Arms race: Greece & Turkey
- Thread starter Brit
- Start date
- Status
Yes a case of war between Greece and Turkey maybe is moving far away after such strenghthening of our economical ties but still the case of episodes that could lead to escalated serious crisis still exists and it is PRESENT and vivid.
A few days before the Prime Ministers from Greece Turkey pull the buttons to start gas flow through the pipelines there was a quite serious incident over Aegean. As the greek newspaper ETHNOS -credible newspaper-published in an article today pg 10,saying almost the following: "we have discovered that the previous days there was a "strange" dogfight between greek and turkish aircrafts over aegean and that there was an exchange of fire (doesnt specify missiles or whatever) fortunately no fire found target." The newspaper continuous to insist that this incident trully happened and if any official will try deny it must know the detail that ETHNOS has EVIDENCE and PROOFS.
That incident shows that the problem is here and that maybe on the surface we have calm waters over Aegean but underneath lies troubles very serious, -Turkey is posing a casus belli over Greece if we extent our territorial water and airspace to 12 NM following the International Law of the Sea. - Turkey demands to slash Aegean Sea at the 25th Meridian dividing the Aegean at two pieces. Her target is proved by the efforts of not recognising the greek SAR area and demanding for herself the eastern part of Aegean. The NOTAM 714 that Turkey unilaterally announced in 6.8.74 was also dividing symptomatically Aegean and as a result the FIR of Istanbul/ Constantinople was passing through the 25th Meridian including Greek eastern aegean islands and finally withdrawn by Turkey a few yrs later with NOTAM 712 22.2.1980 cause Greece showed the proper stance. Turkish authorities by 714 NOTAM were asking from aircrafts flying over Aegean -eastern the 25th meridian- to notify positions and take instructions from turkish ground stations. It is also true that last yrs there is a more frequent tendency of turkish aircrafts try to intercept greek jets flying over 25th meridian with course to the eastern aegean islands and borders of the FIR.
Also Turkey by the last incident over Imia islets in 1996 demands that all islands, rock islands and islets that not specifacely mentioned in The Laussanne Treaty, are of unknown sovereingty and that these are the so called grey zones by her. This was only the beginning and right afterwards Turkey started to find ways how to claim these 150 islands and islets [-others habitant and others inhabitant suddenly remembered their sovenreighty almost 85 yrs after the Laussanne Treaty was signed-] as the descedant of the Ottoman Empire.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=107485
Just to make some comments on what turkeys experts say about these claims.
"In their book, based on international conventions and Ottoman archives, the two asserted that considering the PCA's decision in question, Greece has no jurisdiction over the 150 islands whose sovereignty still remains non-transferred. Başeren and Kurumahmut recall that a consensus between the parties is needed to determine the future of those islands."
From the one rocky islet Turkey proceeded to claim 150 islands and islets some habitant and some inhabitant. This is called progress. The point is that there is not mentioned every single island of the almost 3000 greek aegean islands and the article of Laussane Treaty saying that Turkey has no right to any island except Imvros and Tenedos being situated further from 3 nautical miles away from coast is surpassed easily.
"Once Greece's lack of jurisdiction is legally grounded, the entire Aegean map will require significant alterations, which they illustrated in their book."
The underlined is Turkey's final goal as turkeys experts say.
"Paragraph 165 of the court's decision rules that "in 1923 Turkey renounced title to those islands over which it had sovereignty until then" on the condition that the future of the islands in question would be determined by the parties. Recalling that this provision does not apply to the Aegean islands, the authors allege that Greece is unable to claim sovereign title over the island territories. In their view, the islands are territories whose sovereignty was not denounced by the Ottoman Empire and for this reason they were transferred to Turkey as the heir of the empire."
Yes really which was the part of Ottoman Empire which Turkey renounced titles for her islands? The Atlantic Ocean maybe or the Red Sea..
"A partial list of islands over which the authors believe Greece can't claim sovereignty includes Gaidaros, Mandiraki, Farmakonisi, Pserimos, Adelfia, Plakhida, Sofrana, Astakidhapula, Kandhelioussa, Levita, Zenari-Kinaros, Liadi, Furni and Fimena. Başeren and Kurumahmut underline that except for the islands whose transfer was made in accordance with international or bilateral treaties, the undesignated ones in the Aegean Sea do not fall into any state's jurisdiction as outlined in the PCA's Eritrea vs. Yemen arbitration ruling."
Some of these greek islands are habitant and some inhabitant. It will be a great joke to go to this people and tell them "you are a turkish citizen and this soil belongs to Turkey".Turkey suddenly woke after a deep sleep and found out that she signed the Laussanne Treaty but she left outside her territory not one but about 150 islands!!!! wowow 85 yrs of sleeping may cause severe brain damage.
"Even though it seems uncertain what this tripartite relationship will bring in the near future, Turkey should be more demanding in regards to Greece. Recalling that the Turkish population in the Aegean region alone is twice as large as Greece's population, Professor Bayram Öztürk underlines that Greeks should understand the Aegean Sea is not exclusively a Greek lake"
Does this remind you anything from the theory of "vital space"?
"Öztürk said that obtaining 5-6 percent of the Aegean Sea, which essentially includes the disputed island territories, would earn Turkey new economic resources"
That is the the target of turkish policy over Aegean. Add to her new resources and also to my view a so called "security zone.
"Apatay also recalls that in a NATO meeting where an imminent dispute between Turkey and Greece was discussed, a young military officer asserted that Gauda island belonged to Turkey. Apatay believes that a mutually constructive approach toward the issue rather than resorting to the binding rules by the ICJ should be the basis for a viable resolution"
The best is here. Turkey claims an island being almost 400 nautical miles off coast of minor asia located south east of Crete but because it is not specifecally mentioned it is of unknown sovenreighty..but we can discuss it in a constructive way...e.g. i claim your backyard but we can discuss it in a constructive way with the owner. Maybe something else he will put on the table and bargain it. From where we had nothing we may leave with a heavy wallet.
These claims from Turkey are according to my point of view from the case that they need "security" zone for western minor asia coast and cause feel that greek islands sufficates turkey to have access to the open sea and cause of high possibility to gain percentages over possible oil exploitation in the future and other resources.
To be the puzzle completed you must see the NOTAM 714, the SAR area responsibility is claimed by Turkey, the right of the islands having continental shelf that is not recognised by Turkey and hers is reaching almost until the middle of Aegean Sea encircling greek aegean islands, the more and more frequent policy of TAF trying to intercept greek jets flying over the 25th meridian heading to the greek eastern aegean islands, the 150 islands they claim. All of them putted together will complete the map and the puzzle of Aegean as it is claimed by Turkey and excuses many for our so called "Cold War" that still exists but hidden well under the carpet from our backboned politicians.
Last edited:
@waylander Probably what stimulates Greece in seeking more PzH2000 is continuous deliveries of T155/K9 SPH to TSK. 94+ units have already been delivered . The agreement with Koreans was for 300 units and 12 units per year are being produced.As Greece already operates PzH2000 is there a need for additional ones?
BTW, the Leos are HELs and A6s. Some difference there.
@ dear fantasma, the principle of law is; certain rights cant be executed to limit liberties of others. 12 NM is not possible in Aegean ,not only because it limits Turkish rights but also rights of all international community and especially Black Sea countries who will loose military access to Mediterranean Sea. Greece knows this too and thats why the governments have been ready to compromise but there is strong opposition from the Greek-ultras which make a big fuss in Greek media unlike their Turkish counterparts. As for SAR or FIR responsibilities, these don't have anything to do with sovereignty of Greece over the said regions. These dogfights occur only because Greece has this silly 10 nm airspace versus 6 nm territorial waters and claims Athens FIR is her naval and airspace boundary with Turkey , which is the only example in the world. This only leaves Turkey one option, and that causes dogfights. As the economical ties strengthen and as we start to need each other as partners rather than enemies, our problems ,hopefully, will be easier to solve like in case of France and Germany..
I just looked at who this Bayram Öztürk is.. It seems he is the head of a naval research foundation.. I don't know why you take this guy so seriously and i don't know if i should take every Greek that claims Istanbul will be the capital of the new Eastern Roman empire as seriously... Take it easy friend.. Don't try to understand your neighbors by reading their extremists..
I guess you have some high ranking officials which are sort of extremists such as the Head of the Naval Research Foundation, or the young turk NATO official that claimed Gaudos and Turkey have never officialy denied that this case is faulse and that was an amateurs mistake. Also almost the same ideas with the extemist of the Head of Naval Research was declared by the former President of the Turkish Republic. Suleyman Demirel have stated "132 "rocks or rocky islets which we call 'grey zones', namely, their ownership has not been determined on the basis of agreements. We say: 'they do not belong to you (Greece). On the basis of succession, they belong to us.' " Do you call President Demirel an extremist?
Also official policy for grey zones and territorial claims is expressed here.
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/MFA/ForeignPo...eece/GreeceLinks/Islands_Islets_And_Rocks.htm
Is the Turkish Foreign Ministy occupied by extremists? I dont think so. This is the official Turkish Policy on that issue and i have every right to call this policy dangerous and extemistic.
Also official policy for grey zones and territorial claims is expressed here.
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/MFA/ForeignPo...eece/GreeceLinks/Islands_Islets_And_Rocks.htm
Is the Turkish Foreign Ministy occupied by extremists? I dont think so. This is the official Turkish Policy on that issue and i have every right to call this policy dangerous and extemistic.
Last edited:
The head of the foundation you mentioned is not a high ranking person and he is not an official person as well.. Anyway thats not the case.. The gray zones are a touchy subject, the maritime border lines between Turkey and Greece was never drawn up. So with my current knowledge i cant say we are right or wrong for specific islands. However Turkey and Greece are not the only countries that have claims for islands, islets and rocks.. Its a common case and can be solved.. Mind you a 10 sq m rock can have a 12 nm territorial water and air space if you just build a house on it.. Consider the trouble this creates in the Aegean and you will know why we keep claiming something..
What about the NATO case considering Gaudos claim and Demirels statements? I wonder how you overcome the statements of Demirel made while he was President of Turkey and just insist on the comments of the Head of Navar Research Insitution? Yes the delimitation of maritime borderline is a tough issue since -we have exchanged p.m giving you data of the treaty and maps and also send me your views.- Turkey forgot that she had signed the protocol of 1932 which decided the delimitation of the sea border line between Turkey and the Dodecanese which then were under Italian rule and in 1947 ceded to Greece. Turkey TODAY says that this protocol has NO VALIDITY cause it was not ratified by the Turkish National Assembly
The following is the protocol of 1932 that gives points of this delineation marking except of Imia/Kardak and other islands and islets that Turkey has claims.
**
The following are maps with the so called grey zones and islands under claim currently from Turkey
http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/3576/greyoa3.jpg
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4803/grayzonespm3.jpg
Last edited:
Dear friend. Its more than obvious that we disagree but we can live with it.As i did a little search on that..yes Turkey didnt ratify this protocol for the simple reason its an ANNEX Protocol. http://www.dodecaneso.org/convenzione32.htm
That is the reason why Turkey probably did not ratify this ANNEX Protocol cause she didnt have to.
It is not a new Convention that needs seperate ratification. Even though if Turkey did not fully repected her internal law here is the article 27 of the TREATY OF CONVENTIONS "une partie ne peut invoquer les dipositions de son droit interne comme justifiant la non-execution d' un traite".
Also Turkey have admitted the validity of SPECIFIC Protocol. Some are the following. Turkish goverment OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED the validity of Protocol and annex charts, maps and at the text of the verbal note of 20/11/1935 it was accepted that the Protocol and annex maps was an inextricable part of the Convention signed between Italy and Turkey 4.12.1932. So the Protocol solving the delineation issue of the Dodecanese as an INEXTRICABLE PART of the 4.12.32 Convention -which was ratified by Turkish Assembly- is valid through the ratification of the 4.12.32 Convention.
The December agreement did not aim at settling any territorial difference between the two countries, as it was stated both in the text of the agreement itself and in the letters exchanged on January 4, 1932, between the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Italian Ambassador to Ankara, in which the two parties declared that there existed no difference of opinion as to the territorial sovereignty of each side. The December agreement merely sets down with precision the remaining maritime frontier between the Dodecanese and the Turkish coast. For this reason it did not need separate registration with the Secretariat of the League of Nations. It is thus not surprising that the delimitation of the frontier set by this agreement was never in the past contested by Turkey or Italy, even after the Dodecanese was ceded to Greece.
As for the case that there are islands of unknown sovereignty that should be transferred to Turkey as President Demirel has issued is more than clear from the following that something like that has no legal bases.
“The formulation of the Great Powers' note of 13/2/1914 is also very explicit: (Les Grandes Puissances) "ont decide de remettre a la Grece TOUTES les iles de la Mer Egee actuellement occupees par elle a l' exception de Tenedos, d' Imbros et de Castellorizo (later ceded to Italy) qui doivent etre restituees a la Turquie".
Article 12 from Laussane Treaty: Article 12 of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 provides for the following:
"The decision taken on the 13th February, 1914, by the Conference of London, in virtue of Articles 5 of the Treaty of London of the 17th-30th of May, 1913, and 15 of the Treaty of Athens of the 1st-14th of November, 1913, which decision was communicated to the Greek Government on the 13th of February, 1914, regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabbit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed, subject to the provisions of the present Treaty respecting the islands placed under the sovereignty of Italy which form the subject of Article 15.
Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty".
According to Article 15 of the Treaty of Lausanne:
"Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands: Stampalia (Astrapalia), Rhodes (Rhodes), Caiki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo."
The Dodecanese were ceded to Greece after the Second World War, according to Article 14 of the Peace Treaty signed in Paris on 10/12/1947. This Article is almost identical to Article 15 of the treaty of Lausanne, reading as follows:
"Italy hereby cedes to Greece in full sovereignty the Dodecanese Islands indicated hereafter, namely Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodes), Caiki (kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso), Piscopis (Tilos), vlisiros (Nisyros), Calimnos (Kalymnos), Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Simi (Symi), Cos (Kos) and Castellorizo, as well as the adjacent islets.
If Turkey still has any case of claiming any island rock islet exc. should accept the Jurisdiction of the Hague International Court and claim legally the islands she considers as of unknown sovereighty
I sincerely hope that our "cold war" will finally will reach an end, so both countries may enjoy the benefits.
The problem lies in the insufficient texts of those treaties. Kardak for instance is not mentioned in those treaties, and its not an adjacent island either , yet Greece claims this island..Its a difficult case , and Turkey always favored going to Hauge as long as we will take ALL of our problems not just the continental shelf issue which Greece sees as our only problem. Denial wont solve anything but talking will.. And i think both countries will benefit from solving it among ourselves rather than taking it to Hauge. Anyway, lets keep this thread military related..
Last edited:
My apologies if i tire people here by bringing irrelevant information considering the clear militarily aspect of the topic but i think that people outside Greece or Turkey should know if not all, some of the parts and the backgrounds having as a result this arms race. I also believe that as economical ties and educational level rises someday we may reach to a an end of this endless arms race. Let me put here also another map showing the present status of 6 miles terriorial waters, how that changes to a 12 mile expansion, the green ligne that sympomatically matches with the NOTAM 714 and eastern that line starts the troubles.
http://mondediplo.com/maps/local/cache-vignettes/L440xH350/arton2048-0865e.jpg
http://mondediplo.com/maps/local/cache-vignettes/L440xH350/arton2048-0865e.jpg
Last edited:
There is no maritime border between Turkey and Greece. That issue was not solved in Lausanne or consequent treaties. Its a misleading information. The person who made the map has no idea on what a maritime border is i guess... or is biased.. Anyway the map is good enough to give insight on how bad the situation will be in case 12 miles is exercised. As i said its not acceptable neither for Turkey nor for others.. fantasma care to give a little information on the new M2005 deliveries... The deal was signed in 2000 and it took 7 years for HAF to make these planes operational.. What are the new abilities gained? Will the remaining M2000s go under modernization? thanks
Greece currently officially incorporated 15 brand new Mirage's 2000-5 MK2 into its airforce at Tanagra Airbase. HAF also expects deliveries of another 10 Mirage 2000 which will be upgrated to -5 MK2 standard. Upgrades continues as we talk and by next April deliveries of the rest 10 modernised Mirages will follow. 2 jets every month.
Mirage 2000-5 Mk 2 compared to a simple Mirage 2000-5 has an advanced radar of the version RADAR RDY-2, more sophisticated avionics. Its weak spot is its engine with the 21385 libres full afterburner..but has other charisma's. It will carry MICA'S for BVR, range over 60 km, and SCALP air to ground missiles range almost 500 km.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/mirage-2000/mirage-2000-5-mk2.html?L=1
Nothing yet what and if will be the fate of the remaining 25 Mirage 2000. The most probable is that they will get a modernisation to -5 MK2 standard but time will tell. I believe that dogfights in the future between Mirages with F-16s CCIP standard will be rather interesting. Also a HMD will enhance Mirage 2000-5 A/A capabilities. No news yet but i guess it wont be late the time that a HMD will be ordered to complete the equipment of the Mirage..but lets see first how things will go with THALES with TOPSIGHT and SAGEM. Both choices were rejected from French Airforce a few yrs ago for the reason their helmets were too heavy. Also to me this parameter is very crucial for their A/A capabilities when turkish F-16s will start entering aegean with JHMCS
Mirage 2000-5 Mk 2 compared to a simple Mirage 2000-5 has an advanced radar of the version RADAR RDY-2, more sophisticated avionics. Its weak spot is its engine with the 21385 libres full afterburner..but has other charisma's. It will carry MICA'S for BVR, range over 60 km, and SCALP air to ground missiles range almost 500 km.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/mirage-2000/mirage-2000-5-mk2.html?L=1
Nothing yet what and if will be the fate of the remaining 25 Mirage 2000. The most probable is that they will get a modernisation to -5 MK2 standard but time will tell. I believe that dogfights in the future between Mirages with F-16s CCIP standard will be rather interesting. Also a HMD will enhance Mirage 2000-5 A/A capabilities. No news yet but i guess it wont be late the time that a HMD will be ordered to complete the equipment of the Mirage..but lets see first how things will go with THALES with TOPSIGHT and SAGEM. Both choices were rejected from French Airforce a few yrs ago for the reason their helmets were too heavy. Also to me this parameter is very crucial for their A/A capabilities when turkish F-16s will start entering aegean with JHMCS
Last edited:
Thanks Fantasma. I'm wondering if a SCALP with 500km range would violate the Missile Technology Control Regime. If so, how France and Greece is justifying 500km range. If current SCALPs are under 300km, are there plans to extend their ranges in case of war and if there are, how?
Thanks.
Balamir range figure apparently is given by mistake from me and must be not correct. I think it is rumoured of being 500 km its range but not certain about it. Here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/casom.htm it is given 250 km range so it fulfills requirements of the Missile Technology Control Regime. In other sources it gives a bigger range as 400 km http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/apache_scalp_eg_storm_shadow.html..the truth must be somewhere in the middle around 350 km. Maybe France gives a minor figure compared to the trully range capacities of SCALP in order to keep this weapon inside the standards of M.T.C.R and gain exports and many many euros..my case. As for your question at the end of your post i;m not such an expert to have these kind of information.
The MTCR does not prohibit transfers of weapons between NATO states.
The range of Scalp/Storm Shadow is officially stated to be "more than" 250 km. How much more is not disclosed, & that range is known to be distance from launch aircraft to target, following a typical flight profile, which would be much more than the straight line distance in order to avoid known air defences & conceal the intended target for as long as possible.
Thanks Swerve and Fatasma for quick reply.
@swerve, I have checked the guidelines:
Category I
Of course, NATO membership can explaing US ->UK,Spain Tomahawk transfers. I will dig into them to see how they were handled. If I find something interesting, I will post here.
@fantaros, I think they are officially 250kms but unofficially, you are right that they have larger range. So that was why I was wondering how they had restricted the range (software?, fuel?) if they did at all.
ps:Swerve you have a good point there about the flight profile and range.
@swerve, I have checked the guidelines:
Cruise missile related items:
Category I
And less restricted Category 2 item.
I couldn't find any relevant reference to NATO. In fact, my understanding is regardless of the receipiant, the restraint must be exercised. The only loophole I can see is Item 3.B in the guidelines that can be read as "if the recipient has the abilitiy to build, it may be OK to sell".
Of course, NATO membership can explaing US ->UK,Spain Tomahawk transfers. I will dig into them to see how they were handled. If I find something interesting, I will post here.
@fantaros, I think they are officially 250kms but unofficially, you are right that they have larger range. So that was why I was wondering how they had restricted the range (software?, fuel?) if they did at all.
ps:Swerve you have a good point there about the flight profile and range.
Last edited:
- Status