe , Çoban Island, Istanbulya and Meis Island are in non-military status.

This non-military status; prohibits all kinds of weapon deployment, including exercise/training, all kinds of flights, transit, permanent/temporary deployment of military aircrafts, excluding those of the base establishment of the Land, Naval and Air Forces, and the internal security forces on them. .

The "NonMilitary Status" of the Islands includes their territorial parts as well as their territorial waters and airspace.

The reason why the islands are placed under non-military status is the importance of these islands in terms of their proximity to Turkiye and therefore Turkiye's security. Turkiye's security is essential. Greece has accepted and signed each of these agreements.

Greek sovereignty over the islands and Turkiye's security concerns were only balanced by placing the islands under non-military status.

When the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty conference minutes and documents are examined; It was stated that the definitive provisions regarding the demilitarization of the islands so that they would not be used as land, naval and air bases in attacks against Turkiye were also included in the text of the agreement.

In particular, I would like to draw attention to the islands, which were transferred to Greece on condition of non-military status, but where the transfer condition was abolished by Greece itself by militarizing and arming, and their positions right near our Anatolian coasts.

In this case, it is clear that the sovereignty transfer condition of these islands is to be in non-military status. While it should have been in this non-military status, Greece, which broke this status, essentially abolished the condition of transferring the sovereignty of these islands to itself. I think that Turkiye should urgently demand the demilitarization of these islands and take all kinds of legal and diplomatic initiatives.

The 'Seville MAP' drawn in 2002 is a map that is completely against Turkiye's interests. Why did this map appear and what is its purpose?

According to the map commissioned by the European Union to the University of Sevilla and ignoring Turkiye's rights, the area given to us is 41 thousand km2, and the area that we should actually claim is 189 thousand km2. In other words, they wanted to take 148 thousand km2 of homeland from us. This map has been used and is being used by many institutions and organizations of the EU, especially the energy agency. Considering the points that the EU has criticized and objected to Turkiye, it is understood that this map is politically based. The aim is to share the Eastern Mediterranean, which is known to have very rich hydrocarbon deposits, excluding Turkiye.

sevillemap1.jpg
Well there you go:

Screenshot_2021-10-12 The Ordeal of the Greek EEZ - Energy News - Institute of Energy of South...png


Screenshot_2021-10-12 The Ordeal of the Greek EEZ - Energy News - Institute of Energy of South...png



You dropped the ball. Can't have it two different ways,just like your foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
They will step in before for sure. As if Greece is attacked the alliance will stop Turkey but NOT by any force of arms. Mass sanctions, removal from all bodies, blockade etc. They won't attack a member who has been at their side for decades.
Not sure about whether or not they will go to war with Turkey, but if Article 5 is triggered, then NATO would probably not be sitting in the side-line and do nothing, because that will just give Putin more thoughts about possibly engagement in the Baltics. There are going to be some action from NATO other than non-lethal mean.

It's depends on what NATO is thinking then, and how the Russian-Ukrainian issue is resolved. As I said, war is unlikely, so we may as well talk about what if US invaded Canada or UK.
 
Not sure about whether or not they will go to war with Turkey, but if Article 5 is triggered, then NATO would probably not be sitting in the side-line and do nothing, because that will just give Putin more thoughts about possibly engagement in the Baltics. There are going to be some action from NATO other than non-lethal mean.

It's depends on what NATO is thinking then, and how the Russian-Ukrainian issue is resolved. As I said, war is unlikely, so we may as well talk about what if US invaded Canada or UK.
Paris agreement article 14.
FU2JtU9X0BwuZJ6

The text of this agreement was accepted and signed by the Greek state. Signature is the honor of a state.

Ignoring and eroding this undeniable legal basis is the only factor that threatens regional peace.

If Greece does not fulfill the provisions of these agreements, it will have to suffer the consequences.

Charlatan greek generals can dream of bombing the Istanbul Bridges in their wet dreams. They can even disrupt the peace if they wish, if they can afford the consequences.

However, we never accept the claim that Turkiye is the revisionist and aggressive side, and we will not be a part of the dirty propaganda carried out over it.
 
Not sure about whether or not they will go to war with Turkey, but if Article 5 is triggered, then NATO would probably not be sitting in the side-line and do nothing, because that will just give Putin more thoughts about possibly engagement in the Baltics. There are going to be some action from NATO other than non-lethal mean.

It's depends on what NATO is thinking then, and how the Russian-Ukrainian issue is resolved. As I said, war is unlikely, so we may as well talk about what if US invaded Canada or UK.

They won't ever attack a member over another member. They'll at most strangle it to the negotiation table.
As for Putin well that will carry on for years.
 
Also this islands thing is ridiculous. They have entire bases on the other side and say our tiny garissons are a threat to them. They demand that we leave the islands next to them without any defence,threatening with war if we don't do it. How can I trust that such a government will not invade and take all these islands,after they are demilitarized.

Turkiye is capable of taking control of these Islands even if they are militarized by the Greeks. Turkiye is just looking for an excuse to start the war. This is the best time to start the war and expand the Turkish influence. US & Euope are busy with Ukraine war and are begging Turkiye to approve Sweden and Finland joining NATO.
 
Stupid and unfair? Because you like Turkey?

What do you mean how can we occupy the whole sea? That's how our country is,we have thousands of islands and islets.
Turkey has a huge landmass and a clear opening in the Black Sea and southeast Mediterranean.

View attachment 852996

So ur reason is they have black sea so they cant have Aegean? By that logic greece also have the ionian sea to the west so should let go of Aegean. See how stupid is ur claim. Countries have a right to their continental shelf, u have the islands, u cant have the sea.
 
Paris agreement article 14.
FU2JtU9X0BwuZJ6

The text of this agreement was accepted and signed by the Greek state. Signature is the honor of a state.

Ignoring and eroding this undeniable legal basis is the only factor that threatens regional peace.

If Greece does not fulfill the provisions of these agreements, it will have to suffer the consequences.

Charlatan greek generals can dream of bombing the Istanbul Bridges in their wet dreams. They can even disrupt the peace if they wish, if they can afford the consequences.

However, we never accept the claim that Turkiye is the revisionist and aggressive side, and we will not be a part of the dirty propaganda carried out over it.

look, I am not taking Greek Side over Turkey, I know not enough about the situation to take one side over the other, What I was commenting on is the fact that if "Greek invoke Article 5"

On the other hand, violating a treaty does not give any country the right to attack another country, there are international court for that matter, seek a peaceful resolution first, then if all else failed, then talk about armed option.

They won't ever attack a member over another member. They'll at most strangle it to the negotiation table.
As for Putin well that will carry on for years.
The problem I see is, NATO also won't leave a member being under attack and leave it like that. Again, whether or not if Greek can apply Article 5 on this issue is a question in itself, but if that was invoked, I don't see how this can be done without physical intervention. Again, the core value of NATO is article 5, and if it was invoked and ignored, you may disband NATO. That's going to be the same if Greece invaded Turkey, I would see NATO physically intervene with Greece if that is the case.

So I guess we can agree to disagree with this.
 
Not sure about whether or not they will go to war with Turkey, but if Article 5 is triggered, then NATO would probably not be sitting in the side-line and do nothing, because that will just give Putin more thoughts about possibly engagement in the Baltics. There are going to be some action from NATO other than non-lethal mean.

It's depends on what NATO is thinking then, and how the Russian-Ukrainian issue is resolved. As I said, war is unlikely, so we may as well talk about what if US invaded Canada or UK.

Is NATO's Article 5 valid when the war is between two NATO states?

The problem I see is, NATO also won't leave a member being under attack and leave it like that. Again, whether or not if Greek can apply Article 5 on this issue is a question in itself, but if that was invoked, I don't see how this can be done without physical intervention. Again, the core value of NATO is article 5, and if it was invoked and ignored, you may disband NATO.


So I guess we can agree to disagree with this.

What if both Greece and Turkiye invoke Article 5? Will NATO states fight on both sides? :rofl:
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom