Well i think thats what we are trying to do. Turkish economy is sufficient to support defense industry in a few critical areas. We are working hard on these sectors to produce national products. In a decade half of the procurements of the armed forces will be sourced from national companies.
Arms race: Greece & Turkey
- Thread starter Brit
- Start date
- Status
yes indeed thats an excellent approach in defense procurements. In this way a country does not just fortify itself and manages to be independent of exterior interference but it also stimulates its economy and it improves its technological status. Turkey has the the luxury to do that since experiencing a steady economic growth in resent years(mainly after 2000) and thus being able to sustain a quite high defense budget to support something like this.
The real question here is whether this is quite premature for a country like turkey that has not yet developed its infrastructure at the same level with its military and whether instead it should focus on other sectors.
The real question here is whether this is quite premature for a country like turkey that has not yet developed its infrastructure at the same level with its military and whether instead it should focus on other sectors.
The political will that Turkey shows to develop sufficient internal weapons industry is backed by the ruler of modern Turkey..the Generals..in that way they dont only help Turkey to produce weaponry at home, absorbe technology, create new jobs and help turkish economy etc but at the background they reinforce economically -many companies, banks, media controlled by the army- and finally politically their presense and their significant role as one of the pillars that control modern Turkey.
fantasma when will the Greeks stop accepting what ever the media feeds them?
If the generals were ruling Turkey would there be DTP in the National Assembly?
If the generals were ruling would AKP be elected for second time despite their clear clash ?
If the generals were ruling would OyakBank be sold to the Dutch?
If the generals were ruling would a Greek Bank come and buy a bank in Turkey?
Its a modern fairy tale you Greeks readily want to believe.. It must make it easier to sleep for you at night..
If the generals were ruling Turkey would there be DTP in the National Assembly?
If the generals were ruling would AKP be elected for second time despite their clear clash ?
If the generals were ruling would OyakBank be sold to the Dutch?
If the generals were ruling would a Greek Bank come and buy a bank in Turkey?
Its a modern fairy tale you Greeks readily want to believe.. It must make it easier to sleep for you at night..
@dk706
Your question is a nice one..
Lets see where Turkey focuses its military development projects,
Development of a national tank
Development of a national corvette and a frigate
Development of mission suite (including mission computer and FLIR) and weapons for an attack helicopter
Development of low CEP SSMs
Development of various munitions (A-G , stand-off)
Development of EW&ELINT systems including Intel Satellites
If you take a look you will see basic similarities. Turkey is trying to focus on a few areas that we see critical. All these productions will give critical advantages to Turkey to sell its products to her allies, partners and neighbors which will in return boost economical growth. In fact alot of Turkish private and government ventures have sold military equipment to several countries , including MLRSs, Patrol Boats , various types of APCs. There are requests for our corvette and even T-129 is being waited by some countries. Money invested on infrastructure doesn't bring you money in return but money spent on R&D does.. R&D is the only way of development for countries at level of Turkey who cant rely on EU funds or oil reserves. So i say its money well spent..
Your question is a nice one..
Lets see where Turkey focuses its military development projects,
Development of a national tank
Development of a national corvette and a frigate
Development of mission suite (including mission computer and FLIR) and weapons for an attack helicopter
Development of low CEP SSMs
Development of various munitions (A-G , stand-off)
Development of EW&ELINT systems including Intel Satellites
If you take a look you will see basic similarities. Turkey is trying to focus on a few areas that we see critical. All these productions will give critical advantages to Turkey to sell its products to her allies, partners and neighbors which will in return boost economical growth. In fact alot of Turkish private and government ventures have sold military equipment to several countries , including MLRSs, Patrol Boats , various types of APCs. There are requests for our corvette and even T-129 is being waited by some countries. Money invested on infrastructure doesn't bring you money in return but money spent on R&D does.. R&D is the only way of development for countries at level of Turkey who cant rely on EU funds or oil reserves. So i say its money well spent..
Excellent answer Beleg and logical indeed. I think what fantasma was saying above and what the Greek public opinion believes is not that the generals control every aspect of Turkish society. I think that we all accept that they used to control everything though. It is obvious that turkey has taken huge steps from that time and some examples are the ones you just mentioned the thing though is that turkey is still not close to western standards. For example no European Chef of Staff would ever go public before a presidential election and threaten an elected political leader and even imply a Cup like Hilmi Bugarkanit did (Sorry for misspelling the name). The military leadership still has some power over the state unlike in any other secular western nation and this is where most people emphasize. You have to remember that those were actually the comments of the last report by the European Union not just some Greeks.
and know I will do some speculation that can not be backed up by evidence despite it may indeed be true. We all know that the same militarist that we are now talking about are the ones that are behind the push towards the European Union and to get into the union someone has to fulfill some prerequirements , some of them are in the examples given by Beleg above.
My question is, Is there any chance that the militarists are loosening their grip to power just to get into the EU and in reality this loss of power is just on the surface and plasmatic?
and know I will do some speculation that can not be backed up by evidence despite it may indeed be true. We all know that the same militarist that we are now talking about are the ones that are behind the push towards the European Union and to get into the union someone has to fulfill some prerequirements , some of them are in the examples given by Beleg above.
My question is, Is there any chance that the militarists are loosening their grip to power just to get into the EU and in reality this loss of power is just on the surface and plasmatic?
The fairy tail is that turkish armed forces do not constitute one of the strongest pillars that control modern Turkey. This is a joke! You easily forget confrontations between Erdogan and Buyukanit, you forget demonstrations against AKP STRONGLY backed by the Military, you forget that the Military in Turkey always PLAYED PLAYS AND WILL PLAY A significant role to Turkish politics. You forget that E.U asks from Turkey to reduce the influence of the Military in Politics.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR950/MR950.AppB.pdf
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/darbe.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1717313.ece
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/army_chief.html
And todays political struggle in Turkey between Islamists and Kemalists/Military and its followers is who takes finally the lead in economic and political influence in the country.
One example you presented for DTP.. it seems that these articles prove that maybe your point will become faulse as soon as DTP will be closed by judiciary
http://213.243.16.209/article.php?enewsid=89487
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=127878
if you Turks want to live in a myth of having a typical western democracy that is definitely your right to do so.
Many things are left to set some of them are already underway and others not. Erdogan tries to do so and they will let him until he crosses the red line. If he ever does. When he will a new coup is as certain as we exchange views right now.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR950/MR950.AppB.pdf
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/darbe.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1717313.ece
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/army_chief.html
And todays political struggle in Turkey between Islamists and Kemalists/Military and its followers is who takes finally the lead in economic and political influence in the country.
One example you presented for DTP.. it seems that these articles prove that maybe your point will become faulse as soon as DTP will be closed by judiciary
http://213.243.16.209/article.php?enewsid=89487
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=127878
if you Turks want to live in a myth of having a typical western democracy that is definitely your right to do so.
Many things are left to set some of them are already underway and others not. Erdogan tries to do so and they will let him until he crosses the red line. If he ever does. When he will a new coup is as certain as we exchange views right now.
Last edited:
An excellent point..and sorry once again for my english if i wasn;t clear ..i used the word "ruler" refering to the military in order to give emphasis but, "one of the strongest pillars control modern Turkey" as said right above is my case that i backed up with my points..
Last edited:
Your views are legitimate and well substantiated fantasma and I actually agree with most of them if not all of them but lets not be hostile to anyone after all its just a discussion and in a discussion there are bond to be two different views...lets not be so definitive.
what is for sure is that Turkey has taken leaps forward towards modernization but what is also sure is that turkey is not even halfway where it should be.
It focuses most of its attention on the military and external matters while there is an urgent need to turn to its people that suffer huge social problems. After all thats what Europe is all about... and turkey wants to be called a European country...
what is for sure is that Turkey has taken leaps forward towards modernization but what is also sure is that turkey is not even halfway where it should be.
It focuses most of its attention on the military and external matters while there is an urgent need to turn to its people that suffer huge social problems. After all thats what Europe is all about... and turkey wants to be called a European country...
You are right we should focus on military matters but also its rather interesting to put here parameters that provoke the title of the topic.."Greece and Turkey: An arms race".
If you allow me these days it is written among greek press that greek gov took the iniative to start negotiations including Albania, Libya, Egypt (with Italy already agreed 30 yrs ago) in order to sign with the above agreements for the delimitation of the continental shelf according the International Conventions on Law of the Sea. So in a few yrs time it will be time to solve the delimitation of the Continental Shelf on the part of the Aegean. Its highly possible that natural reserves such as oil or natural gas lies beneath Aegean and waits us to give an end to this dispute and enjoy the benefits of its exploitation.
If you allow me these days it is written among greek press that greek gov took the iniative to start negotiations including Albania, Libya, Egypt (with Italy already agreed 30 yrs ago) in order to sign with the above agreements for the delimitation of the continental shelf according the International Conventions on Law of the Sea. So in a few yrs time it will be time to solve the delimitation of the Continental Shelf on the part of the Aegean. Its highly possible that natural reserves such as oil or natural gas lies beneath Aegean and waits us to give an end to this dispute and enjoy the benefits of its exploitation.
Below are my personal thoughts on this matter.
If there is such reserves... I rather focus on other parameters than the hypothetical resources under the seabed. 12 nm is not acceptable to us under any condition. The Lausanne treaty was singed under conditions of 3nm. Anything beyond 3 should have been valid only if both countries have a word about it.. Since that chance is gone for us (Turkey) , we should not allow Greece to extend her territorial waters and airspace above 6nm. Beyond 6nm Aegean becomes a Greek lake and all Black sea nations loose access to Mediterranean. This is far more critical for me than some oil reserve lying under Aegean sea.
Btw i think you have an elections due.. I would expect Greek govt. to delay any such agreement beyond the elections. Maybe its just some talk to look progressive.. Lets see the results first.
If there is such reserves... I rather focus on other parameters than the hypothetical resources under the seabed. 12 nm is not acceptable to us under any condition. The Lausanne treaty was singed under conditions of 3nm. Anything beyond 3 should have been valid only if both countries have a word about it.. Since that chance is gone for us (Turkey) , we should not allow Greece to extend her territorial waters and airspace above 6nm. Beyond 6nm Aegean becomes a Greek lake and all Black sea nations loose access to Mediterranean. This is far more critical for me than some oil reserve lying under Aegean sea.
Btw i think you have an elections due.. I would expect Greek govt. to delay any such agreement beyond the elections. Maybe its just some talk to look progressive.. Lets see the results first.
Does the Lausanne treaty really state 3nm and does anyone happen to have the text of the Lausanne treaty that states that because from what I have read about the matter the Lausanne treaty did not go into Territorial waters or airspace and those are actually only restricted by the ethimotypical rules of the sea and that actually means a maximum of 12nm like the USA and most European countries have done including Turkey in the black sea (please correct me if I am wrong). When has Greece not allowed safe pass to any merchant ship coming from the black sea or turkey? Moreover military vessels can also ask for safe passage and in most occasions if not all of them it is given if there is no malevolent intent. Therefore I am asking you how can you deny a country something that is common practice with a threat of war and how common it is to have a treat of war that is renewed every year towards a NATO ally and a country that is in the EU that you are trying to get into>??
I will dig up some old books of mine and try to produce the text of the Lausanne treaty as well as the other treaties that govern territorial matters in the Aegean sea.
I will dig up some old books of mine and try to produce the text of the Lausanne treaty as well as the other treaties that govern territorial matters in the Aegean sea.
There are some bits and pieces in the thread regarding the issue.
12 nm in Black Sea was decided only after agreement with all countries for , territorial waters, continental shelf and economical zones (for fishing etc). Same applies to Mediterranean , afaik we have agreements with TRNC and Syria regarding this issue.
What we want is a fair and just solution to problems with Greece regarding Aegean issues... (From Turkish perspective ; demilitarization of Aegean islands, territorial waters, airspace, continental shelf, economical zones, SAR and FIR regions, rights of Turkish minority of Rhodes and [SIZE=-1] Dodecanese [/SIZE]islands and the gray zones)
Greece must provide free and non territorial passage ways to international waters of Aegean and Mediterranean. Which in case of 12 nm is not possible. You cannot use a certain law to limit the freedom of others. So what we say is Greece cannot "UNILATERALLY" extend her territorial waters to 12 nm. Turkey is NOT against making an agreement with Greece regarding the extent of territorial waters, air space , continental shelf and economical zones in the Aegean . Problem here is Greece doesn't want to discuss anything but the continental shelf issue and claims all others are natural rights of Greece and she can exercise them when she feels right. What Greeks don't want to understand is , when the rights of 2 countries cross, its common practice cannot be used anymore and both sides must make compromises.
The threat of war has been the only thing that is stopping Greece from taking unilateral action like before (6nm). You have taken a similar threat from USSR in 70s and decided not to extend your waters. Something that works will always be used. The way out is clear. Make an agreement with Turkey and lets face a more stable neighborhood in the future.
Similar exercises of Greece can be seen in militarization of Aegean islands. Despite her signature in Lausanne and Paris treaties , Greece has been arming the Aegean islands.
Until 2004 Greeks were making the propaganda that they will take the issue to Hague. Its been 2007 and there is no action from Greek side despite a few offers from Turkey to solve the issue (last one failed right before the elections which made Karamanlis win against Papandreu) by bilateral talks or by the way of Hague.
After all, are you really sure you want a solution to our problems? Then make an agreement. If what you want is unconditional acceptance of your requests then i am afraid the history will just repeat itself.
12 nm in Black Sea was decided only after agreement with all countries for , territorial waters, continental shelf and economical zones (for fishing etc). Same applies to Mediterranean , afaik we have agreements with TRNC and Syria regarding this issue.
What we want is a fair and just solution to problems with Greece regarding Aegean issues... (From Turkish perspective ; demilitarization of Aegean islands, territorial waters, airspace, continental shelf, economical zones, SAR and FIR regions, rights of Turkish minority of Rhodes and [SIZE=-1] Dodecanese [/SIZE]islands and the gray zones)
Greece must provide free and non territorial passage ways to international waters of Aegean and Mediterranean. Which in case of 12 nm is not possible. You cannot use a certain law to limit the freedom of others. So what we say is Greece cannot "UNILATERALLY" extend her territorial waters to 12 nm. Turkey is NOT against making an agreement with Greece regarding the extent of territorial waters, air space , continental shelf and economical zones in the Aegean . Problem here is Greece doesn't want to discuss anything but the continental shelf issue and claims all others are natural rights of Greece and she can exercise them when she feels right. What Greeks don't want to understand is , when the rights of 2 countries cross, its common practice cannot be used anymore and both sides must make compromises.
The threat of war has been the only thing that is stopping Greece from taking unilateral action like before (6nm). You have taken a similar threat from USSR in 70s and decided not to extend your waters. Something that works will always be used. The way out is clear. Make an agreement with Turkey and lets face a more stable neighborhood in the future.
Similar exercises of Greece can be seen in militarization of Aegean islands. Despite her signature in Lausanne and Paris treaties , Greece has been arming the Aegean islands.
Until 2004 Greeks were making the propaganda that they will take the issue to Hague. Its been 2007 and there is no action from Greek side despite a few offers from Turkey to solve the issue (last one failed right before the elections which made Karamanlis win against Papandreu) by bilateral talks or by the way of Hague.
After all, are you really sure you want a solution to our problems? Then make an agreement. If what you want is unconditional acceptance of your requests then i am afraid the history will just repeat itself.
Last edited:
(From Turkish perspective ; demilitarization of Aegean islands, territorial waters, airspace, continental shelf, economical zones, SAR and FIR regions, rights of Turkish minority of Rhodes and Dodecanese islands and the gray zones)
To start with most of this matters are already dealt with. For example FIR Athens and SAR right in the Aegean have already been dealt with the treaty of Chicago and in specific with the decision of the general assembly of ICAO (article 3d, Annex 2, Annex 11, Annex 15, ICAO Resolution A 32-14) and it specifically states that military aircraft are not excluded from those rules. Moreover in Greece and in turkey there is no recognized minority as agreed by the Lausanne treaty and there are only Greeks of Muslim religion and Turks of Cristian religion (not that many left after you exterminated them in 1952-1956) and the demilitarized zones of he Aegean are also determined by Lausanne and there is no further need for discussion on that topic since it is on the disposition of each country on what it does on the remaining areas. Furthermore lets not claim whatever we want because lets not forget that the first time that any of this claims were made by turkey was in 1974 and in specific NOTAM 714 that was the first time that stopped acknowledging the treaties already signed by both nations. Finally no one indeed can restrict a country from something that is rightfully theirs and when someone is discussing economic zones and fishing right they are not discussing about their territorial waters but about the international waters between countries.
Next time you try to say some facts about treaties and international relations please bring some evidence to the table and not just random bs....Some of us do have evidence to actually back what we are saying...
To start with most of this matters are already dealt with. For example FIR Athens and SAR right in the Aegean have already been dealt with the treaty of Chicago and in specific with the decision of the general assembly of ICAO (article 3d, Annex 2, Annex 11, Annex 15, ICAO Resolution A 32-14) and it specifically states that military aircraft are not excluded from those rules. Moreover in Greece and in turkey there is no recognized minority as agreed by the Lausanne treaty and there are only Greeks of Muslim religion and Turks of Cristian religion (not that many left after you exterminated them in 1952-1956) and the demilitarized zones of he Aegean are also determined by Lausanne and there is no further need for discussion on that topic since it is on the disposition of each country on what it does on the remaining areas. Furthermore lets not claim whatever we want because lets not forget that the first time that any of this claims were made by turkey was in 1974 and in specific NOTAM 714 that was the first time that stopped acknowledging the treaties already signed by both nations. Finally no one indeed can restrict a country from something that is rightfully theirs and when someone is discussing economic zones and fishing right they are not discussing about their territorial waters but about the international waters between countries.
Next time you try to say some facts about treaties and international relations please bring some evidence to the table and not just random bs....Some of us do have evidence to actually back what we are saying...
BLACK SHIP
New Member
There are very interesting comments which precisely reflect the way Turkey understands and interprets the international law . You have a long way to go since your foreign policy is still dictated by your General staff and not your politicians . Your fair solution however is a very nice wrapping to "submission to our demands or else "
BS you say?? Please some respect..
I will try to ignore political posts from now on.
The issue about FIR is NOT that we don't accept the boundaries of the FIR but the way Greece sees Athens FIR as Greek airspace. There is a big difference. State aircraft do not have to follow the ICAO rules. I bet you remember the Greek media made when US aircraft fly inside Athens FIR with out giving flight reports to Athens
.. Besides all Turkish Air Force flights over Aegean are reported at NATO headquarters BEFORE the flight...The Turks of Rhodes and Dodecanese islands are not a part of Lausanne treaty since those lands were NOT a part of Greece during the period and the Turkish population there were exempt from population exchange. Do i need to teach you your own history???
Lausanne Treaty and Paris treaty clearly defines the Aegean Islands that MUST be de-militarized. (SECTION I. I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES. Article 13
“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:
(1) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.
(2) 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.
(3) 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 gendarmes and police in proportion to the force of gendarmes and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory.”)
The second agreement that was made with reference to this issue is the 1923 the Convention of the Turkish Straits annexed to the Lausanne Treaty. According to the 4th article of the Convention, “in the Aegean Sea, the islands of Samothrace,Lemnos, Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands will be demilitarised” In the 6th article of the convention the conditions for demilitarisation and the status were determined.
Another treaty that dealt with the demilitarization of the Dodecanese Islands is the Paris treaty of 1947 “With reference to the 14th article of the Paris treaty and according to the XIII. Addendum, it is paramount that the 12 islands be demilitarised in the strictest sense of the word. It is forbidden for there to be any military base, facility to be built and also it is forbidden to produce arms and give military training."
The extent of Territorial waters and Air space ,which SHOULD be equal to the airspace, is NOT a right of sovereignty of a state if it blocks the access of other nations to high seas. Under 12 nm , Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia will loose FREE access to Mediterranean sea , which will subject their civilian and military vessels to Greek inspection or even confiscation. This will not be accepted by any of the said states. You can keep dreaming on but this wont happen.
As i said Turkey has previously stated that we are open to negotiate this as long as we have access to high seas. The earlier Greek Govt and The Govt of Turkey were on the brink of coming to an agreement for this, which would give Greece 12 nm on most of Aegean islands , 9 on some and 6 on where there would be the need to preserve free passageways to international waters. However the elections in Greece ruined this agreement according to media reports and it has not been possible to make a fresh start with Karamanlis govt.
Anyway, our discussion here is one in vain. Its just the propaganda of both states. Neither i can change your minds nor you mine. So please don't go saying disrespectful phrases for i have shown respect to each and every contributor here and i expect the same for my thought and time that i take to reply. Lets hope after the elections Greek government takes the whole issue to Hague because with the current mindset of our two nations it is not very likely to solve these issues.
I will not write another political post on this thread , it is too much time consuming and really not worth the effort. So reply me if you will but dont expect an answer in return
I will only answer on the FIR part of the answer because as you said there is no chance that we will see eye to eye on the other topics. After a question to the ICAO made by Greece concerning the problem mentioned above (whether and how the Turkish air force should submit flight plans, we have to remember that as you said above Turkey has already accepted that it has to submit plans but it discugrees with the way Turkey has to do so|)
The answer of ICAO was : The state that has to obey the rules above open seas will have to cooperate with the state that is responsible for the traffic control of the area( in this case Greece). Therefore from this we can see that it is the prerogative of the nation controlling the FIR to ask for flight planes or not ask for them and especially after 9/11 ICAO actually suggests that that should be done for maximum safety. Moreover lets not forget that Italy and all other nations when flying in the Ionio sea does submit flight plans and actually turkey used to to exactly the same thing before NOTAM 714 in 1974.
I apologize for what I wrote before I wanted to tell you that when writing about something like that we should preferably talk with evidence as you did n your last answer.
Indeed lets refrain from writing about politics cause it leads nowhere
The answer of ICAO was : The state that has to obey the rules above open seas will have to cooperate with the state that is responsible for the traffic control of the area( in this case Greece). Therefore from this we can see that it is the prerogative of the nation controlling the FIR to ask for flight planes or not ask for them and especially after 9/11 ICAO actually suggests that that should be done for maximum safety. Moreover lets not forget that Italy and all other nations when flying in the Ionio sea does submit flight plans and actually turkey used to to exactly the same thing before NOTAM 714 in 1974.
I apologize for what I wrote before I wanted to tell you that when writing about something like that we should preferably talk with evidence as you did n your last answer.
Indeed lets refrain from writing about politics cause it leads nowhere
Greece militarised the Aegean islands after the events of 74 over Cyprus..we were almost to the brink of war with real dogfights over Aegean and TAF had two losses.
Turkey has militirised probably from the mid 60's Imvros and Tenedos the islands that are in front of Ellispontos (entrance of turkish straits) and now asks for demilitarisation of Lemnos which is also in strategical sector and for all of them there was a strict policy from Treaties to have the same status..Or all de-militarised or strictly militarised. Turkey demands Lemnos de-militarization while already has heavily armed its own Imvros and Tenedos. ( Gokceada and Bozcaada)
After the events of Cyprus and while we had high tensions we HAD THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE threatened by war and militarised the eastern aegean islands..Turkey in response not cause she felt threatened but for backing up her threats over greek aegean islands established the so called Aegean Army at the late 70's.
Today the so called Aegean Army is one of the best equipped. Manpower about 100.000 soldiers, marines, special forces, landing vessels, backed by several sqns of F-16S and F-4 TERMINATOR and in the distant future these F-4 will be replaced by F-35, two fleets -north and south aegean-..on the other hand greek defence forces over our islands do not exceed over 30.000 manpower artillery, anti aircrafts, MBT, etc and all this equipment is divided over 6-7 major aegean islands. These forces are a real threat for mighty Turkey and Turkey asks for their de-militarization
Still Turkey renews the threat of war in case of exersising our right to extent territorial waters over 6nm. And from the other hand asks for de-militarization of greek aegean islands. Does she asked the nations of the black Sea if they are bothered to their entrance in Aegean by exercising their right of "safe passage" or does the only one that TODAY bothers by that is Turkey? Dont you think that by asking for demilitarization of aegean islands is something pre-mature and without any bases if other issues arent solved ?
Till today and from all these yrs we have the case of NOTAM 714, the SAR AREA demanded by Turkey the threat of war in case of extending territorial waters over aegean, the not acnowledging right of greek eastern aegean islands having their own seabed-continental shelf etc the case of Imia/ Kardak and the theory of "grey zones"..and what cares most Turkey is the demilitarization of greek aegean islands
If some day in the future we establish real and honest relations and we put aside mistrust then it may happen de-militarization in a mutual basis.
Turkey has militirised probably from the mid 60's Imvros and Tenedos the islands that are in front of Ellispontos (entrance of turkish straits) and now asks for demilitarisation of Lemnos which is also in strategical sector and for all of them there was a strict policy from Treaties to have the same status..Or all de-militarised or strictly militarised. Turkey demands Lemnos de-militarization while already has heavily armed its own Imvros and Tenedos. ( Gokceada and Bozcaada)
After the events of Cyprus and while we had high tensions we HAD THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE threatened by war and militarised the eastern aegean islands..Turkey in response not cause she felt threatened but for backing up her threats over greek aegean islands established the so called Aegean Army at the late 70's.
Today the so called Aegean Army is one of the best equipped. Manpower about 100.000 soldiers, marines, special forces, landing vessels, backed by several sqns of F-16S and F-4 TERMINATOR and in the distant future these F-4 will be replaced by F-35, two fleets -north and south aegean-..on the other hand greek defence forces over our islands do not exceed over 30.000 manpower artillery, anti aircrafts, MBT, etc and all this equipment is divided over 6-7 major aegean islands. These forces are a real threat for mighty Turkey
and Turkey asks for their de-militarizationStill Turkey renews the threat of war in case of exersising our right to extent territorial waters over 6nm. And from the other hand asks for de-militarization of greek aegean islands. Does she asked the nations of the black Sea if they are bothered to their entrance in Aegean by exercising their right of "safe passage" or does the only one that TODAY bothers by that is Turkey? Dont you think that by asking for demilitarization of aegean islands is something pre-mature and without any bases if other issues arent solved ?
Till today and from all these yrs we have the case of NOTAM 714, the SAR AREA demanded by Turkey the threat of war in case of extending territorial waters over aegean, the not acnowledging right of greek eastern aegean islands having their own seabed-continental shelf etc the case of Imia/ Kardak and the theory of "grey zones"..and what cares most Turkey is the demilitarization of greek aegean islands
If some day in the future we establish real and honest relations and we put aside mistrust then it may happen de-militarization in a mutual basis.
Last edited:
- Status