Turkey

[Don Giovanni]

The GNA barely holds on and relies on previously warring tribes, mostly Islamists, to stay in power. Turkey just had a ship blown out of the water and the GNA is asking for the international community to come to their defenses against Haftar (not happening). The ceasefire conceived in Berlin has gone to hell. Greece meanwhile is moving into a position to cut off Turkish support for the GNA over the sea. The Italians won't get in the way. The Turkish troops in Libya are non-combatant. Erdogan can't afford for Turkish troops to fight and die in Libya, that's why he sent mercenaries who are only in it for the money.

[Reaper]

The GNA barely holds on and relies on previously warring tribes, mostly Islamists, to stay in power. Turkey just had a ship blown out of the water and the GNA is asking for the international community to come to their defenses against Haftar (not happening). The ceasefire conceived in Berlin has gone to hell. Greece meanwhile is moving into a position to cut off Turkish support for the GNA over the sea. The Italians won't get in the way. The Turkish troops in Libya are non-combatant. Erdogan can't afford for Turkish troops to fight and die in Libya, that's why he sent mercenaries who are only in it for the money.

The Turkish troops in Libya are identical to the ones in Syria. They help jihadis fire on the enemy while claiming they will only fire on those who fire on them.. This came out today. Turkish troops surrounded by jihadis - firing on an SU 24 in Syria:

https://twitter.com/MathieuMorant/st...649504769?s=19

Add to this Turkey has been arming these guys for years. Greece needs to match this but perhaps a bit less. No weapons, no helping soldiers attack the enemy like the Turks are doing - but training Haftar's men instead in Libya away from the action.

I do not think this arms embargo matters 1%.

Neutrality is not politics.
Eleftherios Venizelos
— From Histoire Diplomatique de la Grèce de 1821 à nos jours. tome V, Edouard Driault & Michel Lheritier, 1926, p.164
— Venizelos on the decision of Consantine I to keep Greece neutral during WWI

Finally, perhaps I am the wrong one to speak to about putting my neck on the line for Greece vs the Turks which these type of conversations always seem to lead to but I can only answer for myself and perhaps I am not very good example of a mature man on this matter.

I do not want one Greek to die unnecessarily. If you read my posts - not once have I suggested Greeks should be in the front line of any conflict. However every day we are absent from conflicts in our neighbourhood - we lose territory. This is not about right/left or real politic vs naivety. That is the nature of the Balkans and any greek who does not understand needs only to look at the history of the region to this very day.

[aek66]

This is fascinating. What is evident from this transcript is Greece's policy concerning the world since the 1920s. Asking for something but giving nothing in return. No concept of quid pro quo.

For example, this part:



This is an opening bid by the US. The correct response by a country that understands basic negotiation is to move on this statement. America is telling us we are in a better situation to deal with this - so come up with a plan and get Bush to sign on it. A peace summit in Athens, Greek peace troops on the ground to calm the area etc. This was an invitation to Greece to become a regional player and just as today - it is is ignored in favour of the age old Greek policy of managed decline. And to think the Greek left think the US controls Greece... not even Greece controls Greece.. Greece is a non entity and fights to be a non entity.

Another example of Greece self sabotage.



A convoluted nothing answer to a sincere US question. A more succinct answer would have been - ''they feel this name legitimises their territorial ambitions in Northern Greece. This has been going on for the best part of a century and destabilises the entire region.''

Not only do the Greeks do nothing pro-active and offer the US nothing - they ask the US for favour for free..



This transcript is fascinating but confirms everything i have been saying. Greece is actively perusing a policy of managed decline. There seems there was plenty of scope with Bush but the Greeks actively avoided bringing anything positive out the relationship.

i agree with just about all of what you wrote.

a problem with greece 'mediating' between yugo/serbia and albania over early sparks in kosovo during the early 90's would have been greece losing credibility due to violating various embargoes imposed upon yugo/serbia. maybe mitsotaki immediately realized this as not realistic for greece - it's citizens would have rioted on the spot finding out it's govt. was starting out on a 50-50 base of serbia-albania over kosovo. mitsotaki was correct in that the fyrom issue could turn out 'terrible' for greece and for him, politically...as he lost to everyone's favorite man of the people, a. papandreou, in the fall of 1993.

the americans were willing to hold out for greece...not forever, but willing to give greece time...and you are correct, greece wanted no part of being pro-active in it's own backyard. everyone picked up on this and moved appropriately. it was the europeans, who turned on greece first and the usa eventually followed...until serbia itself, stabbed greece in the back in 1996 when they recognized the 'republic of macedonia'.

[aek66]

As far as I can tell, the entire Greek mindset in regards to Greece's own status in the world and versus Turkey is self defeating. Greece does not create, it reacts to other nations.

Greece needs to stop reacting, and start creating. The foreign policy of Greece has been so heavily decimated over the last 20 years that if we continue on this path, there is no doubt that Greece will find itself in a position where more national concessions will be forfeited.


Why does everything Greece do have to be approved by international bodies? Greece operates too scared and the turks know this. We need an entirely new identity as a country, specifically at the top. We have people occupying very important positions who are scared, and know that they don't want to rock the boat.

it's the greek population itself, which shepherds the greek govt.s into constant geopolitical cul-de-sacs - based on superstitions, religion, old wives' tales, etc.

these are the same people who feel absolutely no allegiance to the greek nation-state as far as paying taxes. therefore, i personally don't pay taxes, the govt. looks away. therefore, i love serbians and russians and i expect the govt. to follow suit. in greece, we know that allegiances are based at the most tribalistic levels. there are no such things as developing a 'national focus(es)'. the focus only exists at the lowest, tribalistic level(s).

[aek66]

This is their game to encircle and contain Russia, which is of no benefit to us, and saw the opportunity once the Soviets fell. We did the right thing staying out.

i agree that it was all about russia...keeping them out of the balkans. i disagree about us staying out.

in the early 90s, based on size, population, wealth, military, political/economic/military networks...greece was the obvious master of the balkans, or, was it? if not, then no complaining allowed when other nations act in their own best interests.

[Don Giovanni]

^ Should we have gone to war with Serbia? Should we have assisted war efforts against them?

As far as supporting Serbia's position in the war and providing them arms, that was a mistake. We should have stayed more neutral in their disputes. The right thing for us to do is settle our disputes on our own. The reality is we could have gone into trans-Macedonia just like Turkey did with Syria and the Kurds. That much I think is worth conceding where we perhaps made a mistake, especially now in hindsight.

Alliances are cheap. How useful was it to the Kurds to be allied with the US in the end? At the end of the day, we have to do our own dirty work.

***********************************************

Before we get too excited over Libya, some perspective is needed. Here are the words of Erdogan's former foreign minister just a few days ago:

https://thearabweekly.com/former-tur...ibya-and-syria

Yakis criticised Turkey’s involvement in Libya. “Turkey wants to expand its influence whenever it has the means to do so but its chances of success in Libya are slim,” he said.

This is “because of the distance (separating Turkey from Libya) and because of the multiplicity of the forces (involved) on the other. (Libyan National Army Field-Marshal Khalifa) Haftar controls more than three-quarters of Libya and is blocking oil production. Then there is Egypt, on the eastern border, which can intervene at any time.”

Yakis said: “Most Turks consider that their army has nothing to do in this conflict as well as in the Syrian crisis to a lesser extent. In fact, President Erdogan is intervening more for political reasons, to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. He takes the risk of jeopardising his relationship with countries like Tunisia and Algeria, hostile to any outside interference. The other risk is that the Libyan conflict turns into a ‘new Syria’.”

Yakis, who was one of the enthusiastic promoters of having his country join the European Union, said he has no illusions about possible Turkish ties to Europe.

“Erdogan has long lost the trust of Europeans. There is no shortage of subjects of tension between the EU and Turkey, such as the question of refugees, the future of Cyprus, the accession to the European Union, the exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean where Turkey is in competition with Greece, Syria and Israel. I do not see how relations could improve in the near future. Too many issues remain unresolved,” he said.

Yakis expressed regret about Turkey’s regional and international isolation. “The different parties that came from the Muslim Brotherhood matrix have been rejected by society in many countries such as Egypt. Even in Turkey, the AKP is questioned and gathers less than 50% of the voters. Not very well seen in the Arab countries, the political-religious movement of the Muslim Brotherhood is losing momentum, even if its history is far from over,” he said.

I don't agree we should send Greek troops into Libya unless Turkey decides to properly invade. Erdogan should be made to own that mistake, we shouldn't give him justification. Just because Erdogan sent back the same jihadis the US and NATO provided air cover for in 2011 (and who they then sent to Syria to do their fighting there after) doesn't mean we should give them an excuse. Trump won't send troops into Libya. He won't even do it in Syria. Likewise Obama. Likewise everyone else (Egypt, France, etc). And Erdogan can only make things worse for himself the more he keeps sending in troops to these parts. Let him make that mistake, then we can enter the fray as part of a broader coalition with Egypt and others to force the Turks out and finish off their allies in the GNA.

[Reaper]

I think this can help you understand why Erdogan went to Libya and Syria even though they seem a waste a time. It is about expansion and so far, it has worked. Greece not being invited to Berlin to discuss Libya is the tip of the iceberg and shows his policy is working well.

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-...mind-1.8559886

I strongly disagree about staying neutral in both conflicts. As Venizelos stated - Neutrality is not politics.

Libya is a smokescreen to steal Greek EEZ and so far it has worked.

I cannot imagine Greeks firing on Turkish drilling ships below Crete - however I can imagine Greeks complaining about it - but that - de facto - changes nothing.

We have lost territory due to neutrality - again.

[aek66]

^ Should we have gone to war with Serbia? Should we have assisted war efforts against them?

As far as supporting Serbia's position in the war and providing them arms, that was a mistake. We should have stayed more neutral in their disputes. The right thing for us to do is settle our disputes on our own. The reality is we could have gone into trans-Macedonia just like Turkey did with Syria and the Kurds. That much I think is worth conceding where we perhaps made a mistake, especially now in hindsight.

no one here has said anything about going to war with yugo/serbia. what bush suggested was flattering, but not realistic and somewhat naive. in what world would albanians in kosovo and albania itself, have submitted to greece mediating a centuries-old blood feud between orthodox christian serbian peoples and muslim albanians in kosovo?

bush failed to understand or was woefully advised in regards to balkan/greek realities. failing to unconditionally support mitsotaki, through clear diplomatic actions and material support, had severe repercussions - especially for greece's focus on fyrom and maintaining a pro-usa govt. in athens.

greece had many levers to pull to 'control' milosevic. arms, oil and money (private stashes and laundering). instead, milosevic benefited from ridiculous factors that ruled greece's geopolitics (public and church) and milosevic pulled the levers instead. when papandreou won, next came NATO secrets.

total disaster.

i agree with reaper in that by bush making a clear request/oblique 'offer', mitsotaki should have outlined what greece could do to pressure milosevic in exchange for american support and a greek victory on the fyrom issue.

the same idiots who marched nearly 30 years ago upon the usa embassy in their pandofles chanting: ελλας-σερβια-ορθοδοξια, are now chanting: ελλας-γαλλια-συμμαχια. to me, one chant is ridiculous, the other, powerful. which one pulls at the heart strings of the average greek?

as far as using the greek military to settle the name dispute with fyrom that diplomacy utterly failed at...yes. that was discussed with dozens and dozens of pages on the old website.

[Don Giovanni]

Reaper

I'm not sure where you and I really disagree. Yes, it's humiliating Greece was left out of the Berlin conference and we have been sitting too much on the sidelines, yet the fruits of that Berlin conference are what? A doomed ceasefire that was little more than an excuse for Turkey to reinforce the GNA in a losing battle. France backs us in this dispute. Greece will command EU efforts to cut off Turkey's arm shipments to the GNA. Greece's EEZ is also Europe's EEZ. We are not sitting on our hands here. We are not being neutral: Greece backs Haftar. We are no longer on the sidelines.

If you think the answer is to send in troops, then why is no one else sending in their armies? Why does Turkey and Russia rely on mercenaries to do their fighting? There will be a time when such a move would make sense, but I don't see how now is the time. Understand that if we go in, the war will move beyond Libya's borders and we risk an invasion of Cyprus and of our islands.

aek66

Valid points. I felt we should have stayed clear of that conflict only insofar as we could effect peace and our own national interests. I thought it was a mistake to assist the Serbs and to be honest, I'm not sure there would have been much to gain by leveraging any kind of assistance. I won't disagree with the stupidity exhibited by a good many people in Greece. The fact Tsipras still has any kind of support is proof of it.

[Reaper]

Reaper

I'm not sure where you and I really disagree. Yes, it's humiliating Greece was left out of the Berlin conference and we have been sitting too much on the sidelines, yet the fruits of that Berlin conference are what? A doomed ceasefire that was little more than an excuse for Turkey to reinforce the LNA in a losing battle. France backs us in this dispute. Greece will command EU efforts to cut off Turkey's arm shipments to the LNA. Greece's EEZ is also Europe's EEZ. We are not sitting on our hands here. We are not being neutral: Greece backs Haftar. We are no longer on the sidelines.

If you think the answer is to send in troops, then why is no one else sending in their armies? Why does Turkey and Russia rely on mercenaries to do their fighting? There will be a time when such a move would make sense, but I don't see how now is the time. Understand that if we go in, the war will move beyond Libya's borders and we risk an invasion of Cyprus and of our islands.

I think the reason Greece continues to lose territory is that Greece still works off Dora's straw man of war or nothing. Turkey, Russia - everyone else works in the margins. Why can't Greece? Why shouldn't Greece send troops in a training capacity for Haftar's men - there is massive evidence that the GNA are the people traffickers of Libya. The Greek reason for being in Libya is just an excuse like Turkey's. Greece can say it is there to stop a humanitarian crisis, to stop refugees, to secure the nation vs ISIS - anything.

If you build a policy on 'Turkey will invade if we do anything' - Greece will continue to haemorrhage land and sea. Turkey relies on a victim to bully. The dynamic has to change. If Greece does nothing Turkey will start drilling and then what will Greece do? Open fire on the drilling ship? Or concede territoriality.. again..

[Filikieteria1821]

https://www.nordicmonitor.com/2020/0...rab-resources/

As if we already didn't know, the Lauseanne Treaty is seen as null and void to Turkey, this is from 2013.

[Don Giovanni]

Reaper

I'm not convinced we should install troops in Libya yet, but the time may come very soon. Bare in mind, Turkey only have 35 soldiers there:

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...lled-in-libya/

Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper quoted Erdogan in early February as saying that Ankara had sent 35 soldiers to Libya to support the GNA but noted that the Turkish soldiers will not participate in the battles.

Haftar claims he has killed as many as 16!

As many as 16 Turkish soldiers have been killed by the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by renegade General Khalifa Haftar, a senior official in the LNA claimed yesterday.

Let Turkey send in actual battalions, which I find unlikely. When or if that happens, we will have to send our own to support Haftar and go to war with Turkey.

An ND MP had this to say:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/249831/o...nt-in-the-room

Back in the days of the 1999 Helsinki Summit, Greece adopted a strategy that was based on Turkey’s westernization as the European Union recognized Turkey as a candidate state. That strategy is long dead in the water. The EU does not want Turkey in, nor does Turkey want to join the EU. However, until May 2019 Greece alone insisted on saying that the bloc must keep its door open to Turkey.

Our new strategy cannot be based on our abstaining from exercising the rights granted by international law. Today Turkey feels no pressure about going to The Hague, let alone on our terms. For Turkey to change stance, it must be made to feel that continuing its current policy will come at a cost. This means that one of the pillars of the new strategy will be moves based on international law and backed by the EU which will send Turkey the message that it is ultimately in its best interest to accept recourse to The Hague.

I think it will take a serious military threat to support our claims.

[Reaper]

OK, let's game this out together. Say Greece doesn't enter Libya and plays its now patented waiting game. Libya stays as it is - divided - as Turkey wants. The UN supported GNA still exists as do their agreements with Turkey. Turkey starts drilling below Crete for oil. What does Greece do?

[Don Giovanni]

We confront their ships and force them out, preferably with EU and NATO backing.

[Filikieteria1821]

Don, the problem is Greece cannot rely on NATO or the EU for support in an instance like that. The GNA is the UN recognized gov, and unfortunately is the gov that Erdogan is tied to in order to make his visions a reality.

It would be great if Greece didn't have to get involved, but Turkey's intentions, paired with Greece's laid back attitude that has been even more magnified by the financial crisis, plus Turkey's relationship with the EU & NATO, make getting involved in Libya the only real way to ensure Greece at least has a say in how things go.

Greece cannot move in unison with these big political organizations when those same groups do not have Greece's interests at heart. The EU talks a big talk but can never take meaningful action versus Turkey because far too much trade is done between them, and EU banks hold a ton of Turkish debt (Turkish Lira has is at 6.10 versus the USD).

NATO has gone out of its way to state its support for Turkey's cross border invasion in Syria, albeit without giving any meaningful military support, which is good.

When you combine all these factors together, it seems clear that Greece cannot trust these organizations, especially when Turkey is in the loop. Turkey posted a NATO inspired picture, where it shows Turkey controlling all of Cyprus. Do Greeks really think NATO is going to hold Turkey accountable if they decide tomorrow to have the 30+k troops stationed in the north to invade?

No shot in my opinion. Greece has to get back into the foreign policy/geopolitic game. Send some troops to Libya with Haftar's blessings. Let them train LNA fighters, and help with logistics, etc.

It doesn't necessarily mean we're going to have a positive outcome, but if you're not involved at all, then you really have no shot to influence anything.