Elisabeth BrawSenior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies
When Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952, they did so based on NATO members’ assumption that the two countries’ membership of the alliance would pacify their behavior toward each other.
China was invited to join the World Trade Organization in 2001 on the same premise.
But as every relationship counselor tells quarreling couples, you can’t change someone’s personality. Thus, NATO finds itself with two member states that are officially allies, but whose suspicion of each other is never far from the surface. How to broker between two members without taking sides? NATO seems paralyzed.
But in reality, it’s not. Sure, two quarreling member states will affect an alliance, but NATO is still going strong on its main mission: defending the territorial integrity of its member states against sundry territorial threats from other countries and nonstate actors.
Here, one could in fact wish for more participation from Greece and Turkey. According to NATO’s latest Enhanced Forward Presence figures, for example, neither country contributes to the protection of the Baltic states and Poland. Solidarity goes both ways.
François HeisbourgSenior Adviser at the International Institute for Strategic Studies
NATO’s purpose as an organization is to ensure the collective defense of its members on the basis of its founding Washington Treaty. It was never designed to adjudicate disputes between its members. It should therefore not come as a surprise that NATO is paralyzed over the current Greece-Turkey conflict.
Similarly, in 1974, when Greece and Turkey were on the cusp of war over Cyprus, it wasn’t NATO as such which prevented hostilities but the involvement of its most powerful member, the United States of America. At the time, the United States leaned heavily on the contenders to avoid direct confrontation and basically imposed a ceasefire on Turkish forces operating in Cyprus.
In 2020, the United States has adopted a much lower profile and is operating without a clear sense of direction. This applies both to the Greek-Turkish nexus and to the broader multifaceted crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean, which involves numerous local and external players.
What we are witnessing is a regional example of what happens in a multipolar world in the absence of firm U.S. leadership. Nor is this merely a passing moment linked to the caprice of U.S. President Donald Trump: former U.S. president Barack Obama’s refusal to abide by his own red lines in Syria in August 2013 was arguably the defining moment.
Ben HodgesPershing Chair at the Center for European Policy Analysis
It is imperative that this crisis is resolved. Only the Kremlin benefits from two NATO allies confronting each other in this way.
Certainly, there are legitimate arguments and claims on both sides that must be addressed. Unfortunately, France has chosen sides. Germany must lead this diplomatic effort—as a leader in the EU and in NATO—with strong, clear, and unbiased American support.
Part of the problem is that NATO and the West continue to fail to appreciate the strategic importance of the Black Sea and thus the vital importance of strengthening and maintaining the relationship with Turkey as an ally and economic partner.
I don’t excuse several of Turkey’s bad decisions—for example the purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems—or its lack of enthusiasm in pressing the Kremlin on its illegal annexation of Crimea or violations of the Montreux Convention with its submarines. But we do need to reframe the relationship with Turkey—call it TUR-USA 2.0—think beyond the current presidency of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and rebuild trust with our Turkish allies.
More attention by NATO and the United States to this part of Europe and more understanding for the challenges that immigrants and Russian malign influence pose to Turkey and Greece will be key. For this, German leadership is essential.
Julian Lindley-FrenchChairman and Founder of The Alphen Group
Pretty much! Two factors: history and cohesion.
When Greece and Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it was to ensure neither fell under Soviet influence and to stop them fighting each other. In spite of moments when all-out war seemed imminent—for example when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974—that strategy worked. And so long as Turkey was inclined to believe it would one day be offered EU membership, Ankara sought accommodations with Athens. No more.
Turkey’s exploration of the Aegean Sea for hydrocarbons threatens to provoke not only Greece but also France. This demonstrates the limits of the alliance as a moderator of strategic national interests.
“Cohesion”? NATO’s political bureaucracy is obsessed with it. The result is an alliance fast becoming trapped by the lowest common denominator at the cost of the necessary. If a state disagrees with anything—innovation, adaptation, or other—NATO cannot touch it. This makes it relatively easy for semi-detached allies such as Turkey or self-obsessed allies such as Greece to seek a form of “rent” from NATO for compliance.
One could imagine a future NATO communique: “The loss of the Baltic states is regrettable. However, the cohesion of the alliance was maintained.” Wither NATO?
Eleni PanagiotareaResearch Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy
NATO is paralyzed by its lack of leadership, not by “the Greece-Turkey conflict,” which is being engineered by an increasingly disruptive and antagonistic Turkey bent on wreaking havoc by disputing maritime boundaries and drilling permits.
While hailed as a strategically important NATO member, Turkey is systematically trying to write a new rulebook, openly flouting the very rules that it is supposed to adhere by.
The purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems, for one, was a major breach of NATO air defense rules, yet duly tolerated on the ground. Obviously, toleration breeds (further) unilateralism and invites aggression.
Granted, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has a difficult task. NATO operates by consensus, with well-documented power asymmetries among the thirty-nation alliance.
Under Erdoğan, however, Turkey exports domestic authoritarianism and blatant disregard for the rule of law to the international stage. In the process, it is undermining NATO’s collective defense and liberal values.
The more Stoltenberg maintains a facade of neutrality and hides NATO’s current inability to broker a resolute stance and move beyond the “hands-off approach” denounced by Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis or—worse—outsources management altogether to the powers that be, the more he is doing a disservice to the organization he is meant to serve.
To avoid a potential “accident,” paralysis must now give way to generating a pragmatic and credible framework of de-escalation, potentially by exploiting Turkey’s deteriorating economic situation.
Marc PieriniVisiting Scholar at Carnegie Europe
Despite official claims to the contrary and intensive positive communication by the Turkish military, NATO policies had already been hampered by Ankara’s 2019 decision to deploy Russian-made S-400 missiles, which had a direct negative effect on Europe’s missile defense architecture.
The conflict with Greece on maritime boundaries is not new. It predates the current era of Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party. It’s rather the language and methods used around the issue that has shocked NATO and EU circles: establishing new boundaries through an outlandish legal arrangement with the Tripoli-based Libyan Government of National Accord; unilaterally declaring that vast areas are now Turkey’s own; sending large numbers of navy vessels to escort gas exploration and drilling rigs or to push back other navies and air force; and using a fiercely nationalist narrative.
This aggressive policy, albeit being based on substantive claims, has created a distinct malaise within NATO. At the same time, Turkey is keen on carrying on with joint exercises and operations with other NATO fleets, at the price of an unsustainable bipolarity. At the time of writing, brinkmanship seems to be Ankara’s preferred choice, carrying the risk of incidents in the high seas—with one having already occurred.
For the time being, the issue is not negotiation, it is rather how to stop Turkey’s string of disruptive moves and show that unilateral and forceful moves are not the way to go.
Jamie SheaProfessor of Strategy and Security at the University of Exeter
No. NATO’s day-to-day business—such as consultations, exercises and operations—are all proceeding as normal.
Moreover, NATO has a long history of handling Greek-Turkish disputes in the Aegean, whether over territorial claims, airspace infringements, naval exercises, and recently the monitoring of illegal migration from Turkey to Greece.
NATO secretary generals have long been seen mediating these disputes and coming up with imaginative NATO solutions—such as the common Recognized Air Picture over the Aegean or the Military Committee’s recent arbitration of an incident between a French and two Turkish ships—as part of their job description. So, expect plenty of vigorous diplomacy to be going on behind the scenes.
It is precisely Turkey’s membership of NATO that provides a framework for Greek-Turkish disputes to be managed. If Turkey leaves NATO, it will lose its leverage over the West, particularly for when it comes to receiving support for its many regional security problems.
Yet Turkey is too important to be isolated. So as so often in the past, the major allies, especially the United States and Germany, need to get behind Stoltenberg and bring Athens and Ankara to the negotiating table—as Turkey has proposed.
Eventually, a solution giving all sides equitable access to the oil and gas reserves of the Eastern Mediterranean will need to be found—in exchange for renouncing provocative military activity. But let’s see NATO as key to the solution here rather than as the hapless victim.
Sinan ÜlgenVisiting Scholar at Carnegie Europe
NATO could indeed have a role in the conflict mitigation related to the Eastern Mediterranean.
First, NATO could leverage its unique position as a political platform that includes the main sides of the dispute as its members. Also, given the potentially disastrous consequences for the integrity of the alliance of a potential military escalation of the conflict, NATO should in fact prioritize this capability.
There is a role for Stoltenberg as a trusted facilitator. But the issue could also be brought to the agenda of the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s principal decisionmaking body, to allow for a mature exchange of views between Turkey, Greece, and France.
Second, NATO could be more active in the establishment and oversight of technical deconfliction measures in the Eastern Mediterranean. A case in point is the recent naval incident between a Turkish and a Greek frigate. NATO could take the lead in establishing the mechanisms that would prevent the repeat of these types of accidents which could lead to a dangerous and unwanted escalation.
Anna WieslanderDirector for Northern Europe at the Atlantic Council
No, NATO is not paralyzed. Having both Greece and Turkey as members creates opportunities to help de-escalate the crisis. As of now, processes within the alliance are working without any party blocking them.
NATO has long-standing deconfliction arrangements—used at several occasions before—which have been reactivated to settle issues such as minimum distances between aircrafts and ships, and so-called hotlines at various levels.
The alliance also functions as a platform for Greece and Turkey to talk to each other, explain positions, and exchange information. With the EU ramping up its measures against Turkey, NATO plays a pretty extensive role in this regard.
By fostering responsible behavior between Greece and Turkey in the military sphere, NATO aims at creating the space for diplomatic efforts to succeed. The fact that neither ally is blocking anything is a promising sign of will to solve the conflict by diplomatic means.
Still, Germany, which is designated to lead the diplomatic efforts, has to navigate an environment characterized by high tensions with France and by a United States that does not push the way it used to. Several of the political and economic issues underlying the conflict are beyond NATO’s mandate.
In sum, what NATO provides is necessary but not sufficient to resolve this crisis.
Comments(27)
NATO should give up the equidistance urging Turkey to abstain from aggressive rhetoric and action. It should make clear that international law must be the basis for a solution. NATO should underline that civilized nations go to the courts to solve their disputes. Finally, any Turkish attempts to revise the territorial integrity of Greece (Treaty of Lausanne 1923) must be condemned.
What most commentators are missing here is Turkey is not a signatory to the 'law of the sea' so what Greece and Cyprus are missing here is as far as Turkey is concerned this is open water under no territorial control. So it is not operating illegally as this maritime law has no meaning to them. That is why this needs a negotiated agreement between Turkey, Greece and Cyprus as the 200mile EEZ or median line logic is not on issue here, unless Turkey sign up which the will not do as it gifts control to most of the sea that is in dispute to Greece and Turkey. France has no business here interfering this needs to be the parties affected.
As a professor of foreign and Hellenistic bio-anthropological studies, I am in a rather unique status of understanding the heuristic politico-biased entanglement of the so called Greek-Turkish conflict. In the end, only one outcome can logically prevail, everyone wins and we all must have prizes. And just to add, Greece certainly has better baklava.
Why no one talk about the origines of the issue , half of the islands in agean see were othoan = turk and greece only took the opportunity of allies deviding the empire to take over not what greece controlled but ITALY islands its just 100 year vs 500 years of turk rule on cyprus , agean islands , i am not turk and not greek but if someone try to say you can't walk out of your door because i have purchased all the neighbourhood grasse i will not accept it ...
Thanks for your comment. About the origins. Byzantium a Ancient Greek city of the 6 th century BC was colonnised by the Greeks. The city was renamed Constantinople by the Roman Emporer Constantine and served as the Eastern capital of the Roman Empire. The language spoken in the East in the city was Greek and run by Greeks. This site is now called Instanbul which fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Europe no longer wanted to deal with the war like Turks who controlled the spices from the East that went through Instanbul so they sent out Christopher Columbus who sailed West to find the Eastern spice Countries and found America instead. The Turks continued their fighting right up to the gates of Vienna. All of Anatolia that is Turkey now was in Greek hands up to the 1054 but slowly the Turks pushed the Greeks back to Constantinople. All the first 7 churches of the Bible in Anatolia have been destroyed.This year Erdogan then the Orthodox most important Cathedral into a mosque. Yes we Greeks are very angry with this man who wants our islands our buildings our sea . Erdogan wants to be the head of Islam in the world but he kills Kurds. No Muslim shall kill another Muslim. Infidels kill them by the millions.
There is remarkably little empathy in most of the comments above for Turkey's perspective and the train of events which led up to Erdoğan deciding to press this particular foreign policy button, I suspect for essentially domestic political reasons. He knows that his people are boiling with resentments against Europe, made worse now by Macron's adventurism. In the 1950s and 1960s both NATO and the EU were neutral between Greece and Turkey. The Commission strongly advised the Community in its 1975 'Avis' not to become a party to the disputes between them. Leaders ignored the view and went down a road of empowering Greece against Turkey and not objecting when it persistently used its membership as a weapon. In 1996 and 2004 it admitted the Greek Cypriots, under very dubious circumstances, as a full EU member. The Cypriots, all 800,000 thousand of them, went on to block the Turkish accession -- and also chapters such as democracy and the rule of law. They are currently creating an military, economic, and energy wall against Turkey, the largest and strongest country in the area, with 82 million people. Why should anyone be surprised that Turkey's internal politics have become steadily more anti-European over the last three decades, while NATO has become rather irrelevant? We should be quite clear. The current road, which involves and encourages demonisation and exclusion of Turkey, will end in permanent confrontation and the complete detachment of the country from the West, and perhaps worse than that. The eastern Mediterranean will be a sea of tension and potential conflicts, for decades and perhaps even centuries. This is essentially a colonial-type conflict. The EU treats Turkey as na inferior, ignoring its large population, industrialisation, and military power and pays no attention to the consequences of its actions. Ultimately this position will unsustainable and disastrous for both sides. NATO seems powerless to project any messages about this. And policy makers in Western Europe seem unable even to see it for what it is.
Could I add a second comment about the 1974 Cyprus crisis? As someone who followed it closely as it unfolded, I would disagree with the statement that: " At the time, the United States leaned heavily on the contenders to avoid direct confrontation and basically imposed a ceasefire on Turkish forces operating in Cyprus."It took place at the height of the Watergate affair, Kissinger was hardly involved, and Britain refused to act. Extraordinarily, the Foreign Office thought that Ecevit had told them that he would not invade the island. The two phases of the military operation were planned and decided wholly in Ankara and the USA did not order a halt to them. On the contrary, at the time it was believed that it had warned the Greek airforce that it would shoot down Greek jets taking off from Crete to attack the Turkish positions on the island. With massacres of Turks taking place on the island (the mass graves have been long forgotten but they are there) Turkey was bound to invade. But afterwards none of the parties involved understood or trusted each other sufficiently to negotiate a settlement and the Turks believed that they had imposed a workable settlement. They did not foresee the consequences of leaving negotiations unfinished or the deepening rift with the West which would open, and the expensive permanent isolation that it would cause them, while London, Washington, and Brussels did not appreciate the costs to them either and pursued Humpty Dumpty-like policies over the decades.
Mr Hodges, Germany has also chosen sides. So far, Germany refuses to follow the rest of the EU states in enforcing measures against Turkey's illegal policy of violence in Cyprus, Libya, Syria and towards Greece, which is understandable of course, given the fact that Turkish Army is heavily depended on German Arms Industries. Besides, 5 million German voters have Turkish origins. And about which trust you mean to re-build, when Turkey still illegally occupies 34% of Cyprus and buys arms from the main enemy of the NATO?? Mr Shea, what kind of dialogue can it be when Turkey has voted a casus belli against Greece, when every day dozens of Turkish violations take place on air and sea, when Turkey threatens EU security by pushing immigrants illegally to Greece and when occupying 1/3 of Cyprus? Fruitful dialogue is certainly not achieved when one party blatantly disregards International Law and publishes maps that revive the Ottoman Empire by the force of arms.
This is one long article that avoids discussing the real issue. What about Greece's clear right to its international sea borders?
The situation here is up in the air on what might happen due to Turkey being more important to Nato than Greece and Cyprus, also on trade Turkey is important to Germany and the also have a large Turkish diaspora inside their borders. The US is in election fever at the moment and will not intervene in any way just now, the EU is showing its weakness here although France is putting on a show, but if the shit hits the fan they will recoil back. The experts comments totally miss this reality, also Brexit may also bring another crisis in the northwest if the UK denies the EU access to its fisheries or very little access, why should this be in the equation because possibly the EU will try the same thing in the UK's EEZ, so a double standard here. For Germany to be the honest broker here I don't think so we already see there reticence here only France could have made a difference but thats gone as they have nailed there colours to Greece and Cyprus mast. The UK could act here to resolve this through diplomacy possibly but Greece and Cyprus is already looking to Brussels only, and they go like at a 'snail in full gallop' this is just a festering sore that could break out to a short violent encounter or worse. The EU Judy do not know what to do in reality, they should be calling all 27 nation states to pressure Turkey diplomatically and say they will back the rule of law regarding claims here. But thats not happening the EU has no authoritative drive and is totally lost in actioning events here due to German weakness and Nato's quietness on this matter. As things stand we are going nowhere fast diplomatically and the situation could breakout for the worse time will tell, as the Covid pandemic is sucking all the oxygen here.
Greece and Turkey's entry into NATO was rooted in the containment of communism in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean, done simply to tap the military potential of both nations. It was done to "pacify their behevior" towards each other, as Elizabeth Braw stated. In WWII Greece decided to reject Axis demands and defeated an Italian invasion. They then chose to resist the subsequent German invasion despite inevitable defeat. The result was a brutal four-year Axis occupation followed by Civil War. Turkey did not directly participate in WWII but benefited from substantial weapons procurement from both sides (German tanks and fighter planes, as well as Allied aircraft) in exchange for continued strategic exports. We see that Greece and Turkey were in much different situations by 1949. Turkey's large military was intact, if inexperienced. Greece's recently reconstituted military was smaller but more experienced, while being trained and familiar with American weapons and tactics. In 1950, both countries decided to contribute ground combat troops to the UN coalition in Korea. Turkey's brigade helped defend against the Chinese offensive in 1950, while the Greek battalion integrated with the US 1st Cavalry and 3rd Infantry divisions, subsequently becoming the most decorated foreign contingent. Each country was seeking to ingratiate itself with United States and the West, although this was culturally nd historically a bigger matter for Turkey than Greece. Unlike much of the post-World War II era, the two countries had generally good relations from 1930 through the early 1950s, gradually deteriorating from 1955 onward after the Istanbul Pogrom and ensuing violence in Cyprus. At the time of their entry into NATO, both nations were also politically reliable if somewhat undemocratic and authoritarian. 70 years later, Greece has liberalized its political institutions since 1974 and maintained its NATO defense spending requirements (if not always contributing its potential in coalition combat operations). Conversely, Turkey has continued its century-old struggles with democracy and human rights, and has clearly moved backwards over the past decade with regards to both. Presumption of equal responsibility is historically and intellectually wrong.
NATO /USAF should first get it's Nuclear weapons out of Turkey.And then prepare for aggression against Greece as a distraction from Turkey"s economic decline. The Lira heading to 12 to 1 Euro and the following inflation will precipitate a bigger crisis than Cyprus 1974. The belief that 2023 will be the critical year is now outdated.
Despite the blatant propaganda of this article, the continued existence of NATO, following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, has kept the Cold War going. This was underscored by NATO's bombing Serbia, for 90 days, to force the latter to spin off part of its internationally recognised territory to a western-backed terrorist organisation. Heopfully the Greco-Turkish spat will signal the impending dissolution of NATO and the Aremian-Azeri spat signaled the impending dissolution of the USSR.
To all of these learned people. 1. Turkish occupies Northern Cyprus since its invasion of 1974. Guess what neither the EU nor NATO has done anything for the Turkish military to leave Cyprus. Zero action. So when Turkey leaves Cyprus and the country become one then Cypriots can share in the hydrocarbons. Will this happen no. Turkey has a Jihadist running the country who resembles a dictator not a real democracy . The Germans have first hand experience in what Dictators can do and while they pretend to be neutral they are not and support Turkey as Northern Cyprus is in Turkeys hands. Frankly we Greeks don’t expect any support for Germany and we expect war . Let Turkey take what they want being the stronger power but guess what the Greeks will continue a war for centuries to come. So Germany you can have a Islamic Jihadist Country in NATO who act like bandits . Our you can have a democracy Greece in your side. Greece will look after itself and pay back time will come.
The s400 missile defense systems were brought because America refused to sell Turkey the patriot defense system, thus blame America for stealing Turkeys money for the F35 project, lifting arms embargo on southern Cyrus, and the reset of the disasters they left behind in the middle east. For shame to instigate another war only to profit from sales of weapons ..
I honestly want to ask a question to see if the hypocrisy continues.Many of these countries and career journalists criticize Turkey over buying S400.Turkey tried to buy patriots,Congress didn’t approve for years and then they bought the S400 which is extremely necessary as we see now for the Sequrity of Turkey’s protection. You say you can’t not buy it but you are also not sharing your own systems either.Sorry but this is definition of hypocrisy.Please explain me How Greece demands %70 of the East Mediterranean Sea rights based on a small island 1 miles to Turkey who has entire coast line which is 300miles away from Greece.Please get your facts check be honorable. What EU countries want is the gas in that area.And your countries does want to steal it from its rightful owner.I assure you with all my respect to you all,Regardless the Political conflicts In Turkey,Nation will become one if there is outside threat like today.Do not underestimate us as a nation and remember what happened in the past.We are at the level of frustration of all these countries continue playing their dirty games over us.Do not awaken the sleeping Lion is my advise to all the opportunitiest’s. Respectfully Benerd
There is a dose of hypocrisy in most answers: NATO cannot afford to lose Turkey, whatever the ruler of this country does, and the US military will always take this into account. Erdogan is now extremely aggressive in his interventions, but Turkey has indeed reasons for considering the present treaties for the sharing of natural resources as unfair. NATO is definitely NOT the right organisation to engage in the diplomatic negociations which should take place, and hopefully, it will not have to intervene.
You seem to forget that Erdogan is drilling EU's EEZ, and if it goes to the clash, EU's constitution, Art.42.7 is equivalent to NATO's Ch.5. Erdogan is also looking for acquiring nuclear weapons as well as snatching lands from "just" 8 countries, he's openly backing several terrorist groups too, including Hamas. Actually, this is neither NATO's nor USA's business, this is EU's turf. I will certainly not be politically correct but the only way to avoid a serious war is to get the world rid of Erdogan and his clique. The other is a military intervention to enforce a Sèvres treaty v2.0. If not? "There is no avoiding war, it can only postponed to the advantage of others" - Niccolo Machiavelli. I'm sorry Judy, but you have only short term view, Erdog has a long term one, and it's NOT our interest to end with an Ottomaniac Empire v2.0 copying Pakistan at doing terrorism under nuclear umbrella.
The issue to be considered is why Turkey had to buy the Russian S400 anti-air defence missiles. Refusing to supply the missiles to integrate with NATO and also not wanting to want joint production. That attitude seems contrary to NATO Membership. The writers seem to miss this point and writing about Turkey’s response. My suggestion is to begin the issue from that point! The second point is the issue of islands and their continental shelf. The island in question is less than 2 km from the Turkish Coastline and some more than 100 miles from the nearest Greek Island, namely Rhodes. In between there is a Coastline that belongs to Turkey. Turkey has always maintained that the island to its shores and certainly so close And within territorial waters!!!!
The island is Kastellorizo and it’s Greek . On land borders there is a line between two countries. On sea borders there is a boundary space around the island that space exists around the Greek island and it’s Greek. Tell the Turkish army to get out of Cyprus which was invaded in 1974. Why are they still there.
Everyone urges both sides to sit at the negotiation table. This is necessary, but unfortunately not sufficient. Before negotiating you need to be clear on which basis. Civilized nations accept international law and court rulings as the basis of their relations. So, if nations disagree on a matter they should solve their conflict at an international court. This should be the message of the EU and NATO to both countries, in particular to TR. NATO should give up its equidistance and be clear on that. GR cannot accept the law of the jungle, i.e. a bullish behavior and negotiations under a threatening scenario.
Negotiate what. The Greek islands are Greek . Turkey does not follow the international law if the sea. The Turkish army that invaded Cyprus in 1974 has not left. That is the most important negotiation . Get out if Cyprus or does Greek have to fight them out.
Mr Hodges, Germany has also chosen sides. So far, Germany refuses to follow the rest of the EU states in enforcing measures against Turkey's illegal policy of violence in Cyprus, Libya, Syria and towards Greece, which is understandable of course, given the fact that Turkish Army is heavily depended on German Arms Industries. Besides, 5 million German voters have Turkish origins. And about which trust you mean to re-build, when Turkey still illegally occupies 34% of Cyprus and buys arms from the main enemy of the NATO?? Mr Shea, what kind of dialogue can it be when Turkey has voted a casus belli against Greece, when every day dozens of Turkish violations take place on air and sea, when Turkey threatens EU security by pushing immigrants illegally to Greece and when occupying 1/3 of Cyprus? Fruitful dialogue is certainly not achieved when one party blatantly disregards International Law and publishes maps that revive the Ottoman Empire by the force of arms.
The real problem behind the scenes is that many nations, although are members of the same international organizations, put always first what they consider their national interest. They proclaim to be reliable allies but ...
I almost entirely agree with F. Yaniz,replacing 'many' nations by 'all' nations. And this is largely true even within the scientific community, to which I belong.
I see a lot of unrealistic expectations above about NATO's role in the current confrontation, based, I am afraid, on a very superficial understanding of the history of the Alliance in this context. NATO is neither a platform for resolving these disputes (let alone the SYG, who is at the mercy of Allies, including Greece and Turkey), nor a forum for mature discussion among the Allies directly involved. France's decision to become engaged so directly reveals in a way just how little can be expected from the Alliance. It is best to focus on the German effort and maintain very limited objectives -- basically no more than backing away from the brink. If that succeeds, there could be a role for NATO on CBMs between Greece and Turkey, but even their the latitude for the Alliance is frustratingly limited. Finally, the US is wise not to get more engaged this time around; our strategic interests have moved on.
Turkey cannot have s400 but greece can have s300 and germany can have russian su fighterjets? I call this louter hypocrism
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.