TR Marine Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland)

[Saithan]

Please don’t get riled up by one persons antagonizing words. And stay on topic. You can clearly see the reaction of someone unable to stomach the content of the video

 

[Ryder]

Please don’t get riled up by one persons antagonizing words. And stay on topic. You can clearly see the reaction of someone unable to stomach the content of the video

This guy is 100% a bot. Only thing he does is parrots the same old bullshit.

His still allowed to post. I might be a clown or ahole in this forum with numerous bans.

But this guy takes the cake. I cant wait for his posts where he cries about the so called Asia minor catastrophe.

He literally posts lindsey snell and then has audacity to accuse Turkey of supporting isis.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Then stop pretending and talking about .... international law. Like I said, we know who you are, what you are and what you want. Besides, you have proved it in the .... diplomatic field, by avoiding solutions. You are thirsty for conflicts, wars and neottoman expansionisms.

You look so funny when you speak with jargons that you have memorized. what we do is obvious. We have no hidden agendas. Defending what is our right as the mainland is a national responsibility, not neo-ottomanism. A country that utters all kinds of absurd demands under the pretext of a 10km2 island in Med and disregards all international agreements on matters that do not suit your agenda will not be allowed to steal Turkey's economic zones with the lie of "international laws". Blue Homeland serves this purpose.

The side that wants war is the side that increased the 3mile continental shelf it signed for the Aegean to 6 miles and then tried every way to increase it to 12 miles even if Turkey's objection. Those who want war are the side that speaks Turkey in every country they go to by trying to establish anti-Turkish coalitions and has no agenda other than Turkey. The country that wants war is the one that arms the islands that it has promised to remain unarmed within the framework of the agreements. The country that wants war is the party that illegally extends its airspace to 10 miles, despite declaring the continental shelf to be 6 miles. It is the country that tries to usurp the rights of the country that has the longest coastline in the Mediterranean, with claims that have no basis other then an island of 10km2 in the Eastern Mediterranean. The country that wants war is the side that asks the European Union for help every day in order to realize its utopic claims.

Turkey is the side that says that everyone has rights and that we have to be respectful to each other and that's why our Navy is on the field for protection, not expansion. You probably understand what expansionist demands are with these examples.

 

[Ryder]

Then stop pretending and talking about .... international law. Like I said, we know who you are, what you are and what you want. Besides, you have proved it in the .... diplomatic field, by avoiding solutions. You are thirsty for conflicts, wars and neottoman expansionisms.

Ottoman Empire and the Seljuk Empire have been dead. Ottomans have been dead for 100 years while the Seljuks have been dead for centuries.

Funny how these Greek and Armenian are still haunted by their ghosts.


You benefitted from the empire and Turkish republic put a stop to it because you guys lost all your privledges. Sorry why should any state tolerate treason. You cant betray the Turks then still living as you used to. There is consequences for actions.

 

[Saithan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489227268169904128

location of the incident. Imo it is a mistake not to turn TCG into pseudo Navy

 

[Akritas]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489227268169904128

location of the incident. Imo it is a mistake not to turn TCG into pseudo Navy

From your mfa..........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.
So Zurafa or or Λαδόξερα is Greek because is up to three miles!!!
Another example of the Turkish expasnionism.

Lausanne Peace Treaty / Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs

www.mfa.gov.tr

@Cabatli_53 I read your last comment, I will answer you later.

 

[Saithan]

From your mfa..........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.
So Zurafa or or Λαδόξερα is Greek because is up to three miles!!!
Another example of the Turkish expasnionism.

Lausanne Peace Treaty / Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs

www.mfa.gov.tr

@Cabatli_53 I read your last comment, I will answer you later.

No it’s not greek. It’s not a either yours or ours.

 

[Akritas]

No it’s not greek. It’s not a either yours or ours.

Since you disagree with the Treaty of Lausanne, then why did you refuse to go to an international court to clarify it?

 

[Foulgrim]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489227268169904128

location of the incident. Imo it is a mistake not to turn TCG into pseudo Navy

 

[MADDOG]

Then stop pretending and talking about .... international law. Like I said, we know who you are, what you are and what you want. Besides, you have proved it in the .... diplomatic field, by avoiding solutions. You are thirsty for conflicts, wars and neottoman expansionisms.

How can you positively confirm that whatever Greece does is right? The video posted above wasn't state sponsored. It wasn't fabricated by the TRT or anything like that. It was a YouTube video, and you're free to watch it. "Thirsty for conflicts", no pal, no one is thirsty for such things. I thought that argument ended decades ago. This "neo-ottomanism" thing or whatever you want to call it, doesn't have a lot of backing to it. It most likely came out of people like you! And I am saying this as a person who is AGAINST the current government! Your claims are utterly ridiculous, thoroughly one-sided and embarrassingly naive. If the government was different, would you still be calling this Neo ottomanism? No but you would probably give it a different name. The "Mavi Vatan" agenda isn't at all related with topics such as İslamism or Ottomanism. Let alone expansionism! You're free to disagree, as there isn't a mutual right or wrong in this instance. But you can NOT suggest that Turkey is expansionist or blood thirsty just by looking at things from your or your country's perspective. Your failure to remain objective, is what makes you the true provocateur. If you're here to argue, then why bother? If you can't look at things "objectively" then what's the literal point of you being here? Are you enjoying triggering other people?

 

[Akritas]

Map according to the coordinates of the video.

It is obvious that the fishmonger is close to Zourafa, which according to the Treaty of Lausanne is Greek territory. Of course, here it seems that the whole story is a provocative event, in order to show that the rock is Turkish territory. Why it is not, I mentioned in a previous comment.

 

[Akritas]

You look so funny when you speak with jargons that you have memorized. what we do is obvious. We have no hidden agendas. Defending what is our right as the mainland is a national responsibility, not neo-ottomanism. A country that utters all kinds of absurd demands under the pretext of a 10km2 island in Med and disregards all international agreements on matters that do not suit your agenda will not be allowed to steal Turkey's economic zones with the lie of "international laws". Blue Homeland serves this purpose.

First of all, I see that you also started the ad honimem attacks. I do not know if I'm funny, after all I can be, of course it's good to be judged as my entrepreneur. Well, not to go too far, Greece has officially clarified that: When two parties do not find them, then they go to Court.
Turkey does not want that either.
Beyond the "Mavi Vatan" doctrine's declared goals, Turkey's hidden goal is the cancelation of the effects of the treaty of Lausanne, which was forced on the Turks in 1923.

The side that wants war is the side that increased the 3mile continental shelf it signed for the Aegean to 6 miles and then tried every way to increase it to 12 miles even if Turkey's objection. Those who want war are the side that speaks Turkey in every country they go to by trying to establish anti-Turkish coalitions and has no agenda other than Turkey.

Do you want us to open a thread how many times does Akar and Tsavousoglou mention the word Greece?
Today, only your President, before his visit to Ukraine, mentioned "Yunan" 4 times.
As regards the miles Greek thesis is clear:

• According to customary international law, which is also codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Greece has the right to extend its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles.
• This right to extend territorial waters to up to 12 nautical miles is a sovereign right which can be unilaterally exercised, and is therefore not subject to any kind of restriction or exception and cannot be disputed by third countries (Article 3 of UNCLOS, which codifies a rule of customary law, does not provide for any restrictions or exceptions with regard to this right).
• When two parties do not find them, then they go to Court

Turkey denies all of them.

The country that wants war is the one that arms the islands that it has promised to remain unarmed within the framework of the agreements. The country that wants war is the party that illegally extends its airspace to 10 miles, despite declaring the continental shelf to be 6 miles.

I had opened a topic here, with plenty of photographic material, but ..... it was lost.
You know, it can be deleted by the one who erases it, but the reality remains.
Is there any threat to the Greek islands from Turkey?
Yes there is, and the example of Cyprus is not the only one.

First threat came from the sea, and is the Amphibious Marine Brigade (Amfibi Deniz Piyade Tugayı), also known as Amphibious Commando ( Amfibi Komando), is the marine corps unit of the Turkish Naval Forces based in Phocaea near Smyrna , facing Lesvos island, where they exist three amphibious battalions, an MBT battalion, an artillery battalion, a support battalion and other company-sized units.
Has been founded in 1966!!!!

Second threat came from the air, are the 2nd Land Aviation Regiment (Erhaç Airport, Malatya) and 3rd Land Aviation Regiment (Gaziemir Air Base, Smyrna), with the about 100 transport helicopters (S-70A17/19 Blackhawk and AS-532UL Cougar) as also and the 35 attack helicopters (T-129 ATAK, AH-1P Cobra).
All the above turkish military units are facing the Greek islands.
Which we imagine are not going to land in Indonesia, Australia, Syria, France etc.
The Turkish military threat is real, what is threatened is not demilitarized.

Turkey is the side that says that everyone has rights and that we have to be respectful to each other and that's why our Navy is on the field for protection, not expansion. You probably understand what expansionist demands are with these examples.

Verbally yes, in practice no.

The country that wants war is the party that illegally extends its airspace to 10 miles, despite declaring the continental shelf to be 6 miles. It is the country that tries to usurp the rights of the country that has the longest coastline in the Mediterranean, with claims that have no basis other then an island of 10km2 in the Eastern Mediterranean.

This is undoubtedly one of the most spread fake news by Turkey, with which it tries to convince the international public that Greece is violating its sovereign rights in the East Mediterranean despite having the largest coastline in the East Mediterranean.
According to the several sources (CIA’s “The World Factbook, wordatlas, mappr, etc)...... Greece has 13,676 km and Turkey has nearly half of that as Greece, with only 7,200 km

 

[Aloster]

Map according to the coordinates of the video.

View attachment 39405

It is obvious that the fishmonger is close to Zourafa, which according to the Treaty of Lausanne is Greek territory. Of course, here it seems that the whole story is a provocative event, in order to show that the rock is Turkish territory. Why it is not, I mentioned in a previous comment.

View attachment 39406

No it isnt greek island according to Treaty of Lausanne it isn't named at treaty. It is 3 mile away from greek island samothraki also from Turkey shore. It is a boulder at grey area 9 sqm area and 36 meter length with lighthouse 2011. Still Not decided. You can read it again. I digging the net and try to understand greek. Ur theory is very easy if any boulder far away Turkish coast 3 miles it belongs to Greece also it has 6 miles continental area. So according to ur logic any rock has (pi×6^2 mile) approximately 290 km2 area sea. So Turks are expansionist. So with the help of any rock you claim Ege denizi belongs to you. If we accept this to swim we have to find a greek soldier and want permission slip. I dont mention about ship. Also ur very interesting about treaty of Lausanne . U never read the other things . For example u can not fly near the Turkey shore. We also dont fly above named İsland not the others.

 

[Akritas]

No it isnt greek island according to Treaty of Lausanne it isn't named at treaty. It is 3 mile away from greek island samothraki also from Turkey shore.

Yes it is(article 12)....regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed
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.

It is 3 mile away from greek island samothraki also from Turkey shore. It is a boulder at grey area 9 sqm area and 36 meter length with lighthouse 2011. Still Not decided. You can read it again. I digging the net and try to understand greek. Ur theory is very easy if any boulder far away Turkish coast 3 miles it belongs to Greece also it has 6 miles continental area. So according to ur logic any rock has (pi×6^2 mile) approximately 290 km2 area sea. So Turks are expansionist. So with the help of any rock you claim Ege denizi belongs to you. s.

If I remember is 16 miles from the turkish coast, but Zourafa is just a Greek rock that hasn't EEZ or continental self according UNCLOS(article 121.3).

U never read the other things . For example u can not fly near the Turkey shore. We also dont fly above named İsland not the others.

You are wrong for the first, the Treauty speaks for ....over the territory of the Anatolian coast(article 13.2).
But you are right for the 2nd, even Turkey violates constantly this article by flying over the Greek islands.

 

[Aloster]

Yes it is(article 12)....regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed
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.

If I remember is 16 miles from the turkish coast, but Zourafa is just a Greek rock that hasn't EEZ or continental self according UNCLOS(article 121.3).

You are wrong for the first, the Treauty speaks for ....over the territory of the Anatolian coast(article 13.2).
But you are write for the 2nd, even Turkey violates constantly this article by flying over the Greek islands.

First No. only named island we can not fly above it.
Second ZÜRAFA not island named at treaty not belongs to you. Still not decided like many rocks. But claiming you have it. You try to gain sea area and also try to push us from Ege denizi. U dont want to give us a breath. So our conflict begin here. Ur intention not good as ur claim. U dont want peace. with aid of rocks u try to expand.
Now ı want to ask a question. Assume that a earth quake occured at Ege and a rock 10 sqm area occured at sea only 24 km away methone at ion sea. Also a fisherman flag it from another nation like france .hungary turkey bulgaria germany britain choose one of them ! and then it claim ion sea belongs to them İf they say because of it u cant fish,sail,fly at ion sea. It is like that.Do u accept it.

 

[Barry]

Just use the ignore feature and man will be talking to himself.

 

[what]

Remember: Hit the report button if you think a post breaks the rules, we cant see everything. But always keep things civil.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

I do not know if I'm funny, after all I can be, of course it's good to be judged as my entrepreneur. Well, not to go too far, Greece has officially clarified that: When two parties do not find them, then they go to Court.
Turkey does not want that either.
Beyond the "Mavi Vatan" doctrine's declared goals, Turkey's hidden goal is the cancelation of the effects of the treaty of Lausanne, which was forced on the Turks in 1923.

There is no such thing as two sides here. Greece thinks it can act as it wishes by waving the EU flag and is trying to leave Turkey alone with the political games it plays. You thinks that you can realize it by hiding behind the lie of one-sided theses, maps and "international laws" in the waters of Turkey without asking Turkey but in the shadow of others. Turkey, on the other hand, states that a plan without its own will never be allowed in its own seas, and that all efforts of Greece will be in vain and acts in this direction. The Greek side is a state that made secret talks with Egypt and signed an agreement with Egypt about East Med, even while bilateral talks between two state were continuing. Even Germany, the intermediary country, confirmed that your action was wrong-behind the scene-, that's why they refused Greece's calls for help during seismic research times and this is how Turkey's descent into the field began as a response to your one sided activities.

Turkey do not have any purpose such as canceling Lausanne, because Turkey's interpretation of Lausanne is very clear. The indigestion is caused by Greek side because Turkey has never claimed that "the Aegean is a Greek lake" and never produced policies to achieve such a goal and Turkey does not resort to all kinds of political games in order to claim the EEZ for 10km2 island by turning a blind eye to the 780000km2 state's rights in the Mediterranean. The issue is just that.

Do you want us to open a thread how many times does Akar and Tsavousoglou mention the word Greece?
Today, only your President, before his visit to Ukraine, mentioned "Yunan" 4 times

Turkey has never used Greece as its real agenda in any country it went to, as did Greece. Turkey has never visited a country to complain about Greece. It has never tried to form a coalition with other countries to isolate Greece. It has never called a leader who visited Greece on the phone after his visit to mention that they need to review their relations with Greece or Turkey has never been a gathering base for terrorist organizations that have problems with Greece. I couldn't fit this type of littleness in my own country anyway.

• According to customary international law, which is also codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Greece has the right to extend its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles.
• This right to extend territorial waters to up to 12 nautical miles is a sovereign right which can be unilaterally exercised, and is therefore not subject to any kind of restriction or exception and cannot be disputed by third countries (Article 3 of UNCLOS, which codifies a rule of customary law, does not provide for any restrictions or exceptions with regard to this right).
• When two parties do not find them, then they go to Court

First of all, nations have the right to be a party to an international convention as well as the right not to be a party and Turkey is not a part of UNCLOS. No trial, no judgment can be made or no sanction can be imposed on states, because of a agreement that is not part of it. Moreover, UNCLOS does not oblige states to extend the continental shelf to 12 miles (UNCLOS-3) only draw the lines to makes the extension of the continental shelf up to 12 miles to certain conditions.

The most clear of the conditions and valid for the Aegean (UNCLOS-15)
When the coasts of two States are adjacent or opposite, neither one nor the other of these States has the right, unless otherwise agreed, to extend its territorial seas beyond the midline equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of these two States begins to be measured.

This article is not open to interpretation and explains the situation clearly. In other words, as you can see, the 12mile continental shelf that you will take unilaterally in the Aegean, as two states whose coasts are facing each other, is clearly in violation of the international agreement. UNCLOS has already stipulated an agreement between the two states in such cases and prohibited unilateral actions. Turkey already sees the situation as a clear violation of its territorial waters and rights. Because of this situation, Turkey accept a unilateral enlargement of continental shelf from Greek side as a cause of war, declaring that it is a violation of international law and an attack on its own right.

I had opened a topic here, with plenty of photographic material, but ..... it was lost.
You know, it can be deleted by the one who erases it, but the reality remains.
Is there any threat to the Greek islands from Turkey?
Yes there is, and the example of Cyprus is not the only one.

First threat came from the sea, and is the Amphibious Marine Brigade (Amfibi Deniz Piyade Tugayı), also known as Amphibious Commando ( Amfibi Komando), is the marine corps unit of the Turkish Naval Forces based in Phocaea near Smyrna , facing Lesvos island, where they exist three amphibious battalions, an MBT battalion, an artillery battalion, a support battalion and other company-sized units.
Has been founded in 1966!!!!

Second threat came from the air, are the 2nd Land Aviation Regiment (Erhaç Airport, Malatya) and 3rd Land Aviation Regiment (Gaziemir Air Base, Smyrna), with the about 100 transport helicopters (S-70A17/19 Blackhawk and AS-532UL Cougar) as also and the 35 attack helicopters (T-129 ATAK, AH-1P Cobra).
All the above turkish military units are facing the Greek islands.
Which we imagine are not going to land in Indonesia, Australia, Syria, France etc.
The Turkish military threat is real, what is threatened is not demilitarized.

• With the 13th article of the Lausanne Peace Treaty, the Central East Aegean Islands Ikaria, Lesbos, Chios, Samos
• Article 14 of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty in the Dodecanese Islands Lausanne
• With the 8th Article of the Straits Convention, Lemnos and Samothrace

According to these treaties, the transfer condition of the islands is bound to certain provisions. One of these provisions is to disarm in order to establish peace and maintain its continuity and this is guaranteed by treaties, but Greece, as it always does, tries to arm the islands by producing different excuses and tries to keep it off the agenda. It tries to find the legal ground for itself by using the threat perception excuses as a few bases that it has pointing finger but this does not in any way abolish the provisions of the treaty that it has signed.

What a contradiction, while you accuse Turkey of trying to destroy Lausanne by showing the main purpose of the Mavi Vatan doctrine, you see it as a necessity to act against the Lausanne laws regarding the arming of the islands as it suits to your agenda, and this shows what kind of contradiction you are in.

Turkey also experienced a similar situation in the straits with the Montro convention it signed and accepted the provision of not having weapons but as the 2. World War changed the threat perception regarding the straits, Turkey applied to the United Nations of that time and this right was settled on a legal basis and again did what was necessary in accordance with new legal conditions.

The example of Cyprus is presented as a false justification for arming the islands. The Greek Cypriots took action unilaterally for the connection of the island to Greece, contrary to all international agreements, and showed the world that they do not recognize any rules by murdering the Turkish community living on the island. Turkey, on the other hand, had to intervene in order to establish peace and protect its kinsmen from Greek barbarism. This issue has nothing to do with the abolition of the disarmament provisions of the Lausanne and Paris treaties. You see the price of your own sins as an opportunity and try to use it for your benefits.

On the other hand, Greece, while accepting the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in 1993, made reservations to the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court regarding matters arising from military measures related to "national security interests". In this way, Greece aimed to prevent a debate on the arming of the islands from going to the International Court of Justice. This is a tacit admission by Greece that Greece has violated its treaty obligations.

When we look at current Greek governments, it defends the Lausanne, UNCLOS laws and treaties when it suits their own agenda, but later claims that the threat perception has changed by showing a few Turkish bases as an excuse when it is not serve their agenda, or adopts acting contrary to the provisions of Lausanne without any application at the level of the United Nations, as a way. As I said, the state in question interprets international agreements only as it suits them.

This is undoubtedly one of the most spread fake news by Turkey, with which it tries to convince the international public that Greece is violating its sovereign rights in the East Mediterranean despite having the largest coastline in the East Mediterranean.
According to the several sources (CIA’s “The World Factbook, wordatlas, mappr, etc)...... Greece has 13,676 km and Turkey has nearly half of that as Greece, with only 7,200 km

I don't understand which part of what I said is a lie. Is it a lie that you increase your airspace to 10 miles illegally, which has no place in any international rules? Is it a lie that you beat hundreds of refugees and left them to die by committing human rights violations, or that you suffocate their boots with hooks and sink them in the middle of the sea? Is it a lie that you try to ignore the rights of a country of 780000km2 and 85 million people for a 10km2 island in East Med? Is it a lie that you never consent to your rights determined with int. treaties and want to constantly expand with perception games? Your life consists of perceptions that you have built on cheap propaganda, but you still accuse Turkey of telling lies and violating international treaties. You are trying to make a perception in such nonsense that you accept even your Aegean coast as the Eastern Mediterranean coastline and try to cover up with a lie the fact that Turkey is the country with the longest coastline. Because of this sneaky and greedy understanding you live in, it is really very difficult for these problems to be resolved by peaceful means.

The fact that your voice is too loud is not because you are right, but because you are running after perception with lies and trying to suppress crime.

 

[Fuzuli NL]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489152318448836610

Greek "bravery" thwarted by a Turk fisherman.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

Yes it is(article 12)....regarding the sovereignty of Greece over the islands of the Eastern Mediterranean, other than the islands of Imbros, Tenedos and Rabit Islands, particularly the islands of Lemnos, Samothrace, Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria, is confirmed
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.

If I remember is 16 miles from the turkish coast, but Zourafa is just a Greek rock that hasn't EEZ or continental self according UNCLOS(article 121.3).

You are wrong for the first, the Treauty speaks for ....over the territory of the Anatolian coast(article 13.2).
But you are right for the 2nd, even Turkey violates constantly this article by flying over the Greek islands.

No, none of these assets is a Greek island, islet or reef. Kardak, located 3.9 miles offshore, is also one of them. Except for the islands expressed and mentioned in Lausanne, the sovereignty of any island does not belong to Greece. The purpose of this statement in Article 12 is to guarantee the rights of the coastal state and to prevent some provisions of the Treaty from being interpreted against this right, which is closely related to security and it must be remembered that the territorial sea was 3 miles at that time as well. Likewise, if the purpose of this expression in Article 12 was to state that the sovereignty of all islands, islets and rocks other than 3 miles were renounced, it should have been clearly stated with the expression "surrender of sovereignty", not with the emphasis on "sovereignty".
It has already been clearly stated that the expression of surrender of sovereignty covers the island mentioned by its name and its connected islets. In this context, this expression in Article 12 does not aim to take all the islands, islets and rocks outside of 3 miles from Turkey, but to guarantee Turkey's sovereignty over the islands, islets and rocks in this region against all possible misinterpretations. If you pay attention, Turkish sovereignty is already mentioned in the sentence. In a sentence emphasizing sovereignty rights, the Greek side cannot adopt the opposite approach or make such an inference,

"Here it is written 3 miles equivalent to the continental shelf, then the others are mine".

What we are talking about is not a letter to a lover to find out if the girl is in love with the assumption, even if the love words are not written in the sentences, but an international treaty determine the sovereign rights of states. If there will be a transfer of rights from the original owner after the war, this must be clearly stated in the treaties. Everything that is not mentioned in these conditions or that is outside of the mentioned islands belongs to Turkey as an Ottoman heritage and Turkey expresses this very clearly.