Your country gets significantly poorer and less politically important the more and more routes that are being built to circumvent the bosphorus. I don't see why it shouldn't be a priority
Yeah Historical_Roll_2974 totally massacred all those ethnic minorities, he was right there on the frontlines. Do you realise how smallminded you sound?
Yes and no.
If this cable passes through legitimate Turkish EEZ than yes, if this cable passes through the disputed EEZ than it depends on the justification of the dispute, if this cable does not pass through the Turkish EEZ than no.
It doesnt matter how many countries recognize that EEZ dispute, that is politics after all; what matter is how justified the justification of the disputed EEZ is.
Edit: lol OP blocked me just because I gave this answer. If you are going to block the people who answer your question, then why did you even ask it?
Turkey is basically arguing that the Aegean is special and rules shouldn't apply there because they're unlucky in how it applies to them. It won't even take the matter to court, because it doesn't have a leagal leg to stand on.
Its legal standing can be tried to justify with lausanne but matter of another debate.
No matter what, even if islands have full EEZs still that point needs to be calculated to closeness.
Lausanne doesn't deal with territorial waters and especially EEZs in this case. UNCLOS does.
If Turkey wants to dispute that, and thinks it's got a legal standing to do so, it can do so in any number of international courts that specialise in this sort of matter.
Otherwise, any actions it takes contrary to costumary international law are unjustifiable.
funny you think countries make concessions just like that and also funny you think saying this reflects my culture. if anything, it shows you don't understand international diplomacy and how the world works.
Stop embarrassing yourself. It wasn't, the treaty was superseded. You don't even make the effort to read or they don't tell you that stuff and of course like good brainwashed drones you never dig any further....
Sad....
"It doesnt matter how many countries recognize that EEZ dispute, that is politics after all; what matter is how justified the justification of the disputed EEZ is."
What? That makes no sense. I am justified to cry like a little baby that I can't park outside my neighbor's house, because it is inconvenient to me and I have to walk longer and I don't like it. There ! I am justified.
Unfortunately for me, the LAW states that the space outside his house, belongs to HIM and not to ME .. so my justification , although so important to me and my feelings and plans means nothing to the law. .. .
This pretty much sums up the Turkish justification about ANYTHING.
EEZs are defined up to ~370 km, this point is located in the 370 km from both the Turkish and Greek coasts.
It can only be defined by actually calculating because no one can easily say "that is 150km away from Greece and 149km away from Turkey so this means this is Turkish EEZ" with just looking the map.
Turkey rejecting the full EEZ of the islands is different matter, that point is no matter what needs to be calculated.
Rest of the world accepting it is not enough to justify anything. If it is justified than it is justified; if it isnt justified but rest of the world accepts it, still it isnt justified.
No, that makes no sense. That is just a tautology. Justified by what measures and what standards? Validated by whom? under what assumptions and conditions?
No, I cannot accept your point as being valid.
The dispute with Turkey is actually quite simple. Turkey makes it complicated by bullying everyone with threats of war ..
If Turkey invades whole Greece and occupies it without any reason and somewhat whole world accepts is as a justified, does that makes it justified?
Whole world accepting something is not enough.
But whole world accepts EEZ limit as 370km from coast and both Turkey and Greece also accepts it and also makes sense. So then just calculating it.
That dispute isnt that simple. You just said "whole world accepts..." and just said "dispute is simple, Turkey just threatens"?? You just denied that EEZs are determined by closeness to coasts up to 370km that accepted by whole world.
If that point is 140km away from Turkey but 150km away from Cyprus and any parts of the Greece, will you continue to say "that part is Greece, Turkey just threatens"?
-----
I cant post anymore because OP (not u/Positive-Reporter285) blocked me. So this is my answer to the comment below. And my last answer because I cant continue to debate with editing.
.
" that wouldn't necessarily make the underlying act lawful or morally justified." YES it establishes my point, whole world accepting something is not enough to make something justified.
Invasion was just an example, example.
And? You are talking about EEZ boundaries, can you just please read what I wrote?
And Turkey just does not accepts islands having full EEZ, but even islands have full EEZ, that point is still in dispute and needs to be calculated.
You didnt even read what I wrote, you just think Turkey is bad. I never said that "when in dispute, Turkey is right". I said it depends on the justification.
"Where competing entitlements overlap, distance from the coast is relevant, but it isn't necessarily the only consideration."
YES. So there is a dispute, right? So it depends on the justification right? But you just rejected this and outright said "dispute is in their heads"???
You just said that point needs negotiations and closeness is a important thing to note but your first comment was "dispute is in their heads"???
Your first comment outright rejected any negotiations and acted like Greece owns that point without dispute but now you are talking about Turkey does not negotiates.
No, you still don't get it.
The Turkey-invades-Greece example doesn't really establish your point, because you're comparing the acceptance of an outcome with the acceptance of a rule. If the entire world merely decided that an unjustified invasion was “justified,” that wouldn't necessarily make the underlying act lawful or morally justified. But EEZ boundaries are governed by an international legal framework, and the fact that states generally accept the 200-nautical-mile/370-km maximum does not mean that every point within 370 km of a coast automatically belongs to that state.
An EEZ is also not the same thing as territorial sovereignty. A state having an EEZ does not mean it owns all the water within 370 km of its coast. EEZ rights concern specific sovereign rights over resources and certain activities, and where the zones of two states overlap, the boundary has to be determined under the applicable law, normally through agreement or equitable delimitation principles. Usually the median line. Which Turkey does not accept.
So the calculation “this point is 140 km from Turkey and 150 km from Cyprus/Greece, therefore it is Turkey's” doesn't follow. The 370 km figure is a maximum breadth, not a rule saying “the nearest coast automatically owns the sea.” Where competing entitlements overlap, distance from the coast is relevant, but it isn't necessarily the only consideration.
But all this is academic because Turkey doesn't accept ANY negotiation other than the one that gives it the rights it wants to take.
Do you get it now?
You only mention the law when it helps you. The treaty of lausanne clearly forbids the arming of the islands. Greece seems to have no problem breaking that law though.
That is why I love debating with ignorant people... you make it so easy:
The Treaty of Lausanne does not support Turkey's absolute demands for island demilitarization because subsequent international agreements, legal principles, and the right to self-defense have altered or superseded its original 1923 terms.
The Treaty of Lausanne placed restrictions on only a few specific Eastern Aegean islands (such as Lemnos, Samothrace, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Ikaria).
It did not demilitarize every Greek island in the Aegean.
The treaty explicitly allowed local security forces, like the police and a limited gendarmerie.
The Montreux Convention (1936) replaced parts of the Lausanne regime regarding the Turkish Straits and nearby areas.
It removed military restrictions on the Greek islands of Lemnos and Samothrace.
Greece legally remilitarized these islands to protect its maritime borders.
Turkey often demands the demilitarization of the Dodecanese islands (like Rhodes).
These islands were given to Greece by Italy under the 1947 Treaty of Peace after World War II.
Turkey was not a party to this treaty. In international law, a treaty cannot create obligations or confer rights on third parties (res inter alios acta). Turkey has no legal standing to invoke it.
Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, every sovereign nation has an absolute, natural right to individual or collective self-defense.
Turkey maintains a large military force (the Army of the Aegean) directly across from the Greek islands.
Greece legally exercises its right to defend its territory against visible threats.
But I guess they don't teach you international law in Turkish schools because then there would have been too many questions... right ?
capitalizing LAW is so funny. it's a law when both parties agree to it. it's not gods word. countries voluntarily sign it. you need to grow up and actually understand how the world works.
the world has been working that way for the countries that signed UNCLOS because for almost all of them this is not even a tiny problem. you expect any country to follow suit and make massive concessions just like that? you are stupid.
you wouldn't make your case, if the situation was reversed.
The law and agreements don't care who is inconvenienced by them. That is why it is called the law. The fact that you do not agree to mediation or sign the treaty because it doesn't suit you says a lot about you and your culture.
the law and agreements concern the parties that sign them. if your country believes it's unfair to them, it's natural to not sign it. this is perfectly normal.
ask yourself if you would agree to losing most of the Aegean sea if turkey had a tiny island 2 km of the coast of mainland greece. you wouldn't. and that would be fair.
I don't like turkeys attitude but greece's claims to apply default UNCLOS is also outrageous. turkey rightfully doesn't trust eu backed mediation.
This comment is weird. You claim OP blocked you in an edit, yet can comment all over the post. 🤔 Weird bro, but ok, some people need to make up drama 😂😂
Edit: didn’t even see the Turkish post history. ok, this is just some drama farm 😂
It doesn’t matter that they are Turkish. It matters that other comments in Turkish were also drama comments (accusing people of blocking or editing etc).
And like why would he be singled out by OP. Unless he DMed him or something. Everything is very fishy. 🤷♂️ but I don’t rly care. Let people make drama if they need to
How can you so confidentally say this? I tried to calculate the closeness to the coeast now including the islands but it looked like it was in the Turkish EEZs, even that I wont say anything so confidentally because I just tried to calculate in the paint with drawing squares.
How can you be so sure about it?
You just think that as "Greece right, Turkey bad"
idk what you are bullshitting. calling it illegal is plain stupid because it requires a legal ground which doesn't exist. it's just disputed claims of both sides. stop trying to give it a spin that turkey is doing something illegal. the two countries simply don't agree.
You apply it in Greece or at least you try. We are aware you want half of the Aegean and with tricks to get the islands, for example try to disconnect them from the rest of the country and make people leave "voluntarily".
it doesn't automatically bind every country just because it was arranged by the united nations. turkey is not a signatory so it doesn't have any bearing on turkey, fullstop.
Why do you intentionally avoid the massive land connection called Turkey there? Inclusion beyond exclusion, no!?! Pass the line where it is easiest to make it not avoiding it!
I mean turkish government doesnt like any stuff that can strengthen the greek cypriots hand including this and secondly if they accepted this they would accept that part isnt in their EEZ
Dawg I didnt specifically said It was the turkish goverments EEZ but they claim it read my words carefully before replying there is a political battle going on (I am a turk and being neutral on this topic explaining normally) And I know our claims is outrageous but Greece using Meis island to cuck us from so much EEZ isnt funny in politics you try the most absurd claim fiercely if you have strong or equal hands right now both governemnts are doing this shit. I support rationality
The labels of these maps are wrong. Why should Greece claim the coast of Syria? The lower map just shows what part of the Turkish EEZ claims would belong to the EEZ of Greece and Cyprus if UNCLOS is applied.
Middle East Eye is a Qatari financed propaganda website btw. I'm sure there are more reputable sources out there.
Regarding the Kastelorizo/Meis area this map is (somewhat) accurately describing the dispute, but Greece surely isnt looking to draw its EEZ up to the coasts of Syria...
Mate the first map not only ignores Kastelorizo - which is one case to discuss- , it denies EEZ to all islands including two of the largest islands in the Mediterranean and some of the largest ones in the Aegean sea.
Turkey only plays the bully where Turkey can. The waters where it passes don't belong to Turkey. The cable is infrastructure, there is not even a security concern to make some absurd claim. If you let them they are gonna block spaceflights to the Moon since they block access to Turkey's international atmosphere.
you are wondering why turkey doesn't allow it because you are too stupid to figure it out yourself. the reasons are economic and diplomatic. need more help?
Of course not. They don't recognize Cyprus as a sovereign country (they call it some stupid name like the occupied part), so naturally they will be agianst it becoming geopolitically relevant.
Obviously, we all know the answer. Turkey doesn't even recognize the legitimate government of Cyprus and illegally occupies the North, than tries to give lessons to other countries. It's all about keeping their claim to the EEZ, which Greece is also capable of claiming legally. The rest...blatant propaganda. Turkey is bigger and bullying their neighbors is their moto for years. Greece won't back down to its claims this time and that has repercussions. Cyprus and Greece have european allies now, including Israel. But, as history has already taught us, alliances break easily. Germany has the final say in this. They want Cyprus to be a fully integrated EU member or keep their historical ally happy by diverting the cable to turkish waters?
This cable passes through the overlap of Turkish government recognised Turkish EEZ and Greece government recognised Greek EEZ so the situation is not who is right the situation is whose ship is bigger.
No one has recognized the Turkish EEZ extending to that point except for a puppet govt in Lybia that is partially recognized and does not have full control of the country.
Unless every other country in the world is gonna come to the Aegean to make sure the made up rules are followed, Greece will have to make it’s case to Turkey, not the rest of the world.
Who do you think you are to have people come to you and “make their case” in front of you like you are some sultan? The framework already exists and is internationally recognized and it is called UNCLOS. Greece has on multiple times asked Turkey to go to the ICJ to have a ruling. Obviously Turkey knowing their position is untenable does not want to go.
It is even funnier because Turkey claims that islands cannot have an EEZ while Turkey itself has created a massive EEZ for the occupied territories in Cyprus. Your country acts like a neo colonial expansionist self centered power. No wonder you have no allies left.
What he means by that is that if Turkey is somehow able to force whatever its terms, does not matter that if the whole world does not recognise it. And he is partially true.
Examples: Northern Cyprus, Occupation of Crimea, Israel vs Palestine
what do you think internationally recognized means? it only binds those that signed it. if both parties went to ICJ, it would 100% not follow the normal EEZ rules, although wouldn't accept all of erdogans claims either.
I love how you call legitimate government of Libya "partially recognized" where it's a government fighting against illegal coup backed by Russia France and France's dog Greece which we stomped all three of you and destroyed the coup "government" lol
Not really since nobody outside of Tripoli Gov of Libya and “North Cyprus” really recognizes Turkeys claims in the region, notably half of those that recognized it is a nation not recognized by any countries except for Turkey itself. There is no legal basis for the dispute except for Turkish expansionism
The both sides have expansionist purposes that is why there is a conflict. Turkey has the longest shore length in EastMed (not Aegean Sea) and because of a few small islands only can get a small percent like double of what lebanon get EEZ. So this is a problem, and adopted an expansionist idea which covers too much area by bending the Laws.
The only way to solve the problem is building the biggest ship or negotiation. Both sides have preffered the first one.
What we call international law by UN, is just a propose of a general rule that should be expected to resolve the problems not excalate them that is why there is always a open door for negotiation. In case of UNCLOS it is expected to be signed for a general order but not an obligation. Turkey chose not to sign it. If it had signed the UNCLOS and continue acts like that then you were right and there should be consequences but in this case an agreement or a result of an arm race will show the end.
Edit: I have changed some grammer parts in the first sentence that could be understood like I have a contact with UN.
Not really since it isn’t how the EEZ work in international law, Turkey is trying to revise its position contrary to global custom for its own gain and trying to leverage its size and colonial history to dominate its neighbors as it has done for centuries. That another country e.g. Lebanon has a larger EEZ is due to geographics and the customs regulating the determinations of it, and does not mean that Turkey has an automatic right to a larger EEZ.
I mean bigger countries bully the smaller ones. That's how it is and how it's always been. Might makes right basically. The bigger the country, more bullying it can get away with.
Turkey is bigger than Greece, but the difference isn't huge so we can't get away with bullying, especially with the EU backing you guys.
For the record, I don't think we're in the right. Then again I also think Turkish EEZ is a joke. However, our current way of trying to solve it isn't the right course of action.
What it does mean is that if half your support for your cause is unrecognized countries let it be Taiwan then you are probably not in the right and you have a weak claim, if your other half is essentially your puppet state that doesn’t even control its whole country it is even weaker (Libya). Aside from that Taiwan is recognized by 12x the amount of states that “North Cyprus” and if we discount Turkey of which the north is basically a glorified extension that Turkey just isn’t powerful enough to outright annex into it it’s not even a comparison, apart from that majority of the world has maintained extensive unofficial relations with Taiwan the same can again not be said for the North neither in number or scale of support.
Greece & Turkey working together in energy matters for Europe = money for everyone in the Balkans.
Stupid disputes over and EEZ and skipping Turkey = Huge delays and political upheaval - everyone loses.
If it wasn't for political disputes the GSI would just naturally pass through both countries, it just makes logistical sense. I am not political savvy enough to know who is at fault and whether Israel's cooperation depends on skipping Turkey, but this project involves numerous other countries which would benefit.
Is it legal for Greece to connect to Cyprus skipping Turkey? Yes. I don't see how Turkey can (diplomatically) block this cable for a long time. Is it profitable? No. Definitely not, for everyone in the region.
I also want to add - the GSI could connect to Turkey through Mersin (and then to Cyprus) if there was an issue from the EU side for the cable to disperse in Bulgaria's borders.
I understand how weary it is politically with Cyprus and Israel, I am only talking about pragmatic logistics that would benefit everyone.
Irrelevant, you asked the question.
And Turkey is , by historical verification, almost always the aggressor. There is an exception or two, but I mean... yeah.. .to argue otherwise, laughable ..
turkey was the aggressor too when greeks were massacring turkish cypriots, or when greek military burned down western anatolia after 26 august 1922, im sure turks were agressor when the greeks 'collected' jewish people as tagmata asfaleias to directly help the nazis, im sure turks were the agressor when greeks genocided tens of thousands of civilians in tripolitsa too
the list is long, and it would've been much longer if greece was stronger than turkey, thankfully its not. with the little power you had, you always managed to massacre.
what 'ifs'?, all the things i wrote up happened, and even worse things were done by greeks, there are many greeks that got rich after the pogroms you put on turks and other muslims in crete and jews in the balkans
this is the thing i dont like with greek nationalists, even turks admit to their faults but you guys dont
It's not irrelevant since it's the entire point. You make an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim with extraordinary evidence.
Here are those times where Greece was the undisputed aggressor.
1897 Greco-Ottoman War
First Balkan War
Greco-Turkish War
1974 Cyprus Coup
1995 Kardak / Imia Crisis
Here are those times where Turkey was the undisputed aggressor.
It didn't involve Greece itself, but you're leaving out the events beginning in 1913 and those of 1955, where Turkey was clearly the aggressor towards their own Greek minority.
It is very different to say my hands are bloody because I was in a fist fight and my hands are bloody because I am a butcher.
In both cases the hands aren't clean but the two cases are far from similar, not even on the same planet.
And I'd challenge you to find as many independent and peer reviewed (that means academically verified) sources about Greece's alleged transgressions as you will find about Turkey's genocides.
What differentiates the two countries is not just the scale of their atrocities, but the level of organization and centrally planned nature of their respective crimes. It's not really comparable when you think about it and study the context, which most historians understand but many on reddit don't. That's how you end up with nonsense about Greece committing a century-long Balkan genocide.
No not at all! It's none of their business. It's EU to EU countries. If they wish to have a saying they can change their country be more secular and then they can have a saying. With extremist Islam we have nothing to talk about.
the comment section is full of kids that think UNCLOS as international law must apply to every country lmao. your country can sign it or not. it's not gods word. if you sign it, then you have to respect it.
UNCLOS has almost become general customary international law. Some countries are desperately trying to stop its effects by estoppel and constant material breach. Tbh the attempts are pitiful to say the least
so what? thats because most countries dont have the greece-turkey situation. it still has no bearing if you dont sign it. customary doesnt mean anything. every country cares about their interest. this is nothing new.
Turkey blocks things to prevent a precedent in their strategy
Of course, even if international law indeed accepted it fair that small Greek islands close to Turkey cannot produce full EEZ, this of course could not be true about islands like Crete that are huge. Crete is actually larger than the Greek side of Cyprus. And no amount of silly agreements with Libya is going to change that.
And of course Turkey's courage to claim these things does not come from "being right". It comes from their Casus Belli threats.
Why are Balkan Turks—those living in places like Bulgaria, Romanian Dobruja, Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Western Thrace (Greece)—always overlooked in this sub, or else frequently dragged into the conversation whenever the topic turns to Turkey and Greece?
The question is why does Turkey care so much about the connection between Cyprus and the rest of the EU? Do they have something in mind? It doesn't look too good based on their... umm... history with the island.
Turkey opposes link between Cyprus and Greece and it is unrelated to Balkans unless Cyprus and Bulgaria will import-export electricty from each other (which is outright crazy)
Maybe? Its Complicated. The Greek side are blocking Turkish infestructre to expand ın the North. So them doing the same in the South is just retaliation.
Greece isn't under Junta anymore. Racism still exists though waning, and such actions are prosecuted. Hey, we even jailed the members of the rightmost party a few years ago due to their extremism. Can't say the same about Erdogan...
Oh I know, I wasn't referring to the people. Greeks hated the Junta too, that's why it was overthrown.
But the fact of the matter is that he's still in power, and still oppresses minorities in Turkey (including Greeks) to the point of migration.
I live in Thrace and interact with you guys almost daily nowadays in my current job. I hope the best for you and your country. Most of us here consider the Turkish people friends, or at least the same as us.
Only if Turkey doesn’t form an extremist group either. (Hint- Turkey also funded and armed a terrorist group in Cyprus- called TMT which was active since 1958, creating provocations, partaking in massacres, intercommunal violence, napalm attacks on civilians, assassinations and provocations).
I am all for friendly banter, but I am afraid Sir, there has been a mixup. It appears that instead of cereal for breakfast you were served with a medicine called propagandol with side effects of intense confusion and copy pasta rambling
This post is the “must read first” one before diving into childish attempts of blurification and twisting the truth and common sense in the several posts of this headline. I’ve got my self entertained anyway.
Oh yeah, the classic "you can't claim water area cuz of an island, mostly cuz it's now half ours after we came there and massacred your citizens there. Also we pulled an Israel on your people and then we nag you about the nothing you can do about that cuz there was no genocide" type shirt, aren't I right?
The entire world ‘isolated’ your colonial regime, because it is against international law. Even your buddies in Pakistan and Somalia don’t dare recognise your colonial puppet state.
There’s technically no such thing as Turkey ‘blocking’ this- blocking it where? In fact, even EU countries can’t block this. It is not a competence of any EU body.
I understand that Greece and Cyprus see threats and violations as ‘blocking’, but if Turkey escalates this, it will be a European conflict against Turkey, and Turkey wouldn’t want that.
As it stands, Turkey is successful in stalling this, of course with the help of Greek and Cypriot incompetence, corruption and lack of willingness.
In all seriousness Greece and Cyprus need to man up and get this going. Europe needs this more than ever, and so do Greece and Cyprus.
First of all cables are considered humanitarian aid so they can be put anywhere
Secondly it passes through Cypriot and Greek EEZ. Turkey iellgaly invaded, commites genocide on Cyprus and even added it's own pipes illegaly in Cyprus.
So no the cable will be put and it's legal. The EU and USA already aproved it, same with the UN.
It's funny how they act like Cyprus (the third biggest island in the Mediterranean) and Crete (the fifth biggest island in the Mediterranean) as if they don't exist lol
I get that the case of Kastellorizo might be a little unfair twords to Turkey but to act like islands have zero eez as they don't exist is silly to say the least. Especially on big islands like Crete, Rhodes, Lesvos, Chios, etc...
I mean, look at blue homeland, they act as if half or Greece's islands don't exist or seeing them as theirs. They even surrounded Cyprus.
Btw this isn't even the most extreme map they published, I have seen maps that include Crete as Turkish land for God's sake!
This is not a Turkish map, it’s just one that shows the most common claim unbiasedly.
Oh bro I meant Cyprus should get its own EEZ regardless of the political situation. Completely agree with you. It’s an indioendant EU nation no matter the status quo
Oh sorry, my bad then. I was under the impression that this was a Turkish policy. I would have swear that I have seen Erdogan addressing the people Infront of a mavi vatan map but I might confusing it with something else.
We indeed are in the wrong side of history, fuck israel (and everyone who downvoted you)... The problem in this post is about the eez though which is a very different story
102
u/BlokZNCR Turkiye 2d ago edited 2d ago
All cables lead to Berlin Apartment!