TR Marine Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland)

[Akritas]

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.

So, if Turkey has its own interpretation (arbitrary and non-existent of course) of the articles of the Lausanne Treaty, why does it refuse to go with Greece to an international court to solve the problem?
Of course, all this started after 1996, because before, all Turkish maps clearly said e.g. that Imia was(and is) Greek.

 

[Cabatli_TR]

It seems that drilling activities will begin in the Eastern Mediterranean.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489547200883482625

 

[Cabatli_TR]

So, if Turkey has its own interpretation (arbitrary and non-existent of course) of the articles of the Lausanne Treaty, why does it refuse to go with Greece to an international court to solve the problem?
Of course, all this started after 1996, because before, all Turkish maps clearly said e.g. that Imia was(and is) Greek.

View attachment 39419

View attachment 39420

When it comes to international treaties, it doesn't matter what is written on which map and how. In Article 12 of Lausanne, the Greek side misinterprets a text that mentions Turkey's sovereignty rights on the continental shelf determined at that time but in fact this text aims to prevent misinterpretations of sovereign rights of Turkey except the islands handed over to Greek side and mentioned in same article with their names.

Taking the matter to court, since the Greek side argues that the sovereignty of all kinds of islands other than the ones mentioned in texts, was handed over to them with an assumption, even if it is not included in any part of the texts, it would be to open discuss Turkey's own sovereignty before anything else. This is no different than shooting yourself in the foot with a bullet and this issue will never come up in this way.

You know how your venture on the island of Kardak, 3.9 miles away from Turkish coasts, turned out. You lost 3 soldiers, 1 helicopter and a great prestige. Much bigger things will happen in your next attempts, and Turkey will never give up its sovereign rights under any circumstances and will not make this issue discussed in the international arena because the Greek side misinterprets it with its assumptions.

 

[Lool]

It seems that drilling activities will begin in the Eastern Mediterranean.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1489547200883482625

Finally the guy is acting like a man in the east Med dispute

 

[Akritas]

When it comes to international treaties, it doesn't matter what is written on which map and how. In Article 12 of Lausanne, the Greek side misinterprets a text that mentions Turkey's sovereignty rights on the continental shelf determined at that time but in fact this text aims to prevent misinterpretations of sovereign rights of Turkey except the islands handed over to Greek side and mentioned in same article with their names.

I know the Turkish position, after all no one supports it. That is why the "mediators" suggest the obvious. Turkey as it is known negotiates with the slogan: mine is mine, yours is mine too.

Taking the matter to court, since the Greek side argues that the sovereignty of all kinds of islands other than the ones mentioned in texts, was handed over to them with an assumption, even if it is not included in any part of the texts, it would be to open discuss Turkey's own sovereignty before anything else. This is no different than shooting yourself in the foot with a bullet and this issue will never come up in this way.

The reference to a Court means that Turkey must first of all accept the International Law by which any Court decides. So the reason Turkey is avoiding the International Court of Justice is that it knows it will lose.
The argument that Greece is shooting at its feet is a well-known funny turkish argument. As also the Greek strategy of a peaceful solution to Greek- Turkish differences cannot rest on abstaining from exercising our rights under international law. Turkey only understands military power.Greek politicians understood this with the hybrid war that Turkey unleashed in Greece in 2020 . Fortunately, they reacted quickly.

You know how your venture on the island of Kardak, 3.9 miles away from Turkish coasts, turned out. You lost 3 soldiers, 1 helicopter and a great prestige. Much bigger things will happen in your next attempts, and Turkey will never give up its sovereign rights under any circumstances and will not make this issue discussed in the international arena because the Greek side misinterprets it with its assumptions.

Turkey exhibits a remarkably stubborn selective amnesia about its own history.
Broadly speaking, there are six interpretations of historical events engraved in the Turkish collective memory that are employed to this day to justify hatred for specific foreign nations:

• Imperialist Europe caused the collapse of an otherwise perfect empire and then invaded what would become modern Turkey.
• Ungrateful Arabs fellow Muslims stabbed us in the back and allied with Western powers against our Ottoman ancestors.
• Greeks invaded Anatolia and committed horrendous war crimes during their military campaign
• Russians, have always had an eye on Turkish soil with a view to establishing a presence in the Mediterranean.
• Armenians, after having been loyal servants of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, revolted under Russian provocation for the sake of an independent homeland and slandered the noble nation in the eyes of the world with the “genocide” hoax.
• Kurds, despite being fellow Muslims, launched the most violent terror campaign in Turkish history, with a death toll reaching over 50,000, including civilians.

You see, I am looking at an issue rationally, I am not sitting to see the "tree" (Imia case or Greek-Turkish relations) but the "forest" of Turkey.

Regarding the incident of the helicopter in Imia as well as the landing of the Turkish frogmen from Yavuz on the Greek island, it is an issue that has been studied extensively from all sides, especially the military ones. That night, it may not have been Imia but another small Greek island. The question is what should have been the Greek answer? War or talks? So when Turkey decides first, then do not doubt that Turkey will lose much more than it thinks it will win on the battlefield. So I advise you to re-study your own history, and read studies by non-Turks. You will be surprised.

 

[Oublious]

I know the Turkish position, after all no one supports it. That is why the "mediators" suggest the obvious. Turkey as it is known negotiates with the slogan: mine is mine, yours is mine too.

LoL...

and do we need support of France and Egypt? The only who supported you was countries wanted a share of the pie. You try it find support on EU level only France supported bu that wasn't enough. Americans stopped after Russian problem begin, they need Turkey more then ever. Only country who could possible stop Turkey was Americans, but they have realised that is not worth is for a lazy country called Greec .

They managed to acquire bases in Greec for almost nothing, they saw a opportunities to sell overpriced weapons. For now F16, maybe F35 and ships. This will break Greece in long terms..

 

[Melkor]

It’s actually misleading to claim that Turkey is avoiding arbitration at the international court whilst Greece is ready and eager. The truth is that neither party can agree on the framework - Turkey seeks resolution on a wider issue i.e that the consequences of accepting the Greek position is categorically unfair if all her points are considered, whereas Greece sees no wider issue and nothing more to consider than the continental shelf matter. Akritas has been spamming BS about this and his constant reference to customary law via UNCLOS is not the be all and end all of the matter as he makes out.

 

[Akritas]

It’s actually misleading to claim that Turkey is avoiding arbitration at the international court whilst Greece is ready and eager. The truth is that neither party can agree on the framework - Turkey seeks resolution on a wider issue i.e that the consequences of accepting the Greek position is categorically unfair if all her points are considered, whereas Greece sees no wider issue and nothing more to consider than the continental shelf matter. Akritas has been spamming BS about this and his constant reference to customary law via UNCLOS is not the be all and end all of the matter as he makes out.

Greece is ready as PM Mitsotakis(not only) has mentioned it many times , like:

" Greece and Turkey should talk and -if we do not agree- then we should settle our disputes by appealing to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and let the rule of law prevail,"

Turkey is the one that deny it, for the known reason.

Do you insist on the arbitrary conclusion that .... I am spamming BS?

PM Mitsotakis at NATO assembly: 'Yes to dialogue with Turkey, but, failing that, we go to Int'l Court'

www.amna.gr

 

[Melkor]

Greece is ready as PM Mitsotakis(not only) has mentioned it many times , like:

" Greece and Turkey should talk and -if we do not agree- then we should settle our disputes by appealing to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and let the rule of law prevail,"

Turkey is the one that deny it, for the known reason.

Do you insist on the arbitrary conclusion that .... I am spamming BS?

PM Mitsotakis at NATO assembly: 'Yes to dialogue with Turkey, but, failing that, we go to Int'l Court'

www.amna.gr

Again, this does not prove that Turkey doesn’t want arbitration at the international court. I have provided you a explanation as to the reason why it hasn’t happened whereas all you say is Greece have offered to go to court. Yes, so has Turkey and it wants to talk about more than just Greece’s black and white UNCLOS argument.

 

[Huelague]

Greece is ready as PM Mitsotakis(not only) has mentioned it many times , like:

" Greece and Turkey should talk and -if we do not agree- then we should settle our disputes by appealing to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and let the rule of law prevail,"

Turkey is the one that deny it, for the known reason.

Do you insist on the arbitrary conclusion that .... I am spamming BS?

PM Mitsotakis at NATO assembly: 'Yes to dialogue with Turkey, but, failing that, we go to Int'l Court'

www.amna.gr

Don’t hang up to much on law. It’s not written on stone. It’s not natural law. It can be breaked and changed.

 

[Huelague]

The funny thing is that Akritas think this dispute will solves on any court. Can some one here explain him that this will never happen!?

 

[Melkor]

Türk-Yunan ihtilafları neden çözülemiyor? Taraflar Lahey'e gider mi?

Türkiye ile Yunanistan arasında yıllardan bu yana süregelen Ege anlaşmazlıklarına neden bir çözüm bulunamıyor?

tr.euronews.com

“In all his statements, Angelos Syrigos, a deputy of the ruling New Democracy Party in Greece and a professor of international relations specializing in Turkish/Greek relations, said, "The only problem between the two countries that can be brought to The Hague is the continental shelves, in accordance with the Greek state policy and knowing that Turkey cannot accept it." therefore, the determination of MEB areas".


Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu in Turkey also makes statements implying that "the parties can apply to The Hague Court of Justice".

However, like Çavuşoğlu, politicians and academics in Turkey, as determined by the Turkish state policy and knowing that Greece could not accept it, said, "Not only the continental shelf and EEZ issues, but also the territorial waters of the Greek islands in the Aegean are 6 miles. However, there is the opinion that issues such as the problem arising from the 10-mile airspace, the status of islets and reefs of unknown origin, and the disarming of the Greek islands, which must be disarmed in accordance with the Lausanne Treaty, should also be packaged.

Former Greek Foreign Minister and also a constitutional professor Evangelos Venizelos said in his latest statement, "The Hague can only be applied for, but only for the determination of the continental shelf and the EEZ. Sovereignty rights of Greece such as 10 miles of airspace, small islets or disarmament of the islands can never be applied. He does not deviate from the Greek state policy, arguing that there can be no trial.”

So Akritas, here is some insight into your BS and that by your beloved PM…

 

[AWP]

It seems that drilling activities will begin in the Eastern Mediterranean.

I don't think so . the last thing NATO wants is to have a dispute between two NATO countries specially with the Ukrain-Russian possible invasion

 

[Akritas]

Again, this does not prove that Turkey doesn’t want arbitration at the international court. I have provided you a explanation as to the reason why it hasn’t happened whereas all you say is Greece have offered to go to court. Yes, so has Turkey and it wants to talk about more than just Greece’s black and white UNCLOS argument.

Turkey has not recognized the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice at The Hague since 1976, especially when we are in 2022, which the Court has made a number of decisions based on international law such as the UNCLOS.

Türk-Yunan ihtilafları neden çözülemiyor? Taraflar Lahey'e gider mi?

Türkiye ile Yunanistan arasında yıllardan bu yana süregelen Ege anlaşmazlıklarına neden bir çözüm bulunamıyor?

tr.euronews.com

“In all his statements, Angelos Syrigos, a deputy of the ruling New Democracy Party in Greece and a professor of international relations specializing in Turkish/Greek relations, said, "The only problem between the two countries that can be brought to The Hague is the continental shelves, in accordance with the Greek state policy and knowing that Turkey cannot accept it." therefore, the determination of MEB areas".


Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu in Turkey also makes statements implying that "the parties can apply to The Hague Court of Justice".

However, like Çavuşoğlu, politicians and academics in Turkey, as determined by the Turkish state policy and knowing that Greece could not accept it, said, "Not only the continental shelf and EEZ issues, but also the territorial waters of the Greek islands in the Aegean are 6 miles. However, there is the opinion that issues such as the problem arising from the 10-mile airspace, the status of islets and reefs of unknown origin, and the disarming of the Greek islands, which must be disarmed in accordance with the Lausanne Treaty, should also be packaged.

Former Greek Foreign Minister and also a constitutional professor Evangelos Venizelos said in his latest statement, "The Hague can only be applied for, but only for the determination of the continental shelf and the EEZ. Sovereignty rights of Greece such as 10 miles of airspace, small islets or disarmament of the islands can never be applied. He does not deviate from the Greek state policy, arguing that there can be no trial.”

So Akritas, here is some insight into your BS and that by your beloved PM…

First of all, as difficult as it is for you living in the Erdogan regime, in modern democracies, freedom of opinion and views is respected and free.
Second, I must remind you, that the politics of a country, is determined primary by the Prime Minister and the National Council, and not by university professors, retirees politicians and undersecretaries.
Closing, I say again because apparently you did not read it: Turkey does not want to go to the International Court of Justice, because it simply knows that by going there it will have to recognize international laws and regulations that will put it in a difficult position.
There are voices in Greece, which say that Turkey does not implement the rulings of International Courts, such as e.g. that of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), who accuses Turkey of the illegal imprisonment of Osman Kavala.

 

[Huelague]

Turkey has not recognized the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice at The Hague since 1976, especially when we are in 2022, which the Court has made a number of decisions based on international law such as the UNCLOS.

View attachment 39469


First of all, as difficult as it is for you living in the Erdogan regime, in modern democracies, freedom of opinion and views is respected and free.
Second, I must remind you, that the politics of a country, is determined primary by the Prime Minister and the National Council, and not by university professors, retirees politicians and undersecretaries.
Closing, I say again because apparently you did not read it: Turkey does not want to go to the International Court of Justice, because it simply knows that by going there it will have to recognize international laws and regulations that will put it in a difficult position.
There are voices in Greece, which say that Turkey does not implement the rulings of International Courts, such as e.g. that of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), who accuses Turkey of the illegal imprisonment of Osman Kavala.

What is the first directive of any law?
FAIRNESS! If you look at the Aegean, it is anything than fair participated.

Stop to getting on our nerves with your claims by law. We give a fack on it. No law is written on stone or unchangeable. You can’t stop us on any court because the solution will found on battlefield.

Our stand will not fall with Erdogan. We will get Aegean. With an agreement or with force. Doesn’t matter.

 

[Glass🚬]

I don't think so . the last thing NATO wants is to have a dispute between two NATO countries specially with the Ukrain-Russian possible invasion

NATO is irrelevant.

 

[Melkor]

Turkey has not recognized the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice at The Hague since 1976, especially when we are in 2022, which the Court has made a number of decisions based on international law such as the UNCLOS.

View attachment 39469


First of all, as difficult as it is for you living in the Erdogan regime, in modern democracies, freedom of opinion and views is respected and free.
Second, I must remind you, that the politics of a country, is determined primary by the Prime Minister and the National Council, and not by university professors, retirees politicians and undersecretaries.
Closing, I say again because apparently you did not read it: Turkey does not want to go to the International Court of Justice, because it simply knows that by going there it will have to recognize international laws and regulations that will put it in a difficult position.
There are voices in Greece, which say that Turkey does not implement the rulings of International Courts, such as e.g. that of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), who accuses Turkey of the illegal imprisonment of Osman Kavala.

My response to you is perfectly and clearly in the context of our conversation. I have read everything. Turkey has its position and Greece has theirs. Do not get on your high horse when I am adding context and explanation to your propagandist claims about Turkey avoiding the International court which is not accurate! Btw, those people you have so conveniently disregarded were commenting on Greek national policy on the matter. These are not random opinions by irrelevant hacks but true and recent insight in to your national stance by credible individuals. I think this is helpful for those on here who are not up to date on the matter and are only exposed to your spam. Others have already commented on your constant fall back on international law - it’s not binding if you are not a signatory and why would you sign something that is loosely designed and cannot equitably and reasonably address your position, you wouldn’t!

 

[GoatsMilk]

greek pipe dreams are over. The sooner they accept their minor status in the region the sooner the region can find peace.

 

[Akritas]

My response to you is perfectly and clearly in the context of our conversation. I have read everything. Turkey has its position and Greece has theirs. Do not get on your high horse when I am adding context and explanation to your propagandist claims about Turkey avoiding the International court which is not accurate! Btw, those people you have so conveniently disregarded were commenting on Greek national policy on the matter. These are not random opinions by irrelevant hacks but true and recent insight in to your national stance by credible individuals. I think this is helpful for those on here who are not up to date on the matter and are only exposed to your spam. Others have already commented on your constant fall back on international law - it’s not binding if you are not a signatory and why would you sign something that is loosely designed and cannot equitably and reasonably address your position, you wouldn’t!

We have understood what Turkey wants, it does not give a shit about what International Law says, let alone a diplomatic solution. If you find us vulnerable, you will attack us as a well-known Ottoman predator, as Akinci.
After all, that's the meaning of Mavi Vatan: expansion of Turkey to the detriment of its neighbors.

Our stand will not fall with Erdogan. We will get Aegean. With an agreement or with force. Doesn’t matter.

I know, at least you do not hide what the Turkish intentions are as your compatriots try to do.

 

[Huelague]

We have understood what Turkey wants, it does not give a shit about what International Law says, let alone a diplomatic solution. If you find us vulnerable, you will attack us as a well-known Ottoman predator, as Akinci.
After all, that's the meaning of Mavi Vatan: expansion of Turkey to the detriment of its neighbors.


I know, at least you do not hide what the Turkish intentions are as your compatriots try to do.

Are stil hang on "international law"? Which part of,"we dont care", you dont understand ? Why you so obsessed with laws? You talk as it is a rule by God.