What's new

Turkey insists on demilitarization of islands

Are you kidding? It's inside Mavi Vatan, the "Blue Homeland"

You mention the key phrase: Mavi Vatan.
Can you tell me, according the Mavi Vatan map, why the centre and eastern Greek islands as well as the sea area of 6 miles, are under Turkish "domination" (blue color) ?

turkey-map.png.jpg
 
Exactly. When you have a government that actively promotes an irridentist policy like Mavi Vatan,you cannot expect us to just demilitarize the islands. And you cannot have Çavusoğlu and Akar accuse Greece of "maximalist policies". YOU are the ones who print such maps and promote the Mavi Vatan doctrine.

You demand that we remove the garrisons from the islands. Next you will say they are not Greek and should return to you. Then you will invade and take them.

Well no sir,we have the right to defend our land. Kastellorizo is ours and no Akar can tell us that "we provoke" when politicians visit it. It's Greek land and our politicians can visit it whenever they want.
 
You mention the key phrase: Mavi Vatan.
Can you tell me, according the Mavi Vatan map, why the centre and eastern Greek islands as well as the sea area of 6 miles, are under Turkish "domination" (blue color) ?

turkey-map.png.jpg
Showing a small island locating hundreds of km away from Greek mainland as a reference and dreaming to own thousands of km2 EEZ thanks to this tiny island is just a Greek delusional dream. This policy was created to protect the rights of Turkish nation.
 
Showing a small island locating hundreds of km away from Greek mainland as a reference and dreaming to own thousands of km2 EEZ thanks to this tiny island is just a Greek delusional dream. This policy was created to protect the rights of Turkish nation.
But it's not just that tiny island,is it? You didn't let the Greek Cypriots drill on their EEZ when they have every right to do so. And your Mavi Vatan map doesn't only have Kastellorizo's EEZ as Turkish. It has all the islands of the Eastern Aegean. You even reached Crete. And then you tried to sign an agreement with Libya.

No sir,your government is following an expansionist policy. You are acting like bullies who want everything in the area as theirs.

You say Cyprus has two different States.
Ok. The Greek Cypriots tried to drill on their side and you said "they must share the profits because it's one Island".

You always try to grab what is not yours and then say "ok,let's share it".
 
Showing a small island locating hundreds of km away from Greek mainland as a reference and dreaming to own thousands of km2 EEZ thanks to this tiny island is just a Greek delusional dream. This policy was created to protect the rights of Turkish nation.
Dude my question is clear.
Turkish map does not separate small or large islands, it considers everything Turkish, including their territorial waters.
I also did not even mention the word EEZ, which of course in order to do it, you must have signed or ratified the UNCLOS, something Turkey has not done it.
In order not to talk too much and tire the neutral reader, Mavi Vatan doctrine is the definition of the Turkish institutional threat to the Greek islands.
 
But it's not just that tiny island,is it? You didn't let the Greek Cypriots drill on their EEZ when they have every right to do so. And your Mavi Vatan map doesn't only have Kastellorizo's EEZ as Turkish. It has all the islands of the Eastern Aegean. You even reached Crete. And then you tried to sign an agreement with Libya.

No sir,your government is following an expansionist policy. You are acting like bullies who want everything in the area as theirs.

You say Cyprus has two different States.
Ok. The Greek Cypriots tried to drill on their side and you said "they must share the profits because it's one Island".

You always try to grab what is not yours and then say "ok,let's share it".

Turkiye is completely correct. The International Law of the Sea states that "Straight Baseline" can be drawn for states with a coastline only on the condition 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 Baseline" and "Straight Baseline" drawings, as a special condition, UNCLOS article 47 includes the methods for determining the "Archipelago Baseline", but this special method includes the "Archipelago State" in UNCLOS article 46 (State of the Islands/Archipelago).

It is clear that Greece cannot benefit from the special provisions in Article 47 of the UNCLOS since it is not an Islands State or an Archipelago State. Because Greece is a mainland state, not a state like Indonesia that consists only of islands. Moreover, the faces of the Greek islands facing the Eastern Mediterranean have a total coastline of 167 kilometers and it is illegal to request a maritime jurisdiction against the Anatolian coast of 1870 kilometers. Also, islands less than 200 miles from the mainland do not produce an EEZ, in other words they are included in the EEZ area of the mainland, they cannot form an EEZ on it.

As a result, Greece's Crete and Rhodes islands in creating the boundary waters by drawing straight main line to the sea ignore the existence and determine this from even the Ministry of Education in terms of Turkey's maritime rights and interests as never acceptable, is contrary to international maritime law and a violation of law.
 
Turkiye is completely correct. The International Law of the Sea states that "Straight Baseline" can be drawn for states with a coastline only on the condition 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 Baseline" and "Straight Baseline" drawings, as a special condition, UNCLOS article 47 includes the methods for determining the "Archipelago Baseline", but this special method includes the "Archipelago State" in UNCLOS article 46 (State of the Islands/Archipelago).

It is clear that Greece cannot benefit from the special provisions in Article 47 of the UNCLOS since it is not an Islands State or an Archipelago State. Because Greece is a mainland state, not a state like Indonesia that consists only of islands. Moreover, the faces of the Greek islands facing the Eastern Mediterranean have a total coastline of 167 kilometers and it is illegal to request a maritime jurisdiction against the Anatolian coast of 1870 kilometers. Also, islands less than 200 miles from the mainland do not produce an EEZ, in other words they are included in the EEZ area of the mainland, they cannot form an EEZ on it.

As a result, Greece's Crete and Rhodes islands in creating the boundary waters by drawing straight main line to the sea ignore the existence and determine this from even the Ministry of Education in terms of Turkey's maritime rights and interests as never acceptable, is contrary to international maritime law and a violation of law.
"Part V of the Convention (and more precisely Articles 55 to 75) provides for an "Exclusive Economic Zone” (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles seaward from the coast. On 30 April 1982, a final vote took place in New York for the new UNCLOS. The results were 130 in favor, 4 against, and 17 abstentions. Turkey was upset with this convention and was one of four countries that voted against it. Greece, on the other hand, was almost completely satisfied with the benefits of the new constitution for the oceans and voted in favor of the convention.
Article 56 of UNCLOS provides the following rights of the coastal state in its economic zone:

  • A. Exclusive sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, conserving, and managing living and nonliving natural resources of the waters, the seabed, and subsoil
  • B. Exclusive sovereign rights to control other activities such as the production of energy from the water, currents, and winds
  • C. The right to control dumping of wastes
  • D. The right to be informed of, participate in, and withhold consent for proposed marine scientific research projects
  • E. The right to board, inspect, and arrest a merchant ship suspected of discharging pollutants in the economic zone.
    Additionally, Articles 55 and 86 of the convention make it clear that the EEZ is neither a part of the territorial sea nor the high seas; it is a zone sui generis with a statute of its own.

The mistake of Turkey: Special Circumstances​

At the end of 1986, Turkey unilaterally proclaimed a two hundred mile EEZ in the Black Sea. This move was in accordance with the provisions of UNCLOS, which Turkey has ironically never signed or ratified. Concurrently, Turkey reached an agreement on delimitation of the EEZ with the Soviet Union. This agreement used the equidistance method. There were no provisions of special circumstances or any reference to enclosed or semi-enclosed seas.

Thus Turkey, by accepting the concept of the EEZ as developed through UNCLOS, has weakened its position vis-à-vis Greece. This represents a fatal mistake for Turkey, a veritable Achilles heel in its dispute with Greece. Turkey’s attempt to implement a double standard position regarding the treatment of two semi-enclosed seas (Black and Aegean) is difficult to defend. It is simply an attempt to make a clear differentiation between delimitation of its maritime boundaries in the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea. A country cannot make a convincing argument by selectively choosing the parts of the convention it likes or dislikes.

For many years, Turkey has been adding issues at the negotiating table, such as gray zones, demilitarization of islands, and the breadth of the territorial waters.

With its EEZ, Greece would safeguard the economic unity of its continental and archipelagic space. Greece has a total of 3,100 islands, of which 2,463 are in the Aegean. By comparison, Turkey has only three islands in the Aegean. A reason that most coastal states have unilaterally adopted the two hundred mile EEZ is to counteract overexploitation of their coastal fish stocks."
 
Those islands are too close to Turkish mainland and now greece have militatized them. Turkey should plan a swift takeover of the Islands and wait for an opportune time to implement it, say like Russia invades Ukraine or china takes taiwan.
 
You really can't answer my question,can you?

If our armament does not threaten Turkey then why does Akar care?
Greece buying 24 Rafale and ordering 3 FDI HN frigates is bad,but Turkey building hundreds of drones,more Istanbul class ships,TF-2000,aircraft carriers,submarines,landing ships,MIUS,TFX,ballistic missiles,artillery, more AA systems,attack helicopters,vehicles etc. is ok?
Lmao do you really think all these acquisitions are against Greece?

For example how is an aircraft carrier relevant in case of Greece?

I guess next Greeks will say China increasing it's military spendings against Greece.
 
Last edited:
Lmao do you really think all these acquisitions are against Greece?

For example how is an aircraft carrier relevant in case of Greece?
You know how many times I've heard this excuse here? You can use it against anyone you want. And with an expansionist policy like Mavi Vatan,you are a threat to us and the stability of the whole region.

If you're not afraid of us,then don't nag about what we buy. Why does it bother you that we bought Rafale and ordered FDI HN frigates? Why does it bother Akar that we have an alliance with France? Doesn't Turkey have an alliance with Azerbaijan and Qatar?
 
You know how many times I've heard this excuse here? You can use it against anyone you want. And with an expansionist policy like Mavi Vatan,you are a threat to us and the stability of the whole region.

If you're not afraid of us,then don't nag about what we buy. Why does it bother you that we bought Rafale and ordered FDI HN frigates? Why does it bother Akar that we have an alliance with France? Doesn't Turkey have an alliance with Azerbaijan and Qatar?
Rafale or your alliance with France doesn't bother Turkey, however militarization of the islands is a violation of the effectual agreements.

And btw Greek media bothers alot about Turkish military projects.


For example this uncle has so many recordings about Turkish defence industry that he became famous in Turkey.
 
Rafale or your alliance with France doesn't bother Turkey, however militarization of the islands is a violation of the effectual agreements.

And btw Greek media bothers alot about Turkish military projects.


For example this uncle has so many recordings about Turkish defence industry that he became famous in Turkey.
Who is this guy? I don't even know him.
 
Turkiye is completely correct. The International Law of the Sea states that "Straight Baseline" can be drawn for states with a coastline only on the condition 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 Baseline" and "Straight Baseline" drawings, as a special condition, UNCLOS article 47 includes the methods for determining the "Archipelago Baseline", but this special method includes the "Archipelago State" in UNCLOS article 46 (State of the Islands/Archipelago).

It is clear that Greece cannot benefit from the special provisions in Article 47 of the UNCLOS since it is not an Islands State or an Archipelago State. Because Greece is a mainland state, not a state like Indonesia that consists only of islands. Moreover, the faces of the Greek islands facing the Eastern Mediterranean have a total coastline of 167 kilometers and it is illegal to request a maritime jurisdiction against the Anatolian coast of 1870 kilometers. Also, islands less than 200 miles from the mainland do not produce an EEZ, in other words they are included in the EEZ area of the mainland, they cannot form an EEZ on it.

As a result, Greece's Crete and Rhodes islands in creating the boundary waters by drawing straight main line to the sea ignore the existence and determine this from even the Ministry of Education in terms of Turkey's maritime rights and interests as never acceptable, is contrary to international maritime law and a violation of law.
Since you know that Turkey does not recognize UNCLOS, why do you bring it as an argument?

In any case, you confuse two concepts where UNCLOS is clear: the "archipelagic State" and the "archipelago" at article 46.

The first means a State constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other island.
The second means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.

So Aegean is a "archipelago or group of islands" and not an "Islands State or an Archipelago State".
 
Those islands are too close to Turkish mainland and now greece have militatized them. Turkey should plan a swift takeover of the Islands and wait for an opportune time to implement it, say like Russia invades Ukraine or china takes taiwan.
You confuse the cases of the islands, where as I explained there are three categories. In the first two , militarization is allowed, but without no fortifications and naval bases.
The third one, Greece accepts that it moved to militarize the islands after the Turkish invasion at the Cyprus, and the creation of the Aegean Army.
So, Turkey always has a plan to attack the Greek islands, just as Greece has to crush the Turkish dreams. Greece maintains that the militarization of its islands should be regarded as countermeasures.

Lmao do you really think all these acquisitions are against Greece?

For example how is an aircraft carrier relevant in case of Greece?

I guess next Greeks will say China increasing it's military spendings against Greece.
That is, Turkey is building a landing craft fleet to use it, where?
Can you please tell me where the ANADOLU is useful in the Turkish military strategy regarding the Eastern Mediterranean?
It will certainly not be used for amphibious operations in the Indian Ocean, Cuba or the Arctic.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom