CORRECTION: At the beginning of the video, we say 2016 when we mean 2006 (the year Cem Urdeniz and co. coined the term ‘Mavi Vatan’). Apologies, hope you nonetheless enjoyed the video!
2 ปีที่แล้ว +27
You are showing Gokceada as part of Greece in those basic map illustrations, you are absolutely wrong n this matter. The island is legitimately Turkish sovereign land. If you would claim otherwise, you are just a pro-Greek in these matters, not objective one to inform us.
UNCLOS plays a significant role in the South China Sea territorial disputes. In particular, the EZs do not apply to artificial islands that China has been building.
"debating" such an interesting way of putting it. If you are describing Turkey's expansionism in such a way, I can only imagine how you would talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An "extraordinary controversy" perhaps?
I think a reference to Russia-Ukraine was used as a convenient into rather than an actual comparison. However, 'debating for a very long time' could be said to be a precursor for a war in Ukraine so for me you actually made more of connection than they did.
@@juniorcrusher2245 yes, it is easy to take islands from Greece because these islands are so close to Turkey and it is so hard to defend islands that far from motherland.
@@Sabrintwitt3r thats true but it really depends how it all pans out. if its clealry imperialistic like russia then yes, but for example when turkey took northen cyprus the international community supported them
Please to all people who are not following closely this situation for years, please DON’T CHOOSE WORDS POORLY JUST IN FAVOR OF VIEWS OR TO APPEAR AS “UNBIASED”. There is no real DISPUTE over the status of the Aegean islands. Except Imbros and Tenedos all the other Aegean islands were given to Greece with the treaty of Lausanne. Same goes for thee Dodecanese which were given from Italy to Greece with the treaty of Paris. There is no dispute here. For further explanation you could invite an official lawyer to explain according to the UNCLOS and the international law the claims from both sides as well as their concerns. But don’t reduce matters that regard the very existence of a nation to a petty “dispute”.
There was no dispute. Read history. Wars are fought over disputes that cannot be settled by other means except through war. Prepare for Turkish beach landing very soon.
@@ahmetzogu3289 we read history and original documents and all. That’s what you should read too. Not newspapers directly controlled by a failed government. Sad thing you choose war. I thought only extremists wanted it but I see ordinary people think other wise nowadays.
Greece has urged Ankara to take the dispute to the international Court of Justice in Hague but turkey repeatedly refused. That's all you need to know about how legal turkey's claims sound.
just for a moment try to put aside western biasees, and then tell me how its bonkers that turkey wants equal claims to the agean sea as greece. it is factual that after ww1 european powers ran over the entire region, not having a choice, many of them were forced to settle with what was decided for them and im not talking strictly of turkey. now that turkey has some miltary and political power, they are pushing back and rightfully so.
@@tiredgardener the issue is actually nationalism, selfishness and racism. almost all problems in the world can be boiled down to those 3 issues. by stoking the flames of one or all of these learned behaviours, you can incite people to do literally anything, including bringing about incredible harm to themselves.
Greece has urged Ankara to take the dispute to the international Court of Justice in Hague but turkey repeatedly refused. That's all you need to know about how legal turkey's claims sound.
@@y.p.9797 According to every country ever. That's why every year there are things made legal that were previously illegal. Imperialism is projecting your power across the globe, not on your door step. Is it fair that Greece gets to control the Turkish Econmic Zone just because they own a bunch of little, uninhabited, militarized islands far from their homeland? No it isn't
@@Aloy-sh6gq dude the whole world stands with greece, only some muslim countries support you at this topic...you guys are insane...you signed a treaty and now you want to change it? Things doesn't work like this my friend...read carefully the international law
As a Cypriot I’m always happy when my tiny country is mentioned in a TH-cam video. Unless it’s in a TLDR video regarding Turkey’s “ambitions”. I hope this is the last time, but I highly doubt it.
Exactly, for some reason this channel alone fails to acknowledge Cyprus's independency and Turkey's illegal occupation of the north all together. Ignorance perhaps? Either way, I cringe whenever they mention us in their videos, not objective at all.
Turks have no ambitions. The Turks are defending themselves against the "Big Idea" in the official ideology of Greece, an expansionist and genocidal, western-backed rogue state. He tried to unite Cyprus with Greece in order to serve his expansionist ambitions and received a very harsh response from the Turkish army.
5:44 So the countries that haven't signed UNCLOS are: International pariahs like Venezuela, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Eretria; countries with no seas like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and also Turkmenistan, and. shoot it's the US again. Between that, the Rome Statute, Kyoto, and the International Statute on the Rights of the Child this is NOT a good look.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 I think you misread. Neither the United States nor Israel have SIGNED the agreement, whether or not they tend to "follow" it or not.
@@thefarstar4367 I never said that they signed it or ratified. All I say is they accept and they apply the rules of UNCLOS. Cyprus signed a maritime border agreement with Israel based on these rules.
There is not any Northen Cyprus no one recongises this ... the norther part of Cyprus is occupied and its not called Northen Cyprus but Occupied Cyprus.
How did cyprus occured? Greece battled with Turks win and get? :) Get lost cyprus is ottoman since 1571..and agean İslands stolen from us..greeks didnot win that İslands in war..if you dont win a land in Battlefield it is not your lands.a stolen thing soon ör late taken back bu owner so turkey took back cyprus half..agean sea İslands and half of cyprus taken back when cards are delievered again.. ww3 is right time possible..
IT bachelor degree graduate explaining an international issue and getting everything wrong i am not surprised at all. your perspective might be enough to impress chicks at pubs but definitely joke material among academicians.
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
for someone who isn't shy about writing, you seem to forget some critical facts in this one-sided story.... For example, the Montreau Convention, which in 1936 was signed by Turkey and concedes that the two islands Lemnos and Samothraki have every right to military infrastructure. Or In 1973 and '74, when Turkey unilaterally gives permission to its national energy company to perform searches for resources in the heart of the Aegean. Or Attila II, the second invasion in Cyprus in August 1974, when the turkish troops were secretly ordered to invade after the military juntas in Greece and Cyprus had fallen and the negotiations were still in place. To elaborate just for the sake of clarity, Turkey's absurd demands on the table were a plot for a complete invasion, while the new greek government was forbidden to send defence assistance off the greek shores. And that brings me to the third... Established borders are uncondional. If there is a militarization dispute, there are procedures and judges, not invasion threats masked as "sovereignty questioning". That is basic international law. Turkey knows that of course and has an absurd level of military infrastructure at her shores, but any reason will do for the conquests of Tayyip. Few more important corrections there: UNCLOS refers to archipelagic waters in reference NOT to the EEZ, but territorial sea (3/6/12 n.miles). EEZ is in principle defined by median regardless of main country bodies/masses. Of course, this has to be a result of an agreement, so differences can bilaterally be negotiated or decided by a judge. But the reality is that Turkey denies taking this to the ICJ because she has to commit beforehand that whatever is ruled will be respected regardless the feelings. Furthermore, it will be made crystal clear that the Lausanne and Montreaux agreements as well as the Peace Treaty with Italy give Greece ALL of the Aegean islands EXCEPT to the ones next to the Straits, whose greek population should have been protected (was taxed to oblivion in violation of Lausanne) and the islets which lie at a distance of 3 nautical miles of the anatolian shore. It would be absurd to name 2000+ island in a treaty, only the big ones are named, the rest are described as "adjacent". Turkey would gladly seize even one of them, as shown during the Imia/Kardak crisis of 1996 in order to claim commitment even though there is no turkish population or written evidence of her authority over them. Disclaimer: i have absolutely nothing against my turkish brothers. I feel Turks and Greeks share a common Ottoman history and we are only divided by religion and language, but culture is a lot more than that. My only problem is that a dictator is prolonging strife in our region that should have been gone ages ago. My hopes are that our poor countries keep the peace and prosper again for all people regardless nationality, race and political views.
Oh but then I read the rest of the nonsense. ''Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks.'' Has it ever crossed your mind that the Ottomans were THE BLOODY OCCUPIERS & COLONIZERS in the first place???
@@algovoice dude please be polite. that guy just clarifies something about language. I see a lot of english speaking channels struggling with turkish pronunciations. man we really need to get rid of this old geezer. with the current situation he could do anything and everything to stay relevant in next elections. I don't want my country to be an Islamic variant of Russia
As someone with Turkish roots i can say close to zero. Erdogan is still widely supported and his conflicts seen as righteous. the economic hardships are blamed on the „corrupt west“
@@MrFrage123 You havent seen the polls then. Minority trust him or blame the "west" for the economy. It is his fault so is the refugee crisis. According to the latest poll 25-30% blame someone else. 70-80% blame tbe government
@@MrFrage123 dude why are you straight up lying? Not even 30% support him in Turkey. He is the sole reason for the inflation in Turkey, its an absolute mess and he is still focusing on expanding territory into northern Syria instead of helping the economy.
Honestly, I understand why Turkey is unhappy with todays situation. It has a huge coastline, but a minor exclusive economic zone. The fact that Greece has islands almost at a swimming distance from Turkey makes the situation as it is. The territory around these islands should infringe less on turkeys maritime territory. The only agreement was more fair in my opinion.
On the other hand Turkey has a huuuuuuge mainland area tha is full of natural resources and coud be used as a farmland and as a habbitable area. Greece on the other hand has a very limited mainland that is mostly mountainous and makes it more difficult to farm and to build cities and settlements and related infrastructure. Building new national roads for example is a gargantuan task because of our geography (amongst other things such as corruption and incompetence and such, but the conversation is just about geography). So my point is that geography of a country may suck but those are the cards that you're dealt with so complaining about your "dice roll" essentially being unfair and trying to conquer neighboring areas just because you don't like your geography is literally imperialism.
Yhea. The current arrangement does seem heavily biased to island nations. This probably is in no small part due to the British Empire's signature on the history of maritime law. I think it would be fairer if some measure of the size of the land served by a coastline was taken into account.
Having islands next to Turkey us just like borders in Evros.m with the same sceptic, why Asia Minor's coasts are Turkish since you can swim there from the Greek islands? You guys are hilarious and hypocrites
1. Notice the thousands of Greek islands in the Aegean… hundreds of which are inhabited by Greeks and has been since Aristotle and earlier. 2. Understand a lot of Greeks call these islands “home” - some Greeks have never even stepped foot on the mainland. 3. Realize these islands are not “in between Greece and Turkey” they simply are Greece. AND they are certainly not some kind of prize dangling before Erdogan’s small greedy eyes. … Some find it absurd to compare Erdogan to Putin, “Turkey is in NATO…”, well that has not stopped Erdogan violating Greek airspace with fighter Jets and drones, violating Greek waters with gunboats harassing local fishermen and blocking much needed Greek hydrocarbon exploration and extraction, it has not stopped Turkey from drilling for oil and gas inside Greek water (summer 2020), using refugees as a political tool to gain leverage over Greece and the EU, making a EEZ agreement with Libya that literally cuts through the Mediterranean’s fifth biggest island Crete (Crete is 25 times the size of EU member Malta), it has not stopped Turkey from recently (two weeks ago) laying official claim to 152 Greek islands (with support from the Turkish opposition party CHP) and this summer Turkey is expected to try to install an oil rig in Greek waters… I don’t know what this sounds like to you but I see clear similarities to the dynamic between Ukraine-Russia before 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea. It would be a grave and costly mistake for the EU not to take Erdogan’s expansionist actions seriously.
gotta mention that greece was and still violating turkish airspace greece had to keep aegen islands that is close to turkey unmilitarized according to treaty of lausanne(peace treaty that signed after greco-turkish war of 1919-1921) but they wont greece invading small islands and and stones that is not mentioned in treaty of lausanne and millitarizing that islands against us even way and way before "mavi vatan" like since 90s and finally greece's claims on Mediterranean is absurd totally blocking turkey and turkeys aegen claims was a reaction to greece's claims you cant ignore a country like turkey
@@calebbearup4282 Turkey's Kurds are in a much greater situation right now We even used to have Kurdish president during 90's(Turgut Özal) and the 90's were PKK(Kurdish Workers Party[Terorrists])'s most active years
This has been a while. Of key note is also the Greek-Egyptian & Ottoman-Egyptian agreements that came about during the Greek war for independence and Greek-Turkish wars that still have some standings.
Greece never keep their agreements. They are violating Treaty of Lausanne and Paris. They are militarizing the islands on Agean sea which was banned on those treaties.. And even on treaty of Lausanne they agreed 3 miles maritime rights on agean sea once they expanded it to 6 miles and now they are trying to expand it to 12 miles. So Greece is not keeping any promise they gave and trying to get support from France and USA to follow their maximalist policies. Greece is not a island country. They have a mainland. So islands will be ignored while sharing agean sea between Turkish mainland and Greek mainland. France and England had similar problems. There are British islands on French coast which are ignored.
They already lived in our byzantine lands they want more ?? Turkey has 1100 greek cities ancient everything visit a museum in Turkey and show me something Turkish or ancient all Greek
Anatolia is not Greek. Greeks are just another invaders who came from the Balkans and enslaved/murdered Native Anatolians which were namely Hattians, Hittities, Luwians, Phrygians, Lydians, Kaskians, Hurrians, Urartians, Zanes, Trojians and so on.
This review should have noted Turkey refuses to have the international court settle the issue. Any agreement with Turkey outside of the court, could be brought up again decades later by Turkey.
@@chgian77 signed however the treaty of Lausanne, where it is stated that Turkey’s limit is 3km from its shores and has right only 2 specific islands. So what does it matter what Turkey signed or not? You don’t honour your signature any way
@@jupiterbirlesikgezegenleri9884 you hunted down the Christians in Constantinopoli and imvros and tenedos when the muslims of thraki remained untouched and you shouldn't who didn't honor the deal ? Also the islands militarised because and after the invasion in Cyprus . And thirdly we have every right in the world when we have an wannabe ottoman empire who is going with jets armed above and i repeat LITERALLY ABOVE HOUSES OF CIVILIANS OF THE GREEK ISLANDS to arm the islands to teeth.
To be really honest, it's true that the distribution of maritime zone between Turkiye and Greece is a bit unfair to Turkiye. It's true that it does look absurd that small islands take the priority over a large coastline. But on the other, if Turkiye had a more "fair" maritime zone, it would effectively cut the maritime connection between a lot of the Greek Aegean Islands. And since Turkiye is not in EU, it would also isolate them border wise. Greeks traveling between those islands would now need to cross Turkish border. And not only it would be very inconvenient for all the Greeks living there, but it would also be very impractical for Turkish authorities to control this nightmarish border. So it's not the solution either. All in all, the issue of the maritime zone in the Aegean Sea is a very complicated one, that needs some better solution, but certainly not aggressive moves from Turkiye. The best in short term would be to establish some kind of shared maritime zones between the two countries. But in the long term, all this would be SO much simpler if Turkiye ever manages to join EU and the Schengen space, in the future. Though, that would first require for Turkish government to stop considering their neighbors as ennemies and as land to claim. Edit : after reading some of the sub-comments, I have to honestly ask you if you guys know how to read? Some are accusing me of supporting Turkiye and Erdoğan's agenda, yet I'm explicitly denouncing Turkish government's agressive approach, and I'm explicitly explaining Greece's concern. I'm literally supporting a better status quo and a shared zone. So please, make sure you haven't only read the first paragraph before you go on answering in bitterness.
youve hit the nail on its head, but i would add that greek passport holding citizens having the ability to travel within eurozone will not be interrupted by turkish maritime borders is a pretty easy thing to implement
Turkey sold the islands to Greece and got in return Greek territories in Anatolia...now coming back for what they sold Turkey invaded the north of Cyprus now want all the EEZ of the island. They sound like Russia
I don't understand the not-fair argument. Is fairness based on the feelings of the parties or a system of laws? How do we delineate borders in the 21st century, using laws and courts or by sizing up military power? I am tired of people subtly encouraging expansion tendencies of Turkiye because it doesn't feel it got enough power/ land/ riches or whatever post WW2 and the disruption of the old empires. They got what was left after they conducted all their conquering and their warring as did all the other countries after the world wars. You don't get to expand borders, you don't get to change laws on your favor. You don't negotiate with pistols. The greek islands of the Aegean FAIRLY belong to Greece and they deserve their full fair and legal maritime zone. ALL of them.
I don't think it'd really affect the border crossings tho, EEZ is different from maritime borders. Maritime border, IIRC, only extends about 10 miles from coast where the country has full sovereignty. EEZ, which gives countries access to anything found in the waters, extends about 200 miles from coast, but doesn't restrict non commercial movement.
It's like your neighbors to your left and right make an agreement to share your garden. And when you say that's illegal they reply with "we don't follow the law the rest of the world follows"
Great video. I am from Rhodes. We are Greeks to the bone. We speak greek and follow all the greek traditions. The number of people that have a Turkish lineage is not greater than a few hundreds and they consider themselves as greek citizens. The 'minority protection' rhetoric is utterly unrealistic and reminds me of the Russian rhetoric that led to war. I am really sympathetic towards Turkish people and a kanun (shared instrument between Greeks and Turks) teacher. It is really stressful and sad for all of us who live on the Aegean islands to hear Turkish jets flying above our heads nearly every week for the last 20 years. This is what we are experiencing on the ground. I hope the situation doesn't escalate further...
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
@Shy Cracker to what are you referring to? Also thanks, these are indeed good points. In no why I am saying they arent for discussion, but we cannot even discuss anything for all platforms are superbly biased and whenever a Turk starts to make points- she is automatically attacked with ad hominems
You didn't say anything useful and you didn't take the side of Greece, supporting it with arguments. I'm fed up with those st@pid words about Turkish friendship woke up and see the danger before its too late
4:58 no no, you don't understand. Every single island is part of the Greek mainland. We didn't colonize them or something, the people there are Greek. They're as Greek as anyone from Athens or the Peloponnese or Macedonia or whatever. Turkey is the one who unjustly colonized our Eastern lands.
Constantinople is on the western side of the Dardanelles does that mean it belongs to Greece? Let's see Turkey demilitarize occupied Cyprus show us the way Erdogen
He wont. He is deadset on it. He made it his lifes ambition, he wont back down. Much like China. I dying power that looks strong. But if you know anything about Anatolia, it has the strange ability to make a weak dying power like formidable. And time and time again, it has been proven right.
Truth be told if I was Erdogan(I hate the guy bottom of my heart) I definitely wouldnt demilitarise Cyprus too when there is aggression from the opposite side but before all this aggression they were talking about the unification of Cyprus and independence but of course, political talks stop when both parties show their teeth.
why should them, why should they give up when they can take everything for them and have more than less, i dont understand nowadays world, yall are all dumb, being autoritarian means being normal. if i can get more, i do get more, I'm never giving up for the good of everybody, i think to myself and nobody else and this is totally normal
@@Theorimlig psycopath because thinks to their own good? omg, but then yall support kill of babies for the own good of mothers thats ok? bro i support authoritarian govs at all, its literally normality, psycopath is libertarialism that only benefits the blacks and women, authoritarianism is the normal way of behaving, why should i not try to take more, lmao dumb bro
@@PugkinSoup bro i dont care of some freedom of press if in change of that i can have my nation to be strong and rich and narionalist and i could get to be racist towards others and benefit from not accepting immigrant and not people with my race and be considered superior to others because i would benefit more from the second and honestly what freedom of speech, today we dont have a pure one, i cant say in public anyrhing about racism, fascism, national socialism and cant say i oppose this all, a true freedom of speech should let me talk about it and exprees my point of view in total freedom and not being insulted and hated by the society, if you do this you'd get the very opposite of this, so no, we dont live in a freedom of speech society
Just because Turkey has found itself with some unfortunate geography doesn't mean it can ignore international law and trample the rights of its neighbouring countries or in the case of Cyprus not even recognise them as a country. The Dardanelles block the access to the Mediterranean of several Black Sea countries. Conveniently Turkey doesn't have a problem with that unfortunate geography.
"UNCLOS does somewhat unfairly benefit multi-island states". Let's break that down, shall we? States that control islands first of all by definition have a special relationship with the sea, in which these islands are found. Sea fairing peoples populated islands; it wouldn't therefore seem so unfair that they control the resources around those islands. Those resources makes living on those rocks economically viable and the sea around them isn't unlike the mineral resources on the mainland. Just as Greece can't lay claim to the sweet water of rivers that run through Turkey or the Nile that empties opposite its shores, so too Turkey, or Libya can't claim the waters that wet our shores. Our shores sit opposite mainland Turkey across a thin strip of water, not by some weird coincidence, or a freak historical anecdote, like how British waters constrain the waters of Argentine. Greek islands, i.e. the islands of Greece and also the islands populated by the Greeks are a short boat trip from the shores of Türkiye because there Greeks also lived in huge numbers until a century ago they were violently evicted after 3.000 years from their ancient homeland, which they have dotted with countless splendid and timeless monuments. For all Turkish protestations, Turkey has limited access to the Aegean not by chance, but because there at the shores is as far as it could cleanse the land of Greeks. Greece and, before Greek independence, ethnic Greeks have been a formidable maritime power for two and a half centuries. The Aegean is not the water mass between Greek lands, it is the blue fields we tamed and have harnessed for 3.000 years. Had we had no access to those fields, not only would there be no Greek history, but the history of the Black sea, North Africa and the middle east, Sicily and Italy would have been unrecognizable. Few things, few claims in the world would be more unfair than to lay claim on waters, which according to international law fall under Greek sovereignty and Greek sovereign rights.
Historical claims to the islands will not make your point any stronger but will indicate your ignorance to the subject; this comment is a bellwether for further turk and greek comments proving but themselves the islands and the sea covering their sphere are in their inherent right to possess. You Turks and Greeks will not be able to achieve anything nor hammer out any agreement so long as you don't lay aside your historical achievements which in fact doesn't even belong to ''you'' anyways.
To put it simply why the analogy is with british Island (Turkish absurd invention) is not the same: Greek islands' territorial waters start near mainland and end near Turkish coasts. Even with 6nm the distance is so small that makes Agean sea a Greek homogeneous "lake". With 12nm, 70% and more is greek sovereignty, because teritorial waters = sovereignty. Because of this unfortunate for turks reality, we are entitled for such big EEZ. Even without kastelorizo, because of Crete (5th biggest island of Mediterranean sea), Karpathos and Rhodes, Greece is still entitled of EEZ in East med.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 it's actually 81%. But Turkey thratens with Casus Belli if that happens. Turkey acts like the world still runs on 16th century empires
First Greeks territorial waters have remain in 6 nautical miles and not 12 as unclos gives the right as to not create unnecessary tension . Second Turkey often cross in Greek territorial water with warships for decades. But the aggression has reach the point of repetitively talking about invasion of the Aegean island in Turkish media by political and military leaders without even hiding anymore with maps and plans and what actions to take. And from how things going it's almost certain that it will happen soon.
They would probably start third world war by doing so, as it would turn NATO against them, making its members less capable to respond to any additional threats until it is resolved. Then China could decide it is their best chance at taking Taiwan. USA could intervene and India might help too as they might see this as a good chance to deal with their rival. Pakistan might get involved as well, considering that they got somewhat friendly with China while hating India. However, I don't see here how Turkey comes out on top from this. They would probably go from "economy is in bad shape" to stone age.
@@staryimoze That's why they play with both sides. If relations with NATO goes sour they will jump over to the Russo-Chinese ship. NATO however is preparing for quite sometime for such a result, improving Greece as strategical ally while demoting Turkey.
@@perseusarkouda I suppose they could strike once NATO is busy with China and then hope to gain something, but they would be basically completely closing themselves to any western country for like forever and condemning themsleves to do business with Russia and China; I'm having a really hard time remembering when was the last time someone benefitted from partnering with those 2 like that. I doubt that Turkey could hope to gain much other than a couple of islands and extending their access to sea and it doesn't seem worth ruining your country any hope for progress. Maybe it is just their current dictator idea for strengthening his grip on power and he just doesn't care if he will rule over a rubble of a country, something that is fairly possible I guess if you look at similar cases.
@@staryimoze Dictator Erdogan wants to leave a legacy behind him. Turkey wants to be an empire again. This is their dream. So, he wants to expand in every direction possible. They know that cannot afford a war with Greece, which is the 2nd strongest army in EU, after France, which is becoming more advanced than Turkey’s army with resent arms deals made. So, he will try to gain anything, without fighting. If he fight, he will lose, so Erdogan’s name in history will be a disgrace for Turkey. Tough situation, considering also the economical issues, but he can only blame himself! His decisions for greatness may doom Turkey and there is no easy way out now!
Because Turkey is not a part of UNCLOS the agreement on aegean sea can not be overruled. The principle of international law is the fact that only the signing countries are responsible for the agreed rules and restrictions. At the conflict we saw earlier between italy and greece or much more around the world, islands themselves would not enable an access around 12 miles into the sea.
As Turkiye has applied the 12 miles zone in the black sea and therefore used UNCLOS legislation to their favour, they have recognised UNCLOS in front of the international community even without signing the treaty. Had Turkiye continued applying the 6 miles everywhere, they could use this argument, but from the moment they extended their waters in the Black Sea they automatically recognised UNCLOS as valid.
@@sargon1241 that's not my logic, that's the logic of international law. There's something called "common law". You might want to look it up. This is not something I personally have come up with,this is standard of international law. If Turkiye had extended to 11 miles they still would have agreed to UNCLOS, as before UNCLOS 6 miles was accepted as common law and everything further would have been a violation. So to not recognise UNCLOS as common law Turkiye would have had to stick to the 6 miles everywhere.
"Conflict between itlay and Greece." There is not such thing. Greece's Ionians islands (west of mainland) have 12nm teritorial waters like 160+ countries already have.
@@sargon1241 before UNCLOS no country had signed any treaty that referred to territorial waters bigger than the 6 miles. The 6 miles were accepted by the UN as common law until UNCLOS. So which treaty are you referring to that claimed any country had the right to extend their territorial waters over the 6 miles? Edit: forgot, sorry: If Turkiye as a sovereign country could just extend their territorial waters as they please,the same would be true for Greece, so Greece could just claim whatsoever territorial waters in the Aegean, but Turkiye claims that exactly this is not the case.
Sure, whatever you say. They said this before the Invasion of Cyprus, they said this after Turkey shot down the Russian jet, they said this before Turkey entered Syria.... And how'd they play out I wonder? :)
@@bbugrayuksel This is different because Greece is an important player in the region that they will not let turkey take over which you can clearly see by the recent supply of weapons.
@@comingafteryou5352 Greece is not an important player, Greece is European, this is the difference. Recent supply of weapons mean nothing to us when we already produce them. So either Greece chooses to play by the rules, or the shit goes down.
@@bbugrayuksel It is by position, let alone its own power. You produce inferior weapons that aren't that good in combat as the USA weapons aka the reason you still need to buy foreign missiles and jets.
What europeans dont understand is this is not a topic about Erdoğan and his policies. As an Turkish who hates Erdoğan i fully support him on this topic. How can an island with 500 people lives just 2 km far from the Turkish coast can create an eez same size as Netherlands. This is not just at all!! Turkish nation is willing to bleed for this. Are you?
Think a lot of people are going to stand up for international law, just look at Russia and what’s happening to it when they disregard another nations sovereignty
Can you tell me if the greece’s claims are just and fair? Greece have a population of 10 million. There is twice as many people just living on the west and south coasts in Turkey. I dont want any conflict as any sane person. But wont go quiet while this happening also.
If you want to fight for this then go ahead. The international community will not be on your side. The precedent that this would set would be awful. You can't just claim all the surrounding seas as yours. It's imperialism. You don't own those islands, therefore you have no right over the water's surrounding them. Its not the 1909s anymore where nations have empires. You can't just claim more than half of Cyprus' EEZ cos you feel like it. There won't be a war over this cos you ain't stupid enough to do that, cos you'd isolate yourselves even more and be kicked out of NATO. This is a classic example of the kind of nationalism that I'd the very reason the world can never be at peace. Cos there will always be nations like your who think they're 'entitled' to more territory at the expense of others. If Turkey wants this to change, it has to change it through legal means either via negotiating with Greece or lobbying to change international law.
They can based on international laws The question is how Turkey get aegean coast? I know it was full of greeks, did the Greece give it for free. The blood principle is risky and sometime catastrophic
@@GreekArmyVeteran95 9 milion population trash country surviving with the hot money from germany. claims whole turkey coasts because of few small islands. not gonna happen
Turkey has made some truly bizarre decisions. But, wanting to go back to the days of ottoman empire is a pipe dream and blackmailing Finland and Sweden with NATO isn't helping turkey's reputation.
Nothing is biased, the only biased is the "unfairly benefits" which is just a personal opinion. Law doesn't care about your fellings. Get used to those facts
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 To be not biased , he should give each sides arguments in his video. So we can compare both their arguments and decide which side is more right than other. In this video he is generally,no almost completely looking from Greece's window. I think I'm not the one who is writing according to his feelings.
@@emirhanyldz2342 because every other thing turkey claims is absurd and non-logical. What? The militarization of islands that supposedly disputes sovereignty?
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 Because according to Lausanne and Paris traties that greece signed, these island were given greece.One of the condition is "unarmed" islands.I don't say that my country's every action is true and rightful but in this case Turkey is right. However it is okay that Greece feel threatened by Erdogan's high volume speechs but what Micotakis did in the America and arming the islands is not the way feel safe. I hope one day our nations can find a way to get along but it is so unlikely with current presidents.
@@emirhanyldz2342 no. Turkey is not signatory to Paris treaty, Italy and Greece were, so according to Vienna convention and rules of diplomacy, Turkey cant have a call upon this. Greek islands first were militarized almost 50 years ago, which is almost half a century, after Cyprus invasion when Turkey threatened them. Greece according to UN charter and article 51, no matter what any treaty says, still has the right for self defense. Are Greek islands threatened? Yes, with Casus Beli if Greece extends its territorial waters to 12nm with the right it has as 160+ countries have already done, with military drills simulating ampibious landing and island control, with overflights above greek inhabited islands, violating article 13 of treaty of Lausanne, with Imia in 1996.
Imagine you have 2800 km coast in Aegean sea but you cannot float your ships there because there are little Greek islands near your country. Ridiculous.
@@antonyaris3 It is not something new :) We Turks live here since the battle of manzikert, in 1071. Almost 1000 years have passed, ofcourse we have rights on aegean region. Don’t be ignorant, be informed about the world and adapt yourself to the current era.
@@antonyaris3 With that logic UK should claim all Atlantic ocean cuz of falkland islands. We don't claim islands but say small islands can not have all the sea area agianst a huge continental mainland . Europeans having double standarts as always.
Stop exaggerating your claims..you mention Turkey is claiming ‘much of the Mediterranean’…but what you show on the map as per Turkey’s claim is but a fraction of the Mediterranean Sea. Not a big fan of turkey, but please use your terms correctly to convey your point without using false terms.
Here is the second part: 7i) You say that: '' For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923.'' 7ii) Again, you should read the treaty of Lausanne yourself. There is NO such thing as demilitarization of the islands. The treaty states in the Article 13 that: ''With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria: (I) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands. (2) Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands. (3) The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory.'' These and only these are the restrictions for the 4 islands mentioned above (no other island has any restriction), yet Turkey erroneously claims that ALL islands near the Turkish coast should be demilitarized completely, which is laughable and is not supported by any treaty whatsoever. The legal ownership of the islands is stated loud and clear, Turkey gets to keep Imbros and Tenedos, and the little islets 3 nautical miles off its coast, and Greece gets to keep the rest. Turkey also completely abandoned its rights to the Dodecanese islands over to Italy, which were given to Greece after WW2 by Italy. By the way all these islands are nearly were and are still inhabited only by Greek population, with the exception of Kos and Rhodes which has a small minority of Turkish people. It doesn't matter if Turkey doesnt like that they gave up their sovereignty over these islands over 100 years ago, Greece may not like that they gave up their claims on Anatolia as well, but what can anyone do about it? Countries must accept these things, or the world would be a jungle with constant wars all the time, and nobody really wants that. 8i) You say that: ''Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece.'' 8ii) Greece didn't wake up one day and said I want to conquer some lands, the mass killings (genocide) of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and other minorities in Anatolia during and after WWI are a fact and only Turkey does not accept them. Greece interevened in order to protect its population, the same reason Turkey uses for their invasion of Cyprus, yet the situations are not even comparable. Both countries shed blood and accepted this peace treaty, which is why both countries should honour it and not shed blood again. 9i) You say that: ''Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks.'' 9ii) Ottoman empire does not equal Turks, by that logic the Young Turks went against the Turks to establish a republic. You know very well that Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and other countries invaded the Ottoman empire in order to assimilate the people, of course they were war crimes commited by all sides, but painting Greece as an invader on the basis of the Ottoman empire is absurd. 10i) You say that: ''Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried.'' 10ii) I know that it may come as a surprise but most of the European countries are not even ''christian'', especially Western Europe, which is now mostly atheist. Yet Erdogan uses terms such as crusaders etc. which are extremely anachronistic and only apply to people with no real knowledge of geopolitics. 11i) Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. 11ii) Turkey does not see itself part of any camp because it has made everyone their enemies with its extremely aggressive behaviour. There are many countries invaded by other countries over the duration of history, Germany invaded and occupied Greece, destroying its people and its economy, yet Greece has got over it and is now within the same European Union. It's time Turkey got over of what happened 100 years ago. Plus the Russians were not Turkey's enemies during 1919-1922, the Soviet Union even supplied Turkey with weapons. 12i) You say that: ''Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.'' 12ii) No, it has nothing to do with race, Turks are a pretty mixed race anyways, it all has to do with the current mindset of the people. When your own president says ''We will throw you to the sea to swim like we did before'' and other War threats, and the whole common people cheer, it does say something about the people. Plus, Turks are infamous for despising nearly all their neighbours and their neighbours' neighbours. Turks really hate Kurdish people, and they consider Armenian people at the very lowest, so don't be so quick to accuse others of racism. Plus, let's not just overlook all the Neo-Ottoman sentiments, speeches of a new empire, the Pan-Turkism theories etc.
@@yasingursel1611 Such an overwhelming argument to defend your point of view. I know it must be hard to answer to all of those facts that I mentioned, so you resort in childish insults. Pretty much an amalgamation of Turkish foreign policy.
@@yusufklc2962 Ok and? The Roman Empire took all of Anatolia, but that doesn't mean Turkey is Italian. If the Turks are upset about their borders, the shouldn't have joined WW1 after 200 years of losing wars.
@@blackmesa232323 Turkey is satisfied with its land. It is the Europeans who have their eyes on Turkish soil. They call it the oriental problem. The First World War was fought to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and establish Israel. The Second World War was made to frighten the Jews living in Europe to emigrate to Israel. The 3rd world war will begin to take Israel's holy lands (the area from the Nile to the Euphrates) and Israel to destroy the Masjid al-Axa and build the Solomon's temple in its place. You should shut up about things you don't know.
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
@Six Sins Erdogan will stay because he is dictator. Turkey stopped being democratic country almost decade ago. Turkey is now enemy of humanity just like Russia and China is.
@Six Sins tbh erdogan has lost huge portion of its voters over the past 2 years due to economic mismanagement and the fact that almost all stupid decisions he made always backfired on him and affected ordinary turkish people negatively. recent local polls show that the opposition has a chance of knocking him over in upcoming elections, which is scheduled for june 2023, almost 1 year remained. but Im sure turkish people will vote in favor of him anyway despite 100% inflation rates and weakened turkish lira, also erdogan, during his last meeting, lost his temper and insulted those who are against him, he basically referred to people as "bastards" who are against him. imagine a president talking smack of his people when addressing them. anyway Im sure he will stay in power for extra 4 years or maybe he'll just pass the chair along to one of his dog loyal inner circles and run away with all the money he managed to embezzle during his power, who knows.
@Six Sins I never said that world is living in democracy. Though it would be better than being ruled by single dictator and live by under their brutal psychotic will. West is the only society on the planet where people are allowed to be free and enjoy their lives as they will. Whetever you think rich elite is controlling it or not, it doesn't refute the fact that western democracy has managed to bring best living standards for people who live under it. Thus therefore it's far more preferable to live under several "rich elite" than live under single dictator.
@Six Sins Whetever you think about who really rules the west, it doesn't refute the fact that people in western nations enjoy most liberty and well being than in any nation on this planet.
It'll be fixed when the government change do not worry. But how are you going to fix your military equipment in case of a war though? Wait for European daddies to ship you goods and you pay pay for them on your knees taking it from the back :)
While NATO needs Turkey as a member, it allows Turkey to be a bit more thuggish as the knows full well that NATO can't afford to lose Turkey. That being said, removing Turkey from NATO might give them more justification to be even more thuggish. So either way it is going to be a bit of an issue for NATO.
Turkey is definitly the most problematic member of NATO, in terms of ideology it everything NATO stands against. However NATO needs Turkey, they are going to be a hostile nation if not being a NATO member, NATO will loss control of a crucial trafic junction, and wherever NATO don't intervene, Russia and China will, just like Syria. By accepting Turkey as a NATO they removed a major adversary without firing a shot.
@@DrRusty5 it would depend on who attacks who and the scale and how the attacks were made. I doubt a small border squirmish would make other Nato countries intervene. But if you are talking about Greece and Turkey you have to remember Greece is a member of the EU and generally has better relations with other NATO countries than Turkey. Most of those countries would most likely support Greece though it is hard to say exactly what this support would entail.
@@DrRusty5 Nothing. Turkey and Greece almost went to war in 1974 and is still in kind of a cold war and NATO did nothing. Article 5 only applies when an outside force attack a NATO member.
Actually, the so-called "Greco-Turkish disputes" is not an Greco-Turkish bilateral problem but an issue of International Law and ONLY the UN Court can give a solution. The problem is that Turkey wants to avoid that and try to force Greece via military pressure to bilateral negotiations outside the UN framework and Laws. When Greece reacts Turkey becomes more aggressive and accuse Greece that is avoiding dialog. I am afraid that sooner or later Erdogan will play his last card and there will be a carnage having in mind the enormous fire power of both countries
Turkey supported the application to the court, but Greece claims that Turkey rejected it. While Turkey says that we should go to the court for the sharing of the Aegean Sea, Greece rejects the offer to apply to the court for the Eastern Mediterranean because it does not see any problem here. If there is a court for the division of the Aegean, Turkey will join.
@@canerdiyebirisi after the video you saw you believe that Greece rejects the UN Court? The UN Court give solutions according to the UN Laws and it is Turkey that don't like the UN Laws, not Greece. You know, Greece has the same problem with Albania since Albania reacts over the influence of some small Greek islands to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in the Ionian Sea. Both countries signed a deal and agreed to apply their dispute to UN Court. Peaceful, civilized and without drama. Simple as that
@@mariosathens1 there will be no war. As a Turk, I can guarantee that there will be no war. Because the economy and the people do not allow it, the people do not want war.
I can write the text replacing Turk and Greek in your text. like " When Turkey react Greece becomes more agressive and accuse Turkiye". The difference is you write in Greek premise.
they already spent huge amount of dollar reserves to artificially boost the turkish lira and increase the demand, which didnt quite work out though, considering the turkish lira curved all the way up to where it was previously at prior to the central banks decision to spend dollar reserves.
The Turkish Army is 70% domestic production and is a self-sufficient country in terms of war technology, which gives it the strength to fight for many years.If the situation is Economy, the country that owes 466,130,000,000 USD is Greece and the war will not work for you at most, non-native planes have a limited lifespan.10 transit trips for Rafale will total 112 million USD. Part/system purchase is $45,000 to qualify for purchasing service.In short, the first country that can't handle a long war is Greece.
@@enesaydn6054 turkey economy is collapsing and is surrounded by enemies. If turkey goes to war with greece, iran and russia will invade eastern turkey, and kurds will revolt domestically. Two front war plus civil war. and then turkey is done. Turkey is a very weak country compared to iran and russia, and terrible economy.
@@mnezon1314 🤣🤣🤣 russia will support us if we fight with Greece wtf you talking about and i am sure that too Iran hate Greece they can support what you talking about hahahaha i will dead you are living interesting earth
The map of Seville was not issued by the Greeks so definitely not an imperialstic map but by the University of Seville following an order from EU and shows EEZ of Greece with maximum EEZ rights for the Islands !!!! If Turkey thinks this map is unfair can go to ICJ and resolve the issue !!! Is that simple !!!!
@@NIKOLASINGLESSIS actually why should anyone go to any court when there is an written agreement signed by both countries already in place. the new map of seville is taking into account agreements not signed by both parties. if we are starting to handle international politics by what 1 side has agreed to and not the other what will happen if Turkey agrees with lets say mongolia that islands do not count against territorial claims but only continental landmass is relevant. it would be absurd because greece would not agree. similarly it is absurd that greece or anyone else expects that Turkey abide byan agreement it did not sign
@@kaanboztepe 169 countries has signed UNCLOS and now it is ethimical law and applies to all signees or not !!! When two countries have different opinions on a matter either they go to a court or to resolve to war !!! Your choice !!
@@NIKOLASINGLESSIS so we can sue the US for warcrimes in the Hague because of what they did to native americans etc. although the US did not sign the agreement but 150+ countries did?
I post my comment on the answer of a Turk claiming a lot of false things, as it seems that the majority of Turkish people support what he says: I am sorry but your whole narrative is not only extremely biased, it is also full of holes. I will now proceed to adress your extraordinary claims one by one: Before I begin though, since I see that you mention the Treaty of Lausanne repeatedly, I would suggest you actually read the Treaty yourself, instead of hearing about it in the Turkish news. 1i) You say that: ''Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles'' 1ii) Firstly, the treaty of Lausanne is a treaty signed by a number of countries, not just Greece and Turkey, and I'm not saying that for minor reasons, I'm saying it because it means that those countries are legaly obliged to honour and secure the treaty as well. As for the 3 nautical miles, these are referenced 2 times. In the article 12, it is stated that ''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.'' The second is in the article 6, where it states: ''In the absence of provisions to the contrary, in the present Treaty, islands and islets Iying within three miles of the coast are included within the frontier of the coastal State.'' This is a reference to Turkey, and it states nothing whatsoever about territorial waters, as we know the term today. It just means that the borders of Greece in the Aegean were set at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast of Turkey. 2i) You say that: ''in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores.'' 2ii) The two countries actually had their territorial waters extend to 3 miles, not because of any treaty signed between them, but because they had the right to do so in accordance to the newly formed laws of the sea at that time. The laws about territorial waters have changed over the course of history allowing the countries to go from 3 miles, to 6 miles, and finally 12 miles at is today. Greece extended its territorial waters in 1936 indeed, because it could now extend them from 3 to 6 miles according to the new laws. But this act was not a violation of any treaty between Turkey and Greece, as I stated before, as there were no agreement between them for the territorial waters. In 1964, Turkey extended its territorial waters from 3 to 6 nautical miles in the Aegean, while applying 12 miles extension to the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. As far as I'm concerned, the Greek government did not say anything to object this decision. 3i) You say that: ''First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters.'' 3ii) No, it doesn't state that in any way. In the part VIII of the UNCLOS treaty, which concerns the islands, it is stated that: ''Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.'', with Paragraph 3 being: ''Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.'' Of course, since there are thousands of islets in the Mediterranean, there are some that truly cannot sustain human habitation, but those are around the habitated Greek islands, which have their own EEZ, as stated by the UNCLOS treaty, so it makes no difference. Also, the article I mentioned applies to all states, not just archipelagic states as you claimed. You should also take a look again at the Mavi Vatan doctrine, as it completely denies any rights to the EEZ to the archipelagic state of Cyprus (which Turkey is the only country in the world to not recognize), and also (very ironically) gives EEZ rights to the occupied northern part of Cyprus. 4i) You say that: ''Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims.'' 4ii) I highly suggest that you look on the map of the EEZ of Uk, France and Spain, you will be surprised to see that all these countries have applied the EEZ of their islands (some of them ar half way across the world by the way) and their mainland alike. This includes the 12 nautical miles extension, which Greece is the only country in the world that hasn't applied its legal claim, because it is threatened by Turkey not do so. Also, the Channel Islands (the Jersey islands that you mentioned) do have an EEZ, it's just not part of the EEZ of the mainland United Kingdom. By your logic, they shouldn't have, and France should have the EEZ of their area, yet it's the complete opposite, lol. 5i) You say that: '' As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal.'' 5ii) Please prove, how is any of the Greek islands right now ilegally occupied? With documents of course, not extravagant claims. Even if you find 1 (Which you won't) unfortunately for you, the EEZ still applies for all the other thousands of islands. 6i) You say that: ''Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first.'' 6ii) Believe me, if Turkey had the law advantage it would have gone to the ICJ to solve the dispute years before. You do know that the ICJ works by the right of UNCLOS right? That does not favor Turkey so they do not want to go that way, they are claiming that Turkey and Greece should not solve disputes through other countries and laws but between themselves, in order to hide the fact that it is not favoured by any international law, hence why they won't ever agree to solve the dispute through ICJ. There is not a single time where Turkey asked Greece to solve the Aegean dispute, aside from the eastern Mediterranean, and Greece refused.
And here is the third part: I would also like to add, that you're referencing the treaty of Lausanne and UNCLOS a lot. Turkey does not recognize UNCLOS, so how come you try to use it to defend it? Also, the gazillion times that Turkey has violated the treaty of Lausanne (the very treaty that you claim is so important for Turkey and that Turkey sees it as a very important text) seem to have passed you by completely. Let me give you some examples: Treaty of Lausanne: ARTICLE 38. ''The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to ali inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion. All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals. Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order. ARTICLE 39. Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems. All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law. Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries. No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings. Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts. ARTICLE 40. Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein. ARTICLE 41. As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools. In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes. The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned. ARTICLE 42. The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities. These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers. The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institu- tions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature. ARTICLE 43. Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest. This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.'' All these articles were not only ignored by Turkey, they continually violated them with the peak being the pogrom against the Greeks in Istanbul in 1955, where a large mob of Turks attacked and destroyed hundreds of houses, shops, schools, churches and even cemeteries of the Greek minority, including the raping and killing of a large number of Greek people. In result to that, 250-300,000 Greeks forcibly left the city and their properties were confiscated by the Turkish state. Let me give you another example, Treaty of Lausanne: Article 13 paragraph 2: ''Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.'' (meaning the aforementioned islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria) Turkish planes have been repeatedly flying over these islands since decades now, harassing the people with low flights etc.
This is absolutely correct but it must be remembered that the Treaty doesn't exist in a vacuum the Treaty which is actually one of the worst treaties in history, exists because it has parties who are signatories to it like any treaties (hence the name) and the other Balkan Treaties like London, or Berlin. If the sections of the treaty on each party and kept to and the signatories do not hold the parties to their agreements within the treaty then that treaty whatever that treaty is has become worthless.
I am Turkish and neither Turkey nor Greece have faults in this problem. this problem can be solved at the table, but there are countries that do not want this problem to be fixed, these countries are the USA, England and France. When was underground wealth found in the Mediterranean? after that, they want to attack here like a hungry dog. in it, to fight two countries of the same culture, to sell their weapons, to buy underground riches and finally to issue war debts. but these countries think we are stupid but we are not the property taken is not given back. If it is to be taken, you will not leave even 1 person. I don't know Greek. Don't expect other countries to use your own lands for years, but never expect this from Turkey.
I wish this was true but Erdogan is the one that keeps wanting to revise more stuff( muslim minority, demilitirisation and others). For us it's only the EEZ.
This idea that Greece shouldn’t claim the majority of the Aegean Sea within its EEZ is absurd. You don’t like it? It seems like too much? TOO BAD. It is what is to be attributed to Greece for owning the vast majority of islands in the Aegean. If Turkey doesn’t like it, then it would have to declare war to claim those islands, which would lead to a humanitarian disaster, the scale of which isn’t seen even in Ukraine.
Couldn't have said it better. Turkey agreed to surrender the islands in exchange for land in Europe and now argues that Greece doesn't have a right to use the land that Turkey gave up because it is unfair to Turkey.
turkish here and Im sure turkey has no guts to declare war on greece over those tiny islands scattered across the aegean sea. because turkey is the one that has given away some of its crucial islands in the first place. Ive never looked into it but prior to erdogan, some 12 islands were given away to greece for some reasons and erdogan's turkey now desperately seeks to get hold of those islands one way or another.
Η Συνθήκη της Λωζάνης έδωσε τα ελληνικά εδάφη στη Μικρά Ασία στην Τουρκία, αλλά ξεκαθαρίζοντας ότι η Ελλάδα διατηρεί ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΝΗΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΓΑΙΟΥ. Αυτό θα πει ότι το Αιγαίο παραμένει ελληνικό. Ζήτω η Ελλάς! 🇬🇷
@@cravingtuna1561 when did this happen? oh right during european imperialism where the drew arbitrary borders for the entire region and theybwere forced to settle with it. now that one nation in the region has power to push back, all of a sudden its not okay? yeah no, fuck that, world doesnt work that way
According to the renowned historian Donald Kagan the Aegean is the heart of Greek civilization. Everything Greek evolved around it, on all sides of the Aegean. The Greek islands aren't away from Greece, they're where Greece is at.
Nicaragua and Colombia had a similar maritime dispute, and the International Court of Justice found a compromise, awarding an EEZ to a collection of Colombian islands off the Nicaraguan coast while denying it to others. Anyone interested can google the resulting map. Referring the case to the international court of justice would make the most sense for Turkey and Greece but unfortunately, Turkey refuses to do so. I wonder if Greece should submit its claims unilaterally like the Philippines did to delegitimize China's 9-dash line in the South China Sea (and ended up winning).
You're lying. Turkey does not reject this, the Greek side rejects it. Because the Greeks broke the treaty and the law. He armed the islands, which he said he wouldn't arm. I wonder why you feel the need to lie.
@@baskansparrow8260 That is not a treaty on maritime international law, you are talking about the treaty that awarded the dodecanese islands to Greece, which stipulates that they should be disarmed. Greece maintains that Turkey has no say in the matter, as Turkey is not a signatory to that treaty, it is between Italy and Greece. Greece has indeed armed the islands as they are being threatened. Greece and Italy can revise the treaty, removing the demilitarized condition.
@@baskansparrow8260 Did you even understand what the man is saying? 1st Turkey has no say in the treaty between Greece and Italy. Turkey hasn't sign it. 2nd Greece , and this is a well known fact, is willing to take Turkey to the ICJ but Turkey is refusing with passion for the past years. Stop being bling for your sake pal.
When you highlight that the Greek islands are located just a few miles off the Turkish coast you should have mentioned that there's over 1500 islands all over the Aegean sea, spreading from the Greek mainland to the Turkish coast and that all of those islands together form a network that covers the whole Aegean sea. So it's not that the Aegean sea is empty and there are only a few Greek islands next to Turkiye, instead Greece spreads out all over the Aegean sea through hundreds of islands. One out of ten Greeks lives on an island, that's one Million people living in the Aegean sea. How many Turkish people live in the Aegean sea? A few hundred. There's a reason why UNCLOS gives islands the same rights as to mainland only if the island has been inhabited for a long time.
i think greeks, turks don't live on the islands because you killed them you can find them on the internet 100 thousand folk songs killed in mora island
@@demirkandemir10 actually I live on a Greek island and of course we have Turkish living here. Also maybe you don't know that on the islands the Turkish population never was high.
Simple... Turkey has already invaded Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, interfered in the neighboring Armenia Adjerbaijan war and Libya civil war and now wants to invade the only remaining country being Greece, unfortunately for Turkey, Greece is not in Ruins like the rest but is recovering from financial crisis so Turkey knows it has a small remaining time window to try
Are those the lies you live within to justify your ignorant biases? OR Are those lies that you learned from your kitty high school? New puppet state for US is greece however, they will abandon them when tension is go up with Turkiye. Learn something from history for god sake.
@@MrErdem95 Cyprus: the turks destabilising the goverment and causing a fuss because god forbid the majority gets it's will of unification, driving the people who only cared about driving the brits off the island into friction with them (Because imagine if only the brits didn't win in the end by playing both sides). Also good job of them causing one of the worst humanitarian crisies of the 20th century, keeping a country torn in half and refusing to leave for 48 years(and unfortunately, still counting) ,even though any justification since attila 2 was unsubstantiated and the global community condems it(not to mention all of the military and civilian MIA's who's fate turkey still wont disclose, and the mass graves left on their wake). Syria: kind of ironic whining about this concidering turkey supports islamic extemists/terrorists and is a safe heaven for them. Armenia: oh boooohoooo the little Armenians that could bearly win against azerbaijan is such a threat to big turkey....the Turkish goverment wants half of the surrounding area but suddently the non existant threat of Armenia is an excuse to be an ass huh? Libya: Recognised or unrecognised doesn't change the fact Turkey still supplied arms and mercenaries to a zone that was supposed to be under an ARMS EMBARGO TO HELP HOSTILIES SETTLE DOWN. Oh, plus Turkey couldn't care less about what's the legit goverment...they just want the one that sides with their illusions of grandeur and their E.E.Z. plans. Indeed, such a good day we're having.
@@bluesky8797 Turkey as a guarantor country landed on the island to stop Greeks killing Turks so they cant claim a greek only island. You should thank makarios for it, he fucked it up all for you. For the record , 371 British servicemen killed by EOKA in Cyprus as well as 700 Turkish civilians plus 500 odd still missing. Turks ruled Cyprus for 307 years, did you think Turks were gonna watch and do nothing while you were killing Turks , claiming the whole island and unite with greece. Secondly, there is no maritime boundary between greece and cyprus , even USA backed off from your pipeline plans as well as Israel. Egypt is now claiming to have more territory after signing a deal with greece too. they realised they made a mistake. Finally, everyone can check the map now and compare the size of the countries and how they share the EEZ. Turkey will never give up her rights in Eastern Med as well as Aegean Sea. Better mention here that Greece is the only country on planet earth claiming that greek islands in Aegean Sea has 6 miles territorial sea and 11 miles airspace which is laughable. if you again trust EU , USA or France to support these fucked up ideas of yours, you gonna end up in the Aegean Sea again and it might not be in September this time. All these countries are using greece to put pressure on Turkey which is not working and will never work.
Cyprus was not invaded, Turkish Cypriots were rescued from a genocide... Turkey did not invade Syria, merely created a 30km zone to protect our civilians living close to the border (so far 4000 Turkish and Kurdish people living on the Turkish side of the border were killed due to artillery and mortar attacks. Turkey has very limited presence in Iraq, and that is mainly to chase and terminate PKK terrorists harbored by the Iraqi, Irani, and US governments... The whole world was supporting Armenia, I guess that's ok, but when we support our brothers that bugs you... Greece has the worst economy compared to the others mentioned (except Armenia), and with a population of 10 Million, has negligible power on any front against Turkey. You should wake up from your daydream asap...
I have an even better idea, what if Greece reinstated the megali idea and took the Turkish coast? Then turkey won't have to worry about its EEZ anymore, win-win 🥴
@@recepkucuk6516 you only have drones we are armed to the teeth and with secret weapons all the aegean is boobytraped remember that little mongol you will be swiming back to mongolia
Turkey will never go to ICJ over EEZ borders cause they know that they might gain some square miles in Kastelorrizo but will lose in the rest of the Aegean islands and that will be the end of Mavi Vatan.
Cancel your reservation in ICJ that refuse to recognize authority of ICJ about territorial water and airspace limitations and military activities, then let's see who is right and winning the case!
most people don't understand the situation because their countries don't have islands or as many as we do and they don't get that mainland=islands for Greek people the islands are as important , as any other place in mainland Greece . it just happen to have sea instead of ground in between. Those islands were are and they are gonna be Greek till the end of time.
Lol sure dude the meis island is just 2km away from turkey and it is used by the Greek government to extradite people who are against the government just like the French did when they didn’t like officers they send them to Haiti but there is a little problem about this for Greece Haiti was an ocean away while meis in your words is “mainland Greece” sure dude whatever you believe
@@alpacino6859 You are ignoring islands like Chios, Lesvos, Samos, Rhodes , Crete , Karpathos etc that have thousands of people living there for hundreds of years. Greek islands are not just greek on the map, they have history and a special relationship with the sea from which they live off of
1. Even without Kastelorizo (Meis) Island, Greece still is entitled to sovereign rights east of Crete in East Med. Unless you think the 5th biggest island of Mediterranean sea along with Karpathos and Rhodes islands, are not entitled to any EEZ. 2. Even if USA or Israel are signatory to UNCLOS, both of them follows it. An example for that is Cyprus and Israel's maritime borders and EEZ agreement. 3. There are not "unfairly benefits" as you claim, for multi-island sates. What kind of phrase is this? It's the LAW. Otherwise Denmark a similar case with Greece, wouldn't be entitled to EEZ. Similar with Indonesia. 4. and this goes for all Turkish trolls: Greece has islands that their teritorial waters(= sovereignty, not sovereign right as with EEZ) start next to mainland and ends near Turkish coasts. This makes Agean sea a homogeneous Greek "lake" that almost 70%(in 12nm from 6nm that is now) is Greek sovereignty. Because of this reality, we are entitled to such EEZ, there is not any suspicion any conspiracy about greece-friendly laws. It's the geography, the law and the sovereignty. And because Turkey knows that who owns the islands, owns the sea, threatens us with war or makes up absurd claims like that "the militarization of islands, dispute the sovereignty". 5. In case a Turk claims that Greece with one or the other way, landlocks turkey's exit on sea, free transition passages is a navigation rule in UNCLOS. An example for that is Denmark, which according to turkish logic closes the from Baltic to North sea, but it doesn't.
While I disagree on many (maybe even all) public policies of Turkey, I invite you to forget the maps you saw in the video and try to divide the sea in the region yourself as fairly as possible. Also consider the fact that most of the small islands in the aegean sea has no population and include any human activity. You will see the borders that is proposed in international law for Turkey is truly unfair.
Why divide the sea exactly? Why not divide the coastal line at Anatolia or the area at the passage to Black Sea nice and fairly? Because Turkey wants the sea Greece has to give its territory? What if Greece claims the shore of Anatolia, would you support to divide that fairly or not?
@@annas4843 Divide the sea because historically sea is divided according to already defined land borders. Even international law defines maritine borders according to coastal borders. Thus land comes first than waters and apart from cyprus there is no land disputes between Turkey and Greece in their continental territories. That is the reason why Greece claiming Anatiolian Lands or Istanbul would be much more absurd than Turkey's claim that international law is not fair in their situation.
@@irkv1007 That was my personal invitation not Turkey's. Just eye ball it what border do you think is appropriate between two states? I don't think if that wasn't for Turkey's bad reputation on international issues, The border that Turkey proposes (especially on eageon sea) is quite close to most people would agree. at least much closer than that UN law proposes.
@@furkanunsal5814 the sea is already divided according to already defined land borders, international law of sea and Treaty of Lausanne. What more is needed? You claim Greece’s attempt to make same claim as Turkey does would be irrational but Turkey’s make sense only shows how biased your view is. For Greece there is no dispute, these are the borders that have been agreed, if Turkey doesn’t like what it has signed then that gives the right to Greece to claim areas as well and not only unilaterally to Turkey.
Of course. Also the map is not really true. Greeks islands have 6 mile(10km I guess)eez according to real map. I would link it but youtube delete it. İt is greek propaganda trying to make Turkey look bad
Ok then as a Greek I want a rightfull part of Constantinople, a part of the Black sea and off course a big chunk of the historically Greek coast of Anatolia. That's also fair I believe. Also it's fair for the poor millions of Kurds to have a country where they lived for milemnia, meaning in many parts of Turkey. Afte rall they are millions, with their own ethnic properties, culture and language. That's fair too. Do you agree?
I'm Cypriot myself. Cyprus, the island as a whole is recognized internationally as a country since 1960, celebrating 62 years. Turkey invaded it in 1974 with a similar excuse that Russia invaded Ukraine and illegally occupies the north part since then. No one but Turkey recognizes the north as a seperated state, it's Turkey's puppet state with Turkish politicians and settlers imported by Turkey and its actions there are codemned internationally (see Varosha Ghost Town etc.). It's important for the world to know how things really are in this area and how many nations, not just Cyprus, are tormented regularly by Turkey. Syria was also invaded by Turkey 2 years prior and it's about to do it again as we speak. It joined the 2020 war with Azerbaijan (a Turkic tribe) against Armenia, a nation that Turkey commited genocide against 100 years ago, 1,5 out of 2 million Armenians killed. An other genocide around that time was commited against Pontic Greeks, speaking of which, Turkey violates the Greek air space many times DAILY (probably they are doing it now as well) and delusionally claim the Greek islands for theirs and demand their demilitarization, it's not only about the EEZ. Turkey constantly hunts down Kurds in an attempt to exterminate them from Turkey. That's how the whole PKK came around and they used them as an excuse to kill all the Kurds or to support their views for other maters (Sweden and Finland in NATO). They teach Turks from an early age that every Kurd is a terrorist (see Kurd talks to Turks, in youtube). Turkey violated the international arms embargo set in Libya and intervened militarily there. It blackmails the EU with more immigrants if they don't meet their demands. It cooperates closely with Russia for missiles and other weapons and it's the only NATO member that refuses to impose sanctions on them but in the contrary, it offers them more benefits as we speak. The whole veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO is an arrangement it had with Putin so Russia can get what it wants, with the fake excuse ofcourse, that these 2 countries support terrorist organizations. These and more is happening with Turkey in our area and I only scratched the surface with what they did in JUST THE LAST 2 YEARS. This nation is a threat to our society and the world.
Even though the long term occupation was unjustified, the initial invasion of Cyprus was absolutely justified. As for the EU, their demands are pretty reasonable, as they’re only asking for resources to deal with the refugee crisis they’re saving Europe’s ass from. They don’t HAVE to hold all these refugees if they don’t want to
@@furkangurbuz8583 I mean there's a LITTLE bit, the occupation of Cyprus has overstayed its welcome, and the Armenian/Pontic genocides were very clearly a thing, we have the records from witnesses and the Ottoman government. Plus I think the Kurds could be treated a little better, though it's not nearly as bad as it was.
@@furkangurbuz8583 What I stated with my previous comment is 100% based on FACTS and nothing else. It's information one can find anywhere with a little search. There is no reason to lie about something so serious. I would advise you Turks to take a good look in your government and evaluate it before going in every page trying to debank everything bad associated with your nation. It's ok if you don't like the situation with your country, but go after your government/politicians, not the people who simply state what's going on in the outside world, otherwise it will be too late for you to fix it.
Turkey and Greece have been debating about their sea borders since they singed and agreed to them in a treaty the problem here being that it has been discovered recently that there is a lot of oil in the Greek and Cypriot economic zones and Turkey even though it has no claims wants a piece of that
no. We have an agreement and we comply with it. There's no single discovery made in the Turkish coast. Turkey still offers fair share of resources if found. Don't confuse people as claims whilsts we are offering peace and collaboration in order to resolve the conflict. What GR wants is to exclude Turkey and make news everyday just like now in order to cry and ask for help for fake threts greece produces.
@@yabadabadoo3418 everything outside of 3 nautical miles of Minor Asia (Anatolia), with the exception of Imbros and Tenedos, belongs to Greece. Source: Treaty of Lausanne
There is no such thing as a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". There is only the Republic of Cyprus, with 40% of it's territory being occupied by Turkey. This is the status of the North given by the international community, security council, etc. So just for future references, call it with it's appropriate name. - Occupied part of Cyprus..
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
Imvros and Tenedos are islands with Greek population given to Turkey a century ago with the obligation to respect the Greek inhabitants. After a few decades Turkey forced the local Greek populations to abandon their islands where they had been living for thousands of years. After this violation Imvros and Tenedos should be given back to Greece since Turkey did not respect the terms under which obtained these Greek islands. The ultimate goal of Turkey is to do to the rest of the Aegean islands what they have done to Imvros, Tenedos and to Cyprus: Invasion and ethnic cleansing. The Turkish claims on the Aegean sea waters are part of this goal.
To not risk a war, yes. Now that we can risk a war, why not? It is unfair to us, and the moment has come. Either Greeks agree to a fair-share, or we enforce the fair-share.
Yes, because the islands were under Italian control. When Germany invaded Greece, it offered to give the Islands to Turkey, but Turkey remained neutral and refused the islands.
@@bbugrayuksel kid we don't care about your feelings you should grow up and learn to respect the international law but i guess everything can ve explained easily since erdogan is gonna have a rough time with the new elections plus your inflation rate just reached 73% no wonder he wants to distract you all
This channel is obviously biased. Turkey's 'plan' you mentioned is aligned with international law of the sea and case law. Turkey has the longest coastline in the Mediterrenian. We can't just give up on our rights. Islands should have only limited continental shelf and eez. They can't be considered as their own mainlands. Greece extending their territorial waters to 12 miles is ridiculous and this is a 'casus belli' for Turkey.
@@hamlet557 Greece isnt an island country. Their small islands and islets cant have their own EEZ. Look at similar cases between other countries in history
Well, let's clear some things out. First of all, all countries (even island countries) have a right to their EEZ. Let's take Malta as an example. Since they are an island as well as a country they have a right to claim what the international laws allow. The same applies to both the UK and Cyprus. Furthermore, countries that also happen to have islands also have rights to have a normal EEZ / maritime borders. Take Italy and France for example. They both own islands within the Mediterranean sea and they recognize the fact that each island also affects the way the maritime borders are set since they are considered as actual national territories. Just because Corse (French island) is closer to Italy than France doesn't mean that Corse is not eligible for EEZ/ maritime bordes. The median line between France and Italy is not calculated based on the "mainlands", on the contrary, their islands have affected its outcome. As a result, Turkey's point on drawing a median line based on the mainlands is not logical. From negotiations POV (if they ever go there), Greece could be more relaxed towards Kastellorizo to ensure a permanent Aegean greek sea.
You don't give a biscuit to appease a thirsty monster otherwise its going to eat your finger. No, kastelorizo is entitled to EEZ as well. Let's go to the court.
@TheSoundInYourHead You don't want to go to the court, for many years now. Otherwise, you would had accepted our invitation to bring all matters to the International Court of Hague! Instead of that, you use pressure, force & threats to make us talk outside of a court and come to a solution. So do not lie my friend because facts are undisputable! The thirsty monster can die out of thirst. This is not and never will be our problem!
@@SpirosMargelis I'm geek man. What are you talking about!? I said that kastelorizo is entitled to EEZ as well and we don't make discounts on our rights to appease turkey. That's all I said.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 LOL! Sorry sude! I must have confused your sayings with some other's sayings! LOL again ... There too many F* comments about this conflict! A real war ... of the keyboards LOL
Dear Dimitris, None of those case seem to shed light to the problems between Turkiye and Greece, because all of the case are in open sea unlike Egeans which is close sea. In none of those case one party block the sea to the other party. Increasing your neutical miles to 12 means blocking Turkey to mediternean sea, which is unbearable. Given that Turkiye is the side of the sea, she should naturally have right on the resources. Do you think limiting the fair share of Turkey to 3 ml. logical. Needless to mention about the logic in the case of Kastellorizo, -a tiny island unvisible on the map - which also block Turkish mediternean sea.
not a fan of modern Turkey. What they did to the Armenians and other minorities as well as their invasion of Cyprus and threatening Greece. should be removed from NATO.
3:28 it is NOT "Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus" but Occupied areas of the (united) Republic of Cyprus because those areas have been invaded in 1974 by Turkey and are illegaly occupied since then. This is not a state just to make it clear.
4:58 in 1923, after the brutal Asia Minor war, we made a peace agreement where the Greek lands in Anatolia would be given to Turkey, however all islands in the Aegean except certain rocks 3 miles from the coast would remain Greek. This means that all the maritime areas are also Greek. Turkey should be satisfied with what it has, because the Aegean is rightfully Greek.
@@youraverage90sguys7 If you want more war to change borders, we're ready to defend our fatherland. Your loss. I was just explaining the situation to an international audience, which yes, prefers peace over war. But then don't come saying boo hoo Greece wants war, because you're the one causing it and you're the one who wants to steal our land and people.
@@youraverage90sguys7 are you out of your mind? What is nonsensical about clearly defined ethnic borders? This is not Africa pal. In Greece live Greeks, and Turkey has no moral or legal right to claim Greek lands. It did it before and ended in genocide. We're not allowing that for a second time.
@erdal kazancı it hasn't "slapped" me a single time. Greece on the other hand has beaten Turkey countless times in war and in diplomacy. That's why I'm not afraid of you or anyone who's trying to bully us without any knowledge of history. Your claims are baseless and the Greek government is for the first time in 10 years doing the right thing by not caring at all about them. Soon we will also extend the maritime zone to 12 nautical miles, to disarm the Turkish cause of war. Erdogan can't reasonably attack, given the war in Ukraine, and then his entire reputation will crumble like a house of cards. Greece has justice on its side, that's why it's not backing down. If I come to your house and I say it's mine, you don't split it or share it. You tell me to get out and show me the property papers. This is exactly what Greece is doing right now and it's good. Run back to your cave
Treaty of Lausanne, the maritime jurisdiction area is 3 miles. Greece opposed the agreement by increasing it to 6 miles. Then Turkey went up to 6 miles. Actually, Turkey was supposed to stick to the agreement and not do it. Turkey left the islands and rocks it left to Greece on the condition not to arm them, but Greece even placed air defense systems and multiple rocket launchers there. They wants something that is not accepted in the world and wants the islands it owns to have maritime jurisdiction. If it is accepted in this world, many countries will have to fight. Maritime jurisdictions are calculated with reference to the mainland.
you crazy or what? the international law , which is above any local agreement, defines the minimum of 6 miles. And the last changes , give the ability to raise that to 12 miles, without asking anyone. I don't know if Lausanne really says for 3 miles , I have go read that, but even if it did, that can't change the international LAW.
@@wakeno.6047 There are many decisions in the world that the islands do not naturally have the right to create a continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. International law aims to reach a just solution in delimitations. - In the case between England and France in 1977, it was decided to completely surround the islands close to the French coast and not to give them the right to the continental shelf. - In the case between Malta and Libya in 1984, equidistance to Malta was not taken into account, Libya was given more maritime jurisdiction. - Between Tunisia and Libya, the Italian islands close to the Tunisian coast were not granted a continental shelf and an exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial waters. - In the 2012 lawsuit between Nicaragua and Colombia, the Colombian islands were located off the coast of Nicaragua. These islands were also not given influence beyond the territorial waters.
@@buraktufekci9615 First of all UNCLOS III came into force in 1994. Anything before that was under different laws. Secondly while the 12 NM of territorials waters of islands are non-negotiable under UNCLOS it is true that EEZ is open to negotiations and if those fail the matter is tranfered to the Internation Court of Justice. Problem is that turkey neither recognizes the international law nor the ICJ unless it is of benefit to them such as in the case of Blac Sea that they use 12NM territorial waters while not signing UNCLOS themselves.
Lausanne doesn't have to do neither with territorial water nor EEZ but land. The 3 n.m you mention are indeed states in Lausanne Treaty but for different purpose. According to Lausanne all islands more than 3 n.m from anatolian coast belong to Greece and less than 3 n.m belong to Turkey. When Lausanne Treaty was signed there wasn't any knowledge on EEZ. These came up later with UNCLOS when Turkey suddenly realized that things don't suit it anymore.
Greece's claims make sense. They are entitled to the water surrounding their own islands. Turkish claims on the other hand make no sense, they want to control the water around Greek islands, even though they are populated, practically wanting to cut people off from their own country.
@@imo6927 well you say they Will be cut from their motherland but you literally trying to cut sea acces to turkey with your unclos fantasy.. You really think Turkey would allow this? I don't
@@TMPOUZI I don't know what Turkey is doing in the Black sea, but I: - doubt they would enforce something that they never signed - am pretty sure the black sea isn't a landlocked body of water (due to the Bosphorus) - doubt they have the authority to do that anyways I welcome you (or anyone else) to discredit any of my points with (preferably) logical statement(s). It's not you, it's me, seen way to much trash talk that doesn't make much sense.
You made the claim on black sea UNCLOS enforcement, it is up to you to prove it @lionlog205 only pointed out his doubts on the matter, which adds little but is very welcomed to do as part of the conversation.
@@TMPOUZI But you made the claim that Turkey was enforcing UNCLOS, why am I the one who has to prove anything? And also, I never said my points were absolutely correct, but I have my doubts on the validity of your comment. Lastly, I don't see how my comments are 'nonsense', I personally believe that they are entirely logical.
Greece is not Ukraine and Turkey is definitely not Russia. They could try and invade since they have large army but the Greeks have a massive army as well compared to the country's size. It won't end well.
@@fercek9452 Is it really something you want to do though? Sure you make take/destroy a bunch of islands, but will it be worth it if for example Izmir with 4 million citizens is turned to rubble as well..? I hope both our leaders are not that stupid and we will continue to have peace...
@@ar1sm70 ofc not, I like Greek ppl. We have lived together for many years. We have a lot of common things. But I support my country in this matter. We just want have our rights in the Aegeon sea and not be isolated
Greece is not an island country like Japan or Indonesia. It is a mainland country with islands. Therefore the continental shelf is calculated based on the mainland of Turkey and Greece. Turkey is right in its thesis because according to the international laws, islands of a mainland country do not have continental shelf. For example, the Spanish islands close to Morocco have no continental shelf. They divided the continental shelf according to the mainland of Spain and Morocco. This example confirms Turkey's thesis. The Greek Islands have 6 miles of territorial waters. Turkey does not object to this. Turkey also does not want to seize the islands. Turkey just says the islands do not have a 200-mile continental shelf.
If you conveniently pick and choose what UN laws should apply to you, I'm sure you can find a way to have a border with Spain... No Greek would object with some middle ground in areas where you're too restricted, but the law is explained in the video VERY CLEARLY. And if anything is unfair in an inhabited Greek island to be surrounded by Turkish waters when you own only 2 islands! ridiculous
That's fair enough, but the refusal to acknowledge Cyprus as a country just looks bad. Also the direction of travel of Erdoğans government in general is worrying. Are you still seeing inflation rates over 70%?
Greece is equally an island country and a continental country, since ancient times. The islands and their people are essential parts of the greek nation, they're not of lesser importance than mainland. We're an island nation like Japan but we're not a continental country with a couple of islands like Italy for example (excluding Sicily). You can compare Greece to Denmark. Go tell them that Copenaghen isn't as Danish as the Jutland.
Not all of it - the areas surrounding Greek islands. Which is basically what happens in EVERY other part of the world. If Turkey doesn’t like the fact that these islands are Greek, I’m afraid they’ve got to deal with it - or declare war, which I’m sure would get Turkey destroyed very easily.
@@IOANNOU28 Do you really believe any country will accept to have zero control of its sea when they have 2800 km of coastline in that sea? No country will accept such a thing. So Turkey will never accept. Even If whole world supports Greek claims, Turkey will not accept.
@@mertcankaya279 The thing is that at some point Turkey would have to make a choice. Go to war against Greece, which means against world law and order or accept and respect international laws, respect its neighbors, stop wanting to grasp other countries' territories and have international compliance. Turkey has vast resources and capabilities! Within the Eu could skyrocket its economy and the living of its people...instead of that some part of Turkey, seems to focus on neo-ottoman conquest fantasies.
I like how eu is so fully focused on ukraine a non european member and neglecting/ignoring its own eu member greece who is under an immediate threat from turkey ~i am not saying ukrained should be ignored but i dont like double standards or hipocrisy
let's be honest though, Turkey is not in any position to do anything. Their economy is crumbling and if they attack an EU state, they will be given some serious sanctions effectively damaging their economy and political suicide for Erdogan. Plus, Turkey would be having 3 stand off at the same time, 1 with Russia since they decided to get more involved that they should've, the second with Syria and Russia as a pair and the third would be against the EU. Erdogan is not good at politics but damn, even he would see that this is political suicide.
Yeah because russia is a superpower and america wants it boycotted, no one will give a shit about greece they are all sheep believing whatever Americans want them to see
Is it ignoring it? What do you think they need to be doing about it that they aren't? I suppose you're worried about Turkey just claiming parts of ocean, like in the deal with Libya and building oil rigs, and you would like the EU to help Greece seize any Turkish construction like this or to keep the Turkish navy out of Greek waters and they aren't? Are you hoping for some kind of "diplomatic" help you're not seeing. (I'm not really sure what that entails.) Or are you just talking about public awareness? On that note I don't think it's very fair to expect different: (The rest of this reply is a bit rambly and obvious.) Ukraine has been at war since 2014 and is now facing a massive Russian invasion. There is no war in Greece, nor (I think) even on Cyprus. I will grant that Ukraine is not IN the EU, and there is no war anywhere in the EU (though troops of some EU countries are involved in conflicts outside the EU) and Cyprus is probably the most at risk EU member, with Greece nearby. Thus, Cyprus and Greece are likely the EU's biggest defense commitment that's actually inside the EU (and, given how much the EU disparages Russia for thinking the internal politics of neighboring countries can constitute a security risk, it's maybe hypocritical for the EU to think that a war inside neighboring country, indeed the same neighboring country, is one). However, my understanding is that the EU is primarily an economic and customs alliances, with political and especially military cooperation secondary, snd that NATO is the primary alliance for defensive issues for most EU countries, including Greece, and also for Turkey. As for NATO neglecting member states, if any one's security is being neglected, it's clearly Turkey's, since Turkey is the only NATO member which has a significant armed conflict ongoing on it's soil (ca. 100~300 dying per year, though that MIGHT be conflating Turkey with parts of Syria, in any case it's down from >2000 killed in 2016) and I don't THINK that NATO's helping them much at all, except that most or all members (not sure about Norway) call the PKK a terrorist organization and SOME NATO members also shun or persecute Rojava organizations in some ways without calling them terrorists. (To be clear, I'm not actually saying NATO should help Turkey more, since it's woes are a combination of a civil war/police action and it's invasion of the neighboring country of Syria, supporting it's own particular brand of rebels and occupying a buffer zone around it's border. Neither of these is a foreign power attacking Turkey on Turkish soil, or at least not doing so unprovoked, so Article 5 doesn't really apply, though NATO is also more than just Article 5.) As for NATO protecting Greece from Turkey. It is a little bit unclear how Article 5 would work if ine NATO member fought another, but, if read literally, it should trigger against the aggressor. Now, in wars, both sides usually claim the other side started it, but, international law ought to favor the country protecting it's old borders from foreign incursion, and most of NATO is probably biased towards Greece anyway (except in that Turkey is a more militarily useful ally), so I imagine most of NATO would back Greece if Turkey were to actually launch some land-grabbing invasion.
@@Mr.Nichan First of all the EU can start by not selling weapons to a war mongering nation that could potentially use these weapons against a European Union member (Spain building aircraft carriers for Turkey) , secondly they could impose further sanctions that would make erdogan sweat with his country's economy in tatters and thirdly the European Union should make an hardline announcement that Greece would be defended at all costs....you have to understand that Turkey doesn't understand the art of diplomacy from its foundations they only knew war and genocides (Greek genocide, pontic genocide, Armenian genocide). As for Turkish involvement in Syria , what do they want there? They don't care about Syria they just want to further oppress and kill Kurds (another justification that the Turks only know violence) i can see turkey only backing down with strong threats and economic "slaps".Call me a Greek nationalist but its not Greece that creates trouble with its neighbors but its turkey (Greece, Cyprus,Armenia,Syria,Iran) no wonder many accuse them of neo-ottomanism. As for NATO i have not seen anything more biased against Greece (i will send a video where stolkenberg disregards/ignores the daily Greek airspace violations but only cares about Russian violations against turkey)
@@smugpug4509 The Greeks are the nation with the best swimming skills in the world. Their high level of swimming abilities come from their genes. They have always swam throughout history.
100 Million people will not get anything from Egean sea and little Greek Island and population is only 3000 will get everything ? Do you think it is farl
First you aren't 100 million and second the unclos as you show in the video allow for a small island to have that much area. I know that you don't like it but you've got to deal with it just like you deal with the rich getting all the wealth and the middle class just a piece.
With that logic UK should claim all Atlantic ocean cuz of falkland islands. We don't claim islands but say small islands can not have all the sea area agianst a huge continental mainland . Europeans having double standarts as always.
With that logic.. there is not any logic. UK contintenal shelf doesn't reach Falkland islands. Greece tho does. Besides, Greek island's teritorial waters(=sovereignty) are connected each other staring near the mainland and ending near Turkish coasts, which makes the agean sea 70% and more, sovergn Greeks territory,thus such EEZ. We are entitled for it under law and the law is law. OK? It's not the eurpeans as you claim on.
You mean with Greece's logic? Someone said something about Greece considering itself an "archipelagic country", which changes the rules, to get more ocean claims. It's an exageration either way. The Atlantic is a lot bigger than 200km across.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 You are not entitled to anything Greek. West is on your side cuz they just hate us. Not cuz of you are right. Yes we need to work harder and after TFX we should produce our 6th gen unmanned fighter jet , fighter drones and we also need nukes. Thanks for reminding us that we need to work harder greek. Good day.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 "Law is law" , the law you are mentioning is not signed by Turkey , it didn't get signed by bunch of countries.You can't just sign some papers and direct your rule to another country with it if they didn't sign it as well. Claiming entire place just because Greece have small islands where nobody lives couples km to Turkish mainland is just stupid.Why in the world Turkey should accept your so called "law(!)". Both countries should come together and come with an agreement themselves where they both accept the rules and sign an agreement.It doesn't happen because both Greece and Turkey are joke countries where we can't talk about anything.
Greece wıth its maxımalıst clıms askıng everything but no reactıon from othersıde and if any reactıon it is called " war ". u better to break hellenıc dreams and respect others rıgjts..
@@recepkucuk6516 A puppet state, as you claim has maximalist claims and you did nothing for a 100 years? You the superpower? Wow, I'm impressed with Greece
We talking about Greece first. I did not say that Cyprus has no EEZ . The big circle is Continental Shelf and inner circle is EEZ . U can not mix them . If there is connection within 200miles with mainland country and an island , island may have limited EEZ due first circle but u Just treat that u are an island in open sea.. Come on
The area in the black sea is compeltely normal as Turkiye is the country with the biggest black sea border. The eagean sea debate has been going on for a hundred years because of the massive number of islands and smaller rock-like bodies of land which are not clearly owned by anyone. Both nations have been competing for the eagean sea for a while. The only questionable debate here is the eastern mediterranean, and even that is questionable for greece also with their maximised claims and the whole twelve sea miles issue. As someone who votes for CHP and despises Erdogan, there is no wrong-doing here in erdogans part. It is simply a fight to protect Turkey from Greece's similar claims, just like the mentioned small island just below turkey making greeces claims larger. Of course Turkey is going to try to maximize its sea control when you have a neighbor doing the same thing in thr mediterranean. Its simply politics.
Yeah, they definitely have a point here. Obviously I’m not privy to all the finer points but it certainly seems like Turkey is getting screwed here, especially with how ridiculously large Greece’s EEZ is.
Only in this case expanding the sea control to half the aegean disregards the control of the greek islands on the waters? Why is that? You do realize who is the maximalist here, right?
@@tsaprailis You are greek my brother, of course you are going to support greecr and I will support turkey; because we both look at different points of view. But please tell me how a nation like greece can have double the size of maritime control over the mediterranean when turkey has half of it? How can a single island that far away from greece can completely block turkey from the mediterranean access? Does that make any sense to you?
@@EpsilonUnitGaming Both countries are going for the maximalist approach because the other doesnt back down. Both have faults clearly. But telling this issue from greek point of view and completely making it seem like turkey is the one in the wrong here is making me sick. I am disappointed of this channel, biased.
CORRECTION: At the beginning of the video, we say 2016 when we mean 2006 (the year Cem Urdeniz and co. coined the term ‘Mavi Vatan’). Apologies, hope you nonetheless enjoyed the video!
You are showing Gokceada as part of Greece in those basic map illustrations, you are absolutely wrong n this matter. The island is legitimately Turkish sovereign land. If you would claim otherwise, you are just a pro-Greek in these matters, not objective one to inform us.
UNCLOS plays a significant role in the South China Sea territorial disputes. In particular, the EZs do not apply to artificial islands that China has been building.
@ and you think Cyprus is Turkish. We are equal
@ Its literally a claim no person ever cared about
You need a lot of correction man.
Turkey and Greece has been debating about the sea borders for a very long time, but comparing this situation to Russia and Ukraine is just absurd.
"debating" such an interesting way of putting it. If you are describing Turkey's expansionism in such a way, I can only imagine how you would talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An "extraordinary controversy" perhaps?
We're not debating anything. Turkey is just claiming Greek land that even itself 30 years ago would accept as fully Greek.
I think a reference to Russia-Ukraine was used as a convenient into rather than an actual comparison.
However, 'debating for a very long time' could be said to be a precursor for a war in Ukraine so for me you actually made more of connection than they did.
Is as much as debate as someone has his house closer to the fence and try to steal part of your territory it but excluding any space covered by shed.
There is no debate. Aegean is Greek sea. Turkey has zero legitimate claims and that's why has ZERO international support.
I think I speak for a lot of Greeks when I say that if Turkey pushes into the Aegean, we will both quite easily fall quickly into war.
turkey would dominate in any war. greece is too hard to conquer fully. but turkish drones and the military taking islands should be easy
@@juniorcrusher2245 France will side with Greece as the rest of Europe, Turkey will quickly be crushed
@@juniorcrusher2245 but doing so under extreme sanctions is extremely difficult
@@juniorcrusher2245 yes, it is easy to take islands from Greece because these islands are so close to Turkey and it is so hard to defend islands that far from motherland.
@@Sabrintwitt3r thats true but it really depends how it all pans out. if its clealry imperialistic like russia then yes, but for example when turkey took northen cyprus the international community supported them
Please to all people who are not following closely this situation for years, please DON’T CHOOSE WORDS POORLY JUST IN FAVOR OF VIEWS OR TO APPEAR AS “UNBIASED”. There is no real DISPUTE over the status of the Aegean islands. Except Imbros and Tenedos all the other Aegean islands were given to Greece with the treaty of Lausanne. Same goes for thee Dodecanese which were given from Italy to Greece with the treaty of Paris. There is no dispute here. For further explanation you could invite an official lawyer to explain according to the UNCLOS and the international law the claims from both sides as well as their concerns. But don’t reduce matters that regard the very existence of a nation to a petty “dispute”.
There was no dispute. Read history. Wars are fought over disputes that cannot be settled by other means except through war. Prepare for Turkish beach landing very soon.
@@ahmetzogu3289 we read history and original documents and all. That’s what you should read too. Not newspapers directly controlled by a failed government. Sad thing you choose war. I thought only extremists wanted it but I see ordinary people think other wise nowadays.
unclos is bullshit turkey doesnt accept it anyways.
@@mehmetsahsert3284 oook………
Greece has urged Ankara to take the dispute to the international Court of Justice in Hague but turkey repeatedly refused. That's all you need to know about how legal turkey's claims sound.
What I get from this channel is that Turkish public policy is bonkers!
just for a moment try to put aside western biasees, and then tell me how its bonkers that turkey wants equal claims to the agean sea as greece. it is factual that after ww1 european powers ran over the entire region, not having a choice, many of them were forced to settle with what was decided for them and im not talking strictly of turkey. now that turkey has some miltary and political power, they are pushing back and rightfully so.
Seriously, a danger to NATO if anything.
@@youraverage90sguys7 Good points.
I meant this + non-recognition of southern Cyprus + their economic policies.
Haha yeah! Beautiful country, bonkers leader
Which is true ngl
It really does seem that a lot of the chaos in this world comes from greedy old men with too much power and imperialist ambitions.
🇬🇧
More to do with the complications of the planets geography, and finite resources which are also distributed unevenly.
you are just a driver do not overthink and hurt your brain.
we are waiting for them 🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷
@@tiredgardener the issue is actually nationalism, selfishness and racism. almost all problems in the world can be boiled down to those 3 issues. by stoking the flames of one or all of these learned behaviours, you can incite people to do literally anything, including bringing about incredible harm to themselves.
Greece has urged Ankara to take the dispute to the international Court of Justice in Hague but turkey repeatedly refused. That's all you need to know about how legal turkey's claims sound.
Not all things that should be legal are.
@@Aloy-sh6gq according to who? To those who support imperialism? Hahaha nice try but it didn't work.
@@y.p.9797 According to every country ever. That's why every year there are things made legal that were previously illegal. Imperialism is projecting your power across the globe, not on your door step. Is it fair that Greece gets to control the Turkish Econmic Zone just because they own a bunch of little, uninhabited, militarized islands far from their homeland? No it isn't
@@Aloy-sh6gq dude the whole world stands with greece, only some muslim countries support you at this topic...you guys are insane...you signed a treaty and now you want to change it? Things doesn't work like this my friend...read carefully the international law
@@Aloy-sh6gq yes it's fair since international law gives us the right to do this
As a Cypriot I’m always happy when my tiny country is mentioned in a TH-cam video.
Unless it’s in a TLDR video regarding Turkey’s “ambitions”.
I hope this is the last time, but I highly doubt it.
Exactly, for some reason this channel alone fails to acknowledge Cyprus's independency and Turkey's illegal occupation of the north all together. Ignorance perhaps? Either way, I cringe whenever they mention us in their videos, not objective at all.
They're British, the Colonial dogma poisons their brains
Turks have no ambitions. The Turks are defending themselves against the "Big Idea" in the official ideology of Greece, an expansionist and genocidal, western-backed rogue state. He tried to unite Cyprus with Greece in order to serve his expansionist ambitions and received a very harsh response from the Turkish army.
your cousins to the east understand your struggle. we kurds face this turkish imperialism too
Ancient Turks built the pyramids.
5:44 So the countries that haven't signed UNCLOS are: International pariahs like Venezuela, Syria, Turkmenistan, and Eretria; countries with no seas like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and also Turkmenistan, and. shoot it's the US again. Between that, the Rome Statute, Kyoto, and the International Statute on the Rights of the Child this is NOT a good look.
Why didn't you started with US? Coz it doesn't suit your agenda?
No, Israel and USA follow UNCLOS and its rules, even if they have not ratified it. Example of that is Cyprus and Israel's maritime border agreement
US signed the UNCLOS in 1994 but didn’t ratify it.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 I think you misread. Neither the United States nor Israel have SIGNED the agreement, whether or not they tend to "follow" it or not.
@@thefarstar4367 I never said that they signed it or ratified. All I say is they accept and they apply the rules of UNCLOS. Cyprus signed a maritime border agreement with Israel based on these rules.
There is not any Northen Cyprus no one recongises this ... the norther part of Cyprus is occupied and its not called Northen Cyprus but Occupied Cyprus.
How did cyprus occured? Greece battled with Turks win and get? :) Get lost cyprus is ottoman since 1571..and agean İslands stolen from us..greeks didnot win that İslands in war..if you dont win a land in Battlefield it is not your lands.a stolen thing soon ör late taken back bu owner so turkey took back cyprus half..agean sea İslands and half of cyprus taken back when cards are delievered again.. ww3 is right time possible..
Yeah it is called TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS and it is a country.
@@AD-yq8rl Which countries recognise this country? If it's not recognized, then its not a country.
@@AD-yq8rlit’s an illegal occupied country. You are from Mongolia and have no right to this land. East turkey belongs to Kurdistan and Armenian
IT bachelor degree graduate explaining an international issue and getting everything wrong i am not surprised at all. your perspective might be enough to impress chicks at pubs but definitely joke material among academicians.
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
You words might become undone with a singular Turkish drone strike to a Greek school
@@brndj6672 Jesus good luck in life with all this optimism bro...
for someone who isn't shy about writing, you seem to forget some critical facts in this one-sided story....
For example, the Montreau Convention, which in 1936 was signed by Turkey and concedes that the two islands Lemnos and Samothraki have every right to military infrastructure.
Or In 1973 and '74, when Turkey unilaterally gives permission to its national energy company to perform searches for resources in the heart of the Aegean.
Or Attila II, the second invasion in Cyprus in August 1974, when the turkish troops were secretly ordered to invade after the military juntas in Greece and Cyprus had fallen and the negotiations were still in place. To elaborate just for the sake of clarity, Turkey's absurd demands on the table were a plot for a complete invasion, while the new greek government was forbidden to send defence assistance off the greek shores. And that brings me to the third...
Established borders are uncondional. If there is a militarization dispute, there are procedures and judges, not invasion threats masked as "sovereignty questioning". That is basic international law. Turkey knows that of course and has an absurd level of military infrastructure at her shores, but any reason will do for the conquests of Tayyip.
Few more important corrections there: UNCLOS refers to archipelagic waters in reference NOT to the EEZ, but territorial sea (3/6/12 n.miles). EEZ is in principle defined by median regardless of main country bodies/masses. Of course, this has to be a result of an agreement, so differences can bilaterally be negotiated or decided by a judge. But the reality is that Turkey denies taking this to the ICJ because she has to commit beforehand that whatever is ruled will be respected regardless the feelings.
Furthermore, it will be made crystal clear that the Lausanne and Montreaux agreements as well as the Peace Treaty with Italy give Greece ALL of the Aegean islands EXCEPT to the ones next to the Straits, whose greek population should have been protected (was taxed to oblivion in violation of Lausanne) and the islets which lie at a distance of 3 nautical miles of the anatolian shore. It would be absurd to name 2000+ island in a treaty, only the big ones are named, the rest are described as "adjacent". Turkey would gladly seize even one of them, as shown during the Imia/Kardak crisis of 1996 in order to claim commitment even though there is no turkish population or written evidence of her authority over them.
Disclaimer: i have absolutely nothing against my turkish brothers. I feel Turks and Greeks share a common Ottoman history and we are only divided by religion and language, but culture is a lot more than that. My only problem is that a dictator is prolonging strife in our region that should have been gone ages ago. My hopes are that our poor countries keep the peace and prosper again for all people regardless nationality, race and political views.
''Greece (the old invader)'' - You can't be serious!
Oh but then I read the rest of the nonsense. ''Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks.'' Has it ever crossed your mind that the Ottomans were THE BLOODY OCCUPIERS & COLONIZERS in the first place???
Cem is pronounced “Gem” - like as in the stone - not”Kem” the letter ‘c’ makes a ‘j’ sound in Turkish.
nobody gives a shit bro its not his language
Who asked
@@algovoice not me
@@algovoice dude please be polite. that guy just clarifies something about language. I see a lot of english speaking channels struggling with turkish pronunciations.
man we really need to get rid of this old geezer. with the current situation he could do anything and everything to stay relevant in next elections. I don't want my country to be an Islamic variant of Russia
@@algovoice your mom
Can you guys make a video on the chances of erdogan getting outsed
Very high. His party is collapsing in the polls.. it was in the 40s before now in the 20s
As someone with Turkish roots i can say close to zero. Erdogan is still widely supported and his conflicts seen as righteous. the economic hardships are blamed on the „corrupt west“
@@MrFrage123 You havent seen the polls then. Minority trust him or blame the "west" for the economy. It is his fault so is the refugee crisis. According to the latest poll 25-30% blame someone else. 70-80% blame tbe government
@Geralt of Pimpland with an inflation over 150% he still has a solid 30% voter base so he won't be outed without an election
@@MrFrage123 dude why are you straight up lying? Not even 30% support him in Turkey. He is the sole reason for the inflation in Turkey, its an absolute mess and he is still focusing on expanding territory into northern Syria instead of helping the economy.
Honestly, I understand why Turkey is unhappy with todays situation. It has a huge coastline, but a minor exclusive economic zone. The fact that Greece has islands almost at a swimming distance from Turkey makes the situation as it is. The territory around these islands should infringe less on turkeys maritime territory. The only agreement was more fair in my opinion.
They’re literally islands. Why would Turkey get an economic exclusive zone that surrounds the islands that were older than the country?
@@simofurmum1065 Uh? Turkey's current borders were established in the 1923 treaty of Lausanne, which superceded the treaty of Sevres lol
On the other hand Turkey has a huuuuuuge mainland area tha is full of natural resources and coud be used as a farmland and as a habbitable area. Greece on the other hand has a very limited mainland that is mostly mountainous and makes it more difficult to farm and to build cities and settlements and related infrastructure. Building new national roads for example is a gargantuan task because of our geography (amongst other things such as corruption and incompetence and such, but the conversation is just about geography). So my point is that geography of a country may suck but those are the cards that you're dealt with so complaining about your "dice roll" essentially being unfair and trying to conquer neighboring areas just because you don't like your geography is literally imperialism.
Yhea. The current arrangement does seem heavily biased to island nations. This probably is in no small part due to the British Empire's signature on the history of maritime law.
I think it would be fairer if some measure of the size of the land served by a coastline was taken into account.
Having islands next to Turkey us just like borders in Evros.m with the same sceptic, why Asia Minor's coasts are Turkish since you can swim there from the Greek islands? You guys are hilarious and hypocrites
1. Notice the thousands of Greek islands in the Aegean… hundreds of which are inhabited by Greeks and has been since Aristotle and earlier.
2. Understand a lot of Greeks call these islands “home” - some Greeks have never even stepped foot on the mainland.
3. Realize these islands are not “in between Greece and Turkey” they simply are Greece. AND they are certainly not some kind of prize dangling before Erdogan’s small greedy eyes.
…
Some find it absurd to compare Erdogan to Putin, “Turkey is in NATO…”, well that has not stopped Erdogan violating Greek airspace with fighter Jets and drones, violating Greek waters with gunboats harassing local fishermen and blocking much needed Greek hydrocarbon exploration and extraction, it has not stopped Turkey from drilling for oil and gas inside Greek water (summer 2020), using refugees as a political tool to gain leverage over Greece and the EU, making a EEZ agreement with Libya that literally cuts through the Mediterranean’s fifth biggest island Crete (Crete is 25 times the size of EU member Malta), it has not stopped Turkey from recently (two weeks ago) laying official claim to 152 Greek islands (with support from the Turkish opposition party CHP) and this summer Turkey is expected to try to install an oil rig in Greek waters…
I don’t know what this sounds like to you but I see clear similarities to the dynamic between Ukraine-Russia before 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea.
It would be a grave and costly mistake for the EU not to take Erdogan’s expansionist actions seriously.
unfortunately I agree
gotta mention that greece was and still violating turkish airspace
greece had to keep aegen islands that is close to turkey unmilitarized according to treaty of lausanne(peace treaty that signed after greco-turkish war of 1919-1921) but they wont
greece invading small islands and and stones that is not mentioned in treaty of lausanne and millitarizing that islands against us even way and way before "mavi vatan" like since 90s
and finally greece's claims on Mediterranean is absurd totally blocking turkey and turkeys aegen claims was a reaction to greece's claims you cant ignore a country like turkey
Don't forget that Turkey treats the Kurds pretty much the exact same way that Russia treats Ukrainians.
archaeological excavations show that you are an invader in Anatolia. Hittites, Luwis, Lydians, Phrygians, Lycians, troys lived before you.
@@calebbearup4282 Turkey's Kurds are in a much greater situation right now We even used to have Kurdish president during 90's(Turgut Özal) and the 90's were PKK(Kurdish Workers Party[Terorrists])'s most active years
This has been a while. Of key note is also the Greek-Egyptian & Ottoman-Egyptian agreements that came about during the Greek war for independence and Greek-Turkish wars that still have some standings.
Greece never keep their agreements. They are violating Treaty of Lausanne and Paris. They are militarizing the islands on Agean sea which was banned on those treaties.. And even on treaty of Lausanne they agreed 3 miles maritime rights on agean sea once they expanded it to 6 miles and now they are trying to expand it to 12 miles. So Greece is not keeping any promise they gave and trying to get support from France and USA to follow their maximalist policies. Greece is not a island country. They have a mainland. So islands will be ignored while sharing agean sea between Turkish mainland and Greek mainland. France and England had similar problems. There are British islands on French coast which are ignored.
They already lived in our byzantine lands they want more ?? Turkey has 1100 greek cities ancient everything visit a museum in Turkey and show me something Turkish or ancient all Greek
Anatolia is not Greek. Greeks are just another invaders who came from the Balkans and enslaved/murdered Native Anatolians which were namely Hattians, Hittities, Luwians, Phrygians, Lydians, Kaskians, Hurrians, Urartians, Zanes, Trojians and so on.
@@AD-yq8rl ionia always hellenic trojan = hellenic
This review should have noted Turkey refuses to have the international court settle the issue. Any agreement with Turkey outside of the court, could be brought up again decades later by Turkey.
Turkey hasn't signed the international law for the sea, exactly because the law is against their claims.
@@chgian77Turkey has to go back to court and make the case for changes.
@@chgian77 signed however the treaty of Lausanne, where it is stated that Turkey’s limit is 3km from its shores and has right only 2 specific islands.
So what does it matter what Turkey signed or not? You don’t honour your signature any way
@@annas4843 yeah same with you you are militarazing islands which is against treaty of lausanne
@@jupiterbirlesikgezegenleri9884 you hunted down the Christians in Constantinopoli and imvros and tenedos when the muslims of thraki remained untouched and you shouldn't who didn't honor the deal ? Also the islands militarised because and after the invasion in Cyprus . And thirdly we have every right in the world when we have an wannabe ottoman empire who is going with jets armed above and i repeat LITERALLY ABOVE HOUSES OF CIVILIANS OF THE GREEK ISLANDS to arm the islands to teeth.
To be really honest, it's true that the distribution of maritime zone between Turkiye and Greece is a bit unfair to Turkiye. It's true that it does look absurd that small islands take the priority over a large coastline.
But on the other, if Turkiye had a more "fair" maritime zone, it would effectively cut the maritime connection between a lot of the Greek Aegean Islands. And since Turkiye is not in EU, it would also isolate them border wise. Greeks traveling between those islands would now need to cross Turkish border. And not only it would be very inconvenient for all the Greeks living there, but it would also be very impractical for Turkish authorities to control this nightmarish border. So it's not the solution either.
All in all, the issue of the maritime zone in the Aegean Sea is a very complicated one, that needs some better solution, but certainly not aggressive moves from Turkiye.
The best in short term would be to establish some kind of shared maritime zones between the two countries.
But in the long term, all this would be SO much simpler if Turkiye ever manages to join EU and the Schengen space, in the future. Though, that would first require for Turkish government to stop considering their neighbors as ennemies and as land to claim.
Edit : after reading some of the sub-comments, I have to honestly ask you if you guys know how to read?
Some are accusing me of supporting Turkiye and Erdoğan's agenda, yet I'm explicitly denouncing Turkish government's agressive approach, and I'm explicitly explaining Greece's concern. I'm literally supporting a better status quo and a shared zone. So please, make sure you haven't only read the first paragraph before you go on answering in bitterness.
youve hit the nail on its head, but i would add that greek passport holding citizens having the ability to travel within eurozone will not be interrupted by turkish maritime borders is a pretty easy thing to implement
Turkey sold the islands to Greece and got in return Greek territories in Anatolia...now coming back for what they sold
Turkey invaded the north of Cyprus now want all the EEZ of the island.
They sound like Russia
I don't understand the not-fair argument. Is fairness based on the feelings of the parties or a system of laws? How do we delineate borders in the 21st century, using laws and courts or by sizing up military power? I am tired of people subtly encouraging expansion tendencies of Turkiye because it doesn't feel it got enough power/ land/ riches or whatever post WW2 and the disruption of the old empires. They got what was left after they conducted all their conquering and their warring as did all the other countries after the world wars. You don't get to expand borders, you don't get to change laws on your favor. You don't negotiate with pistols. The greek islands of the Aegean FAIRLY belong to Greece and they deserve their full fair and legal maritime zone. ALL of them.
Best comment of the video. It really is almost unsovable
I don't think it'd really affect the border crossings tho, EEZ is different from maritime borders. Maritime border, IIRC, only extends about 10 miles from coast where the country has full sovereignty. EEZ, which gives countries access to anything found in the waters, extends about 200 miles from coast, but doesn't restrict non commercial movement.
It's like your neighbors to your left and right make an agreement to share your garden. And when you say that's illegal they reply with "we don't follow the law the rest of the world follows"
Great video.
I am from Rhodes.
We are Greeks to the bone.
We speak greek and follow all the greek traditions. The number of people that have a Turkish lineage is not greater than a few hundreds and they consider themselves as greek citizens. The 'minority protection' rhetoric is utterly unrealistic and reminds me of the Russian rhetoric that led to war. I am really sympathetic towards Turkish people and a kanun (shared instrument between Greeks and Turks) teacher.
It is really stressful and sad for all of us who live on the Aegean islands to hear Turkish jets flying above our heads nearly every week for the last 20 years. This is what we are experiencing on the ground.
I hope the situation doesn't escalate further...
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
@Shy Cracker to what are you referring to? Also thanks, these are indeed good points. In no why I am saying they arent for discussion, but we cannot even discuss anything for all platforms are superbly biased and whenever a Turk starts to make points- she is automatically attacked with ad hominems
@Shy Cracker which one?
İt wasn't 50-60 years ego.
You didn't say anything useful and you didn't take the side of Greece, supporting it with arguments. I'm fed up with those st@pid words about Turkish friendship woke up and see the danger before its too late
4:58 no no, you don't understand. Every single island is part of the Greek mainland. We didn't colonize them or something, the people there are Greek. They're as Greek as anyone from Athens or the Peloponnese or Macedonia or whatever. Turkey is the one who unjustly colonized our Eastern lands.
God did not create those islands for just one particular nation.. 😉
@@veyselturan6916 He did, only for Hellenes 😉
@@georgios_5342 😄
Constantinople is on the western side of the Dardanelles does that mean it belongs to Greece? Let's see Turkey demilitarize occupied Cyprus show us the way Erdogen
He wont. He is deadset on it. He made it his lifes ambition, he wont back down. Much like China. I dying power that looks strong. But if you know anything about Anatolia, it has the strange ability to make a weak dying power like formidable. And time and time again, it has been proven right.
Back then they didnt have NATO. If Turkey tries anything foolish Athens will just do an article 5.
Truth be told if I was Erdogan(I hate the guy bottom of my heart) I definitely wouldnt demilitarise Cyprus too when there is aggression from the opposite side but before all this aggression they were talking about the unification of Cyprus and independence but of course, political talks stop when both parties show their teeth.
ahhhh authoritarians never change.....
why should them, why should they give up when they can take everything for them and have more than less, i dont understand nowadays world, yall are all dumb, being autoritarian means being normal. if i can get more, i do get more, I'm never giving up for the good of everybody, i think to myself and nobody else and this is totally normal
@@domenicosumma8045 The word you are looking for is "psychopathic", not "normal".
@@Theorimlig psycopath because thinks to their own good? omg, but then yall support kill of babies for the own good of mothers thats ok? bro i support authoritarian govs at all, its literally normality, psycopath is libertarialism that only benefits the blacks and women, authoritarianism is the normal way of behaving, why should i not try to take more, lmao dumb bro
@@PugkinSoup bro i dont care of some freedom of press if in change of that i can have my nation to be strong and rich and narionalist and i could get to be racist towards others and benefit from not accepting immigrant and not people with my race and be considered superior to others because i would benefit more from the second and honestly what freedom of speech, today we dont have a pure one, i cant say in public anyrhing about racism, fascism, national socialism and cant say i oppose this all, a true freedom of speech should let me talk about it and exprees my point of view in total freedom and not being insulted and hated by the society, if you do this you'd get the very opposite of this, so no, we dont live in a freedom of speech society
@@domenicosumma8045 yeah im gonna agree with Theorimlig here, youve got some pent up issues you are bleeding onto a youtube comment section
Just because Turkey has found itself with some unfortunate geography doesn't mean it can ignore international law and trample the rights of its neighbouring countries or in the case of Cyprus not even recognise them as a country. The Dardanelles block the access to the Mediterranean of several Black Sea countries. Conveniently Turkey doesn't have a problem with that unfortunate geography.
Yes you can! International law is foor poor loser that have to accept it as they have no power
@@Hasanbas-rv3vm hassanbanana your a smart cookie
THERE IS ONLY ONE BLUE HOMELAND .....GREECE, YOUR HOMELAND IS MONGOLIA GO THERE
"UNCLOS does somewhat unfairly benefit multi-island states". Let's break that down, shall we? States that control islands first of all by definition have a special relationship with the sea, in which these islands are found. Sea fairing peoples populated islands; it wouldn't therefore seem so unfair that they control the resources around those islands. Those resources makes living on those rocks economically viable and the sea around them isn't unlike the mineral resources on the mainland. Just as Greece can't lay claim to the sweet water of rivers that run through Turkey or the Nile that empties opposite its shores, so too Turkey, or Libya can't claim the waters that wet our shores. Our shores sit opposite mainland Turkey across a thin strip of water, not by some weird coincidence, or a freak historical anecdote, like how British waters constrain the waters of Argentine. Greek islands, i.e. the islands of Greece and also the islands populated by the Greeks are a short boat trip from the shores of Türkiye because there Greeks also lived in huge numbers until a century ago they were violently evicted after 3.000 years from their ancient homeland, which they have dotted with countless splendid and timeless monuments. For all Turkish protestations, Turkey has limited access to the Aegean not by chance, but because there at the shores is as far as it could cleanse the land of Greeks. Greece and, before Greek independence, ethnic Greeks have been a formidable maritime power for two and a half centuries. The Aegean is not the water mass between Greek lands, it is the blue fields we tamed and have harnessed for 3.000 years. Had we had no access to those fields, not only would there be no Greek history, but the history of the Black sea, North Africa and the middle east, Sicily and Italy would have been unrecognizable. Few things, few claims in the world would be more unfair than to lay claim on waters, which according to international law fall under Greek sovereignty and Greek sovereign rights.
Historical claims to the islands will not make your point any stronger but will indicate your ignorance to the subject; this comment is a bellwether for further turk and greek comments proving but themselves the islands and the sea covering their sphere are in their inherent right to possess. You Turks and Greeks will not be able to achieve anything nor hammer out any agreement so long as you don't lay aside your historical achievements which in fact doesn't even belong to ''you'' anyways.
To put it simply why the analogy is with british Island (Turkish absurd invention) is not the same:
Greek islands' territorial waters start near mainland and end near Turkish coasts. Even with 6nm the distance is so small that makes Agean sea a Greek homogeneous "lake". With 12nm, 70% and more is greek sovereignty, because teritorial waters = sovereignty. Because of this unfortunate for turks reality, we are entitled for such big EEZ. Even without kastelorizo, because of Crete (5th biggest island of Mediterranean sea), Karpathos and Rhodes, Greece is still entitled of EEZ in East med.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 it's actually 81%. But Turkey thratens with Casus Belli if that happens. Turkey acts like the world still runs on 16th century empires
First Greeks territorial waters have remain in 6 nautical miles and not 12 as unclos gives the right as to not create unnecessary tension .
Second Turkey often cross in Greek territorial water with warships for decades.
But the aggression has reach the point of repetitively talking about invasion of the Aegean island in Turkish media by political and military leaders without even hiding anymore with maps and plans and what actions to take.
And from how things going it's almost certain that it will happen soon.
They would probably start third world war by doing so, as it would turn NATO against them, making its members less capable to respond to any additional threats until it is resolved. Then China could decide it is their best chance at taking Taiwan. USA could intervene and India might help too as they might see this as a good chance to deal with their rival. Pakistan might get involved as well, considering that they got somewhat friendly with China while hating India. However, I don't see here how Turkey comes out on top from this. They would probably go from "economy is in bad shape" to stone age.
@@staryimoze That's why they play with both sides. If relations with NATO goes sour they will jump over to the Russo-Chinese ship. NATO however is preparing for quite sometime for such a result, improving Greece as strategical ally while demoting Turkey.
@@perseusarkouda I suppose they could strike once NATO is busy with China and then hope to gain something, but they would be basically completely closing themselves to any western country for like forever and condemning themsleves to do business with Russia and China; I'm having a really hard time remembering when was the last time someone benefitted from partnering with those 2 like that. I doubt that Turkey could hope to gain much other than a couple of islands and extending their access to sea and it doesn't seem worth ruining your country any hope for progress. Maybe it is just their current dictator idea for strengthening his grip on power and he just doesn't care if he will rule over a rubble of a country, something that is fairly possible I guess if you look at similar cases.
You are a shameless liar
@@staryimoze Dictator Erdogan wants to leave a legacy behind him. Turkey wants to be an empire again. This is their dream. So, he wants to expand in every direction possible. They know that cannot afford a war with Greece, which is the 2nd strongest army in EU, after France, which is becoming more advanced than Turkey’s army with resent arms deals made. So, he will try to gain anything, without fighting. If he fight, he will lose, so Erdogan’s name in history will be a disgrace for Turkey. Tough situation, considering also the economical issues, but he can only blame himself! His decisions for greatness may doom Turkey and there is no easy way out now!
Because Turkey is not a part of UNCLOS the agreement on aegean sea can not be overruled. The principle of international law is the fact that only the signing countries are responsible for the agreed rules and restrictions. At the conflict we saw earlier between italy and greece or much more around the world, islands themselves would not enable an access around 12 miles into the sea.
But this not chang the EEZ delimitation.
As Turkiye has applied the 12 miles zone in the black sea and therefore used UNCLOS legislation to their favour, they have recognised UNCLOS in front of the international community even without signing the treaty.
Had Turkiye continued applying the 6 miles everywhere, they could use this argument, but from the moment they extended their waters in the Black Sea they automatically recognised UNCLOS as valid.
@@sargon1241 that's not my logic, that's the logic of international law. There's something called "common law". You might want to look it up. This is not something I personally have come up with,this is standard of international law. If Turkiye had extended to 11 miles they still would have agreed to UNCLOS, as before UNCLOS 6 miles was accepted as common law and everything further would have been a violation. So to not recognise UNCLOS as common law Turkiye would have had to stick to the 6 miles everywhere.
"Conflict between itlay and Greece." There is not such thing. Greece's Ionians islands (west of mainland) have 12nm teritorial waters like 160+ countries already have.
@@sargon1241 before UNCLOS no country had signed any treaty that referred to territorial waters bigger than the 6 miles. The 6 miles were accepted by the UN as common law until UNCLOS.
So which treaty are you referring to that claimed any country had the right to extend their territorial waters over the 6 miles?
Edit: forgot, sorry:
If Turkiye as a sovereign country could just extend their territorial waters as they please,the same would be true for Greece, so Greece could just claim whatsoever territorial waters in the Aegean, but Turkiye claims that exactly this is not the case.
Turkey about to be cooked early
Sure, whatever you say. They said this before the Invasion of Cyprus, they said this after Turkey shot down the Russian jet, they said this before Turkey entered Syria.... And how'd they play out I wonder? :)
@@bbugrayuksel This is different because Greece is an important player in the region that they will not let turkey take over which you can clearly see by the recent supply of weapons.
@@comingafteryou5352 Greece is not an important player, Greece is European, this is the difference. Recent supply of weapons mean nothing to us when we already produce them. So either Greece chooses to play by the rules, or the shit goes down.
@@bbugrayuksel It is by position, let alone its own power. You produce inferior weapons that aren't that good in combat as the USA weapons aka the reason you still need to buy foreign missiles and jets.
🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️🏊🏻♂️
What europeans dont understand is this is not a topic about Erdoğan and his policies. As an Turkish who hates Erdoğan i fully support him on this topic. How can an island with 500 people lives just 2 km far from the Turkish coast can create an eez same size as Netherlands. This is not just at all!! Turkish nation is willing to bleed for this. Are you?
Think a lot of people are going to stand up for international law, just look at Russia and what’s happening to it when they disregard another nations sovereignty
Can you tell me if the greece’s claims are just and fair? Greece have a population of 10 million. There is twice as many people just living on the west and south coasts in Turkey. I dont want any conflict as any sane person. But wont go quiet while this happening also.
If you want to fight for this then go ahead. The international community will not be on your side. The precedent that this would set would be awful. You can't just claim all the surrounding seas as yours. It's imperialism. You don't own those islands, therefore you have no right over the water's surrounding them. Its not the 1909s anymore where nations have empires. You can't just claim more than half of Cyprus' EEZ cos you feel like it. There won't be a war over this cos you ain't stupid enough to do that, cos you'd isolate yourselves even more and be kicked out of NATO. This is a classic example of the kind of nationalism that I'd the very reason the world can never be at peace. Cos there will always be nations like your who think they're 'entitled' to more territory at the expense of others.
If Turkey wants this to change, it has to change it through legal means either via negotiating with Greece or lobbying to change international law.
They can based on international laws
The question is how Turkey get aegean coast? I know it was full of greeks, did the Greece give it for free.
The blood principle is risky and sometime catastrophic
💪🏽🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷
yeah, a lot of overlapping in Greek waters. Not sure the Greeks would approve
We don´t.
@@GreekArmyVeteran95 not ur waters
@@GreekArmyVeteran95 9 milion population trash country surviving with the hot money from germany. claims whole turkey coasts because of few small islands. not gonna happen
@@burakbr7789 They're not your islands, either.
@@GreekArmyVeteran95 Cant wait to show you who really own those islands. Keep sleeping in fear of erdogan invasion every night 😂 you deserve it though
I have a dream that one day this youtube channel will make unbiased videos about Turkey.
They have bias and exaggerating... İt is cringe as fuck..
İnglizce konuşan bir Avrupalıdan Türkiye’ye adil davranmasını beklemek = satranç 2’nin yayınlanmasını beklemek
man that was biased against greece
@@ΒασίλειοςΜαυρομμάτης-π2ψ Almost everything cousin.
Turkey has made some truly bizarre decisions. But, wanting to go back to the days of ottoman empire is a pipe dream and blackmailing Finland and Sweden with NATO isn't helping turkey's reputation.
Some parts are true but some parts are so biased against Turkey.
Nothing is biased, the only biased is the "unfairly benefits" which is just a personal opinion. Law doesn't care about your fellings.
Get used to those facts
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 To be not biased , he should give each sides arguments in his video. So we can compare both their arguments and decide which side is more right than other. In this video he is generally,no almost completely looking from Greece's window. I think I'm not the one who is writing according to his feelings.
@@emirhanyldz2342 because every other thing turkey claims is absurd and non-logical. What? The militarization of islands that supposedly disputes sovereignty?
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 Because according to Lausanne and Paris traties that greece signed, these island were given greece.One of the condition is "unarmed" islands.I don't say that my country's every action is true and rightful but in this case Turkey is right. However it is okay that Greece feel threatened by Erdogan's high volume speechs but what Micotakis did in the America and arming the islands is not the way feel safe. I hope one day our nations can find a way to get along but it is so unlikely with current presidents.
@@emirhanyldz2342 no.
Turkey is not signatory to Paris treaty, Italy and Greece were, so according to Vienna convention and rules of diplomacy, Turkey cant have a call upon this.
Greek islands first were militarized almost 50 years ago, which is almost half a century, after Cyprus invasion when Turkey threatened them. Greece according to UN charter and article 51, no matter what any treaty says, still has the right for self defense.
Are Greek islands threatened?
Yes,
with Casus Beli if Greece extends its territorial waters to 12nm with the right it has as 160+ countries have already done,
with military drills simulating ampibious landing and island control,
with overflights above greek inhabited islands, violating article 13 of treaty of Lausanne,
with Imia in 1996.
Imagine you have 2800 km coast in Aegean sea but you cannot float your ships there because there are little Greek islands near your country. Ridiculous.
Imagine you are from mongolia and you thnik you have rights on sea
@@antonyaris3 dont cry
@@antonyaris3 It is not something new :) We Turks live here since the battle of manzikert, in 1071. Almost 1000 years have passed, ofcourse we have rights on aegean region. Don’t be ignorant, be informed about the world and adapt yourself to the current era.
@@antonyaris3 imagine you are a greek and being ruled by Turks for 400-450 years:) oh wait it already happened
@@antonyaris3 With that logic UK should claim all Atlantic ocean cuz of falkland islands. We don't claim islands but say small islands can not have all the sea area agianst a huge continental mainland . Europeans having double standarts as always.
Stop exaggerating your claims..you mention Turkey is claiming ‘much of the Mediterranean’…but what you show on the map as per Turkey’s claim is but a fraction of the Mediterranean Sea.
Not a big fan of turkey, but please use your terms correctly to convey your point without using false terms.
i guess they meant Eastern Mediterranean
Yes they claim much of Mediterranean sea. If you knew about international laws you would know that.
They claim much more of the Mediterranean than what they deserve. Now thats correct.
Turkey economy is sinking with their lira... They can't keep their people fed, how they will keep their army going?
I think this is a classic example of starting (a war) or conflict so people are distracted to actual problems
@@VisboerAnton the same like Russia, China etc... Every time there are internal issues they start wars
With massive amounts of nationalism
@@MrFrage123
Yes, exactly
"Authoritarian handbook for dummies" page 1
Here is the second part:
7i) You say that: '' For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923.''
7ii) Again, you should read the treaty of Lausanne yourself. There is NO such thing as demilitarization of the islands.
The treaty states in the Article 13 that: ''With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria:
(I) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.
(2) Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.
(3) The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory.''
These and only these are the restrictions for the 4 islands mentioned above (no other island has any restriction), yet Turkey erroneously claims that ALL islands near the Turkish coast should be demilitarized completely, which is laughable and is not supported by any treaty whatsoever.
The legal ownership of the islands is stated loud and clear, Turkey gets to keep Imbros and Tenedos, and the little islets 3 nautical miles off its coast, and Greece gets to keep the rest. Turkey also completely abandoned its rights to the Dodecanese islands over to Italy, which were given to Greece after WW2 by Italy. By the way all these islands are nearly were and are still inhabited only by Greek population, with the exception of Kos and Rhodes which has a small minority of Turkish people. It doesn't matter if Turkey doesnt like that they gave up their sovereignty over these islands over 100 years ago, Greece may not like that they gave up their claims on Anatolia as well, but what can anyone do about it? Countries must accept these things, or the world would be a jungle with constant wars all the time, and nobody really wants that.
8i) You say that: ''Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece.''
8ii) Greece didn't wake up one day and said I want to conquer some lands, the mass killings (genocide) of Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and other minorities in Anatolia during and after WWI are a fact and only Turkey does not accept them. Greece interevened in order to protect its population, the same reason Turkey uses for their invasion of Cyprus, yet the situations are not even comparable. Both countries shed blood and accepted this peace treaty, which is why both countries should honour it and not shed blood again.
9i) You say that: ''Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks.''
9ii) Ottoman empire does not equal Turks, by that logic the Young Turks went against the Turks to establish a republic. You know very well that Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and other countries invaded the Ottoman empire in order to assimilate the people, of course they were war crimes commited by all sides, but painting Greece as an invader on the basis of the Ottoman empire is absurd.
10i) You say that: ''Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried.''
10ii) I know that it may come as a surprise but most of the European countries are not even ''christian'', especially Western Europe, which is now mostly atheist. Yet Erdogan uses terms such as crusaders etc. which are extremely anachronistic and only apply to people with no real knowledge of geopolitics.
11i) Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks.
11ii) Turkey does not see itself part of any camp because it has made everyone their enemies with its extremely aggressive behaviour. There are many countries invaded by other countries over the duration of history, Germany invaded and occupied Greece, destroying its people and its economy, yet Greece has got over it and is now within the same European Union. It's time Turkey got over of what happened 100 years ago. Plus the Russians were not Turkey's enemies during 1919-1922, the Soviet Union even supplied Turkey with weapons.
12i) You say that: ''Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.''
12ii) No, it has nothing to do with race, Turks are a pretty mixed race anyways, it all has to do with the current mindset of the people. When your own president says ''We will throw you to the sea to swim like we did before'' and other War threats, and the whole common people cheer, it does say something about the people. Plus, Turks are infamous for despising nearly all their neighbours and their neighbours' neighbours. Turks really hate Kurdish people, and they consider Armenian people at the very lowest, so don't be so quick to accuse others of racism. Plus, let's not just overlook all the Neo-Ottoman sentiments, speeches of a new empire, the Pan-Turkism theories etc.
Turkey militirized Imbros and Tenedos first thus voiding the said contract.
@@SadisticNinja Yes, that is one of many times that Turkey has violated the treaty, I also mention other violations in my third comment.
You wasted your time man, you could just write im stupid and we would understand and accept it.
@@yasingursel1611 Such an overwhelming argument to defend your point of view. I know it must be hard to answer to all of those facts that I mentioned, so you resort in childish insults. Pretty much an amalgamation of Turkish foreign policy.
@@balkanmountains2103 I'm just tired bro, I can write for an hour but I don't want to waste my time either. Have a nice day :*
"The Turkish army ones stood at the gates of Vienna so thats Turkish to... obviously"
🤮
China logic
The Turkish army rested on thousands of places and took them all. If there was no betrayal in the army. Most of Europe would be ours.
@@yusufklc2962 Ok and? The Roman Empire took all of Anatolia, but that doesn't mean Turkey is Italian. If the Turks are upset about their borders, the shouldn't have joined WW1 after 200 years of losing wars.
@@blackmesa232323 Turkey is satisfied with its land. It is the Europeans who have their eyes on Turkish soil. They call it the oriental problem. The First World War was fought to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and establish Israel. The Second World War was made to frighten the Jews living in Europe to emigrate to Israel. The 3rd world war will begin to take Israel's holy lands (the area from the Nile to the Euphrates) and Israel to destroy the Masjid al-Axa and build the Solomon's temple in its place. You should shut up about things you don't know.
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
With 70% inflation, pro-Russia stance, huge financial issues good luck with that.
@Six Sins Erdogan will stay because he is dictator. Turkey stopped being democratic country almost decade ago. Turkey is now enemy of humanity just like Russia and China is.
@Six Sins "so he's here for good" ... You can keep it cupcake! Put it in a leash
@Six Sins tbh erdogan has lost huge portion of its voters over the past 2 years due to economic mismanagement and the fact that almost all stupid decisions he made always backfired on him and affected ordinary turkish people negatively. recent local polls show that the opposition has a chance of knocking him over in upcoming elections, which is scheduled for june 2023, almost 1 year remained. but Im sure turkish people will vote in favor of him anyway despite 100% inflation rates and weakened turkish lira, also erdogan, during his last meeting, lost his temper and insulted those who are against him, he basically referred to people as "bastards" who are against him. imagine a president talking smack of his people when addressing them.
anyway Im sure he will stay in power for extra 4 years or maybe he'll just pass the chair along to one of his dog loyal inner circles and run away with all the money he managed to embezzle during his power, who knows.
@Six Sins I never said that world is living in democracy. Though it would be better than being ruled by single dictator and live by under their brutal psychotic will.
West is the only society on the planet where people are allowed to be free and enjoy their lives as they will. Whetever you think rich elite is controlling it or not, it doesn't refute the fact that western democracy has managed to bring best living standards for people who live under it. Thus therefore it's far more preferable to live under several "rich elite" than live under single dictator.
@Six Sins Whetever you think about who really rules the west, it doesn't refute the fact that people in western nations enjoy most liberty and well being than in any nation on this planet.
Maybe fix that 70%+ inflation first :3
We fix it right away just because you said it mdosmdpsmdd
@@kira-tm7pk 73% now💪
It'll be fixed when the government change do not worry. But how are you going to fix your military equipment in case of a war though? Wait for European daddies to ship you goods and you pay pay for them on your knees taking it from the back :)
Even if it becomes 32498% we will still defend our rights and even bleed for it if needed.
@@taf2026 yet its recession time baby
While NATO needs Turkey as a member, it allows Turkey to be a bit more thuggish as the knows full well that NATO can't afford to lose Turkey.
That being said, removing Turkey from NATO might give them more justification to be even more thuggish.
So either way it is going to be a bit of an issue for NATO.
Turkey is definitly the most problematic member of NATO, in terms of ideology it everything NATO stands against. However NATO needs Turkey, they are going to be a hostile nation if not being a NATO member, NATO will loss control of a crucial trafic junction, and wherever NATO don't intervene, Russia and China will, just like Syria. By accepting Turkey as a NATO they removed a major adversary without firing a shot.
What happens if a NATO member attacks another NATO member?
The only rogue state here is Greece, which has the western support behind it.
@@DrRusty5 it would depend on who attacks who and the scale and how the attacks were made. I doubt a small border squirmish would make other Nato countries intervene. But if you are talking about Greece and Turkey you have to remember Greece is a member of the EU and generally has better relations with other NATO countries than Turkey. Most of those countries would most likely support Greece though it is hard to say exactly what this support would entail.
@@DrRusty5 Nothing. Turkey and Greece almost went to war in 1974 and is still in kind of a cold war and NATO did nothing. Article 5 only applies when an outside force attack a NATO member.
Actually, the so-called "Greco-Turkish disputes" is not an Greco-Turkish bilateral problem but an issue of International Law and ONLY the UN Court can give a solution. The problem is that Turkey wants to avoid that and try to force Greece via military pressure to bilateral negotiations outside the UN framework and Laws. When Greece reacts Turkey becomes more aggressive and accuse Greece that is avoiding dialog.
I am afraid that sooner or later Erdogan will play his last card and there will be a carnage having in mind the enormous fire power of both countries
Turkey supported the application to the court, but Greece claims that Turkey rejected it. While Turkey says that we should go to the court for the sharing of the Aegean Sea, Greece rejects the offer to apply to the court for the Eastern Mediterranean because it does not see any problem here. If there is a court for the division of the Aegean, Turkey will join.
@@canerdiyebirisi after the video you saw you believe that Greece rejects the UN Court?
The UN Court give solutions according to the UN Laws and it is Turkey that don't like the UN Laws, not Greece.
You know, Greece has the same problem with Albania since Albania reacts over the influence of some small Greek islands to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in the Ionian Sea. Both countries signed a deal and agreed to apply their dispute to UN Court. Peaceful, civilized and without drama. Simple as that
@@mariosathens1 Ну что, греки, как дела? Русские не придут вам на помощь, будьте уверены. За вашу подлость вам летит бумеранг.
@@mariosathens1 there will be no war. As a Turk, I can guarantee that there will be no war. Because the economy and the people do not allow it, the people do not want war.
I can write the text replacing Turk and Greek in your text. like " When Turkey react Greece becomes more agressive and accuse Turkiye". The difference is you write in Greek premise.
oh I now understand why Turkey dont like new nato bases in Greece
By Greece you mean Disputed Islands right? Which is against no militarization treaty between 2 countries.
@@eldahalas7015 is nothing disputed on those islands. They are part of the international recognised borders
@@eldahalas7015 our islands are as disputed as Kiev is from Ukraine. Not going anywhere
@@eldahalas7015 Please provide us with just one country in this world (not the neo-ottoman fantasy one) that supports the ridiculous Turkish claims.
@@IOANNOU28 north cyprus hehe gotem😎
Dude, Turkey doesn't have enough money to stay put, let alone go anywhere.
they already spent huge amount of dollar reserves to artificially boost the turkish lira and increase the demand, which didnt quite work out though, considering the turkish lira curved all the way up to where it was previously at prior to the central banks decision to spend dollar reserves.
The Turkish Army is 70% domestic production and is a self-sufficient country in terms of war technology, which gives it the strength to fight for many years.If the situation is Economy, the country that owes 466,130,000,000 USD is Greece and the war will not work for you at most, non-native planes have a limited lifespan.10 transit trips for Rafale will total 112 million USD. Part/system purchase is $45,000 to qualify for purchasing service.In short, the first country that can't handle a long war is Greece.
Man. If it is really 1vs 1..turkey would destroy greeks and their children would cry greek Genocide for centuries in future..
@@enesaydn6054 turkey economy is collapsing and is surrounded by enemies. If turkey goes to war with greece, iran and russia will invade eastern turkey, and kurds will revolt domestically. Two front war plus civil war. and then turkey is done. Turkey is a very weak country compared to iran and russia, and terrible economy.
@@mnezon1314 🤣🤣🤣 russia will support us if we fight with Greece wtf you talking about and i am sure that too Iran hate Greece they can support what you talking about hahahaha i will dead you are living interesting earth
Mavi vatan is imperialism while seville map is not. Okey have a good day :Ddd
The map of Seville was not issued by the Greeks so definitely not an imperialstic map but by the University of Seville following an order from EU and shows EEZ of Greece with maximum EEZ rights for the Islands !!!! If Turkey thinks this map is unfair can go to ICJ and resolve the issue !!! Is that simple !!!!
@@NIKOLASINGLESSIS actually why should anyone go to any court when there is an written agreement signed by both countries already in place. the new map of seville is taking into account agreements not signed by both parties. if we are starting to handle international politics by what 1 side has agreed to and not the other what will happen if Turkey agrees with lets say mongolia that islands do not count against territorial claims but only continental landmass is relevant. it would be absurd because greece would not agree. similarly it is absurd that greece or anyone else expects that Turkey abide byan agreement it did not sign
@@kaanboztepe 169 countries has signed UNCLOS and now it is ethimical law and applies to all signees or not !!! When two countries have different opinions on a matter either they go to a court or to resolve to war !!! Your choice !!
@@NIKOLASINGLESSIS so we can sue the US for warcrimes in the Hague because of what they did to native americans etc. although the US did not sign the agreement but 150+ countries did?
@@kaanboztepeSorry I cant follow you argument !!! Or I am too stupid or it is moronic !!
HUGE SUPPORT TO TURKEY FROM AUSTRALIA GO ON TURKEY.
I post my comment on the answer of a Turk claiming a lot of false things, as it seems that the majority of Turkish people support what he says:
I am sorry but your whole narrative is not only extremely biased, it is also full of holes. I will now proceed to adress your extraordinary claims one by one:
Before I begin though, since I see that you mention the Treaty of Lausanne repeatedly, I would suggest you actually read the Treaty yourself, instead of hearing about it in the Turkish news.
1i) You say that: ''Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles''
1ii) Firstly, the treaty of Lausanne is a treaty signed by a number of countries, not just Greece and Turkey, and I'm not saying that for minor reasons, I'm saying it because it means that those countries are legaly obliged to honour and secure the treaty as well. As for the 3 nautical miles, these are referenced 2 times. In the article 12, it is stated that ''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.'' The second is in the article 6, where it states: ''In the absence of provisions to the contrary, in the present Treaty, islands and islets Iying within three miles of the coast are included within the frontier of the coastal State.'' This is a reference to Turkey, and it states nothing whatsoever about territorial waters, as we know the term today. It just means that the borders of Greece in the Aegean were set at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast of Turkey.
2i) You say that: ''in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores.''
2ii) The two countries actually had their territorial waters extend to 3 miles, not because of any treaty signed between them, but because they had the right to do so in accordance to the newly formed laws of the sea at that time. The laws about territorial waters have changed over the course of history allowing the countries to go from 3 miles, to 6 miles, and finally 12 miles at is today. Greece extended its territorial waters in 1936 indeed, because it could now extend them from 3 to 6 miles according to the new laws. But this act was not a violation of any treaty between Turkey and Greece, as I stated before, as there were no agreement between them for the territorial waters. In 1964, Turkey extended its territorial waters from 3 to 6 nautical miles in the Aegean, while applying 12 miles extension to the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. As far as I'm concerned, the Greek government did not say anything to object this decision.
3i) You say that: ''First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters.''
3ii) No, it doesn't state that in any way. In the part VIII of the UNCLOS treaty, which concerns the islands, it is stated that: ''Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an
island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention
applicable to other land territory.'', with Paragraph 3 being: ''Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.'' Of course, since there are thousands of islets in the Mediterranean, there are some that truly cannot sustain human habitation, but those are around the habitated Greek islands, which have their own EEZ, as stated by the UNCLOS treaty, so it makes no difference.
Also, the article I mentioned applies to all states, not just archipelagic states as you claimed.
You should also take a look again at the Mavi Vatan doctrine, as it completely denies any rights to the EEZ to the archipelagic state of Cyprus (which Turkey is the only country in the world to not recognize), and also (very ironically) gives EEZ rights to the occupied northern part of Cyprus.
4i) You say that: ''Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims.''
4ii) I highly suggest that you look on the map of the EEZ of Uk, France and Spain, you will be surprised to see that all these countries have applied the EEZ of their islands (some of them ar half way across the world by the way) and their mainland alike. This includes the 12 nautical miles extension, which Greece is the only country in the world that hasn't applied its legal claim, because it is threatened by Turkey not do so. Also, the Channel Islands (the Jersey islands that you mentioned) do have an EEZ, it's just not part of the EEZ of the mainland United Kingdom. By your logic, they shouldn't have, and France should have the EEZ of their area, yet it's the complete opposite, lol.
5i) You say that: '' As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal.''
5ii) Please prove, how is any of the Greek islands right now ilegally occupied? With documents of course, not extravagant claims. Even if you find 1 (Which you won't) unfortunately for you, the EEZ still applies for all the other thousands of islands.
6i) You say that: ''Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first.''
6ii) Believe me, if Turkey had the law advantage it would have gone to the ICJ to solve the dispute years before. You do know that the ICJ works by the right of UNCLOS right? That does not favor Turkey so they do not want to go that way, they are claiming that Turkey and Greece should not solve disputes through other countries and laws but between themselves, in order to hide the fact that it is not favoured by any international law, hence why they won't ever agree to solve the dispute through ICJ. There is not a single time where Turkey asked Greece to solve the Aegean dispute, aside from the eastern Mediterranean, and Greece refused.
What's the difference between ocean "within the frontier of a coastal state" and "territorial waters"?
Theres is still no UNCLOS for Turkiye.
Greece refuses ICJ jurisdiction for anything except continental shelf issue. There is not much to discuss because of this.
@@muptanyesiloglu8700 Copy and Paste False information
And here is the third part:
I would also like to add, that you're referencing the treaty of Lausanne and UNCLOS a lot. Turkey does not recognize UNCLOS, so how come you try to use it to defend it? Also, the gazillion times that Turkey has violated the treaty of Lausanne (the very treaty that you claim is so important for Turkey and that Turkey sees it as a very important text) seem to have passed you by completely.
Let me give you some examples:
Treaty of Lausanne:
ARTICLE 38.
''The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to ali inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.
All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.
Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.
ARTICLE 39.
Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems.
All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.
Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.
No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.
Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts.
ARTICLE 40.
Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.
ARTICLE 41.
As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.
In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes.
The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned.
ARTICLE 42.
The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.
These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers.
The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institu- tions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature.
ARTICLE 43.
Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest.
This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.''
All these articles were not only ignored by Turkey, they continually violated them with the peak being the pogrom against the Greeks in Istanbul in 1955, where a large mob of Turks attacked and destroyed hundreds of houses, shops, schools, churches and even cemeteries of the Greek minority, including the raping and killing of a large number of Greek people. In result to that, 250-300,000 Greeks forcibly left the city and their properties were confiscated by the Turkish state.
Let me give you another example,
Treaty of Lausanne:
Article 13 paragraph 2: ''Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.'' (meaning the aforementioned islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Ikaria)
Turkish planes have been repeatedly flying over these islands since decades now, harassing the people with low flights etc.
This is absolutely correct but it must be remembered that the Treaty doesn't exist in a vacuum the Treaty which is actually one of the worst treaties in history, exists because it has parties who are signatories to it like any treaties (hence the name) and the other Balkan Treaties like London, or Berlin. If the sections of the treaty on each party and kept to and the signatories do not hold the parties to their agreements within the treaty then that treaty whatever that treaty is has become worthless.
Με λίγα λόγια την έχουν κάνει κουρελόχαρτο
I am Turkish and neither Turkey nor Greece have faults in this problem. this problem can be solved at the table, but there are countries that do not want this problem to be fixed, these countries are the USA, England and France. When was underground wealth found in the Mediterranean? after that, they want to attack here like a hungry dog. in it, to fight two countries of the same culture, to sell their weapons, to buy underground riches and finally to issue war debts. but these countries think we are stupid but we are not the property taken is not given back. If it is to be taken, you will not leave even 1 person. I don't know Greek. Don't expect other countries to use your own lands for years, but never expect this from Turkey.
I wish this was true but Erdogan is the one that keeps wanting to revise more stuff( muslim minority, demilitirisation and others). For us it's only the EEZ.
This idea that Greece shouldn’t claim the majority of the Aegean Sea within its EEZ is absurd. You don’t like it? It seems like too much? TOO BAD. It is what is to be attributed to Greece for owning the vast majority of islands in the Aegean. If Turkey doesn’t like it, then it would have to declare war to claim those islands, which would lead to a humanitarian disaster, the scale of which isn’t seen even in Ukraine.
Couldn't have said it better. Turkey agreed to surrender the islands in exchange for land in Europe and now argues that Greece doesn't have a right to use the land that Turkey gave up because it is unfair to Turkey.
turkish here and Im sure turkey has no guts to declare war on greece over those tiny islands scattered across the aegean sea. because turkey is the one that has given away some of its crucial islands in the first place. Ive never looked into it but prior to erdogan, some 12 islands were given away to greece for some reasons and erdogan's turkey now desperately seeks to get hold of those islands one way or another.
Η Συνθήκη της Λωζάνης έδωσε τα ελληνικά εδάφη στη Μικρά Ασία στην Τουρκία, αλλά ξεκαθαρίζοντας ότι η Ελλάδα διατηρεί ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΝΗΣΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΓΑΙΟΥ. Αυτό θα πει ότι το Αιγαίο παραμένει ελληνικό. Ζήτω η Ελλάς! 🇬🇷
Ukraine and Russian are like ten times bigger and more influential then Greece and turkey so don't overestimate
@@cravingtuna1561 when did this happen? oh right during european imperialism where the drew arbitrary borders for the entire region and theybwere forced to settle with it. now that one nation in the region has power to push back, all of a sudden its not okay? yeah no, fuck that, world doesnt work that way
The way you say "Mavi Vatan" 💀
According to the renowned historian Donald Kagan the Aegean is the heart of Greek civilization. Everything Greek evolved around it, on all sides of the Aegean.
The Greek islands aren't away from Greece, they're where Greece is at.
Nicaragua and Colombia had a similar maritime dispute, and the International Court of Justice found a compromise, awarding an EEZ to a collection of Colombian islands off the Nicaraguan coast while denying it to others. Anyone interested can google the resulting map. Referring the case to the international court of justice would make the most sense for Turkey and Greece but unfortunately, Turkey refuses to do so. I wonder if Greece should submit its claims unilaterally like the Philippines did to delegitimize China's 9-dash line in the South China Sea (and ended up winning).
Problem is Turkey isn't a signatory while China (PRC) was so I'm not sure how they'll deal with that.
Unfortunately China doesn’t care about what the International courts think as it’s still Militarizing in the 9 dash line ):
You're lying. Turkey does not reject this, the Greek side rejects it. Because the Greeks broke the treaty and the law. He armed the islands, which he said he wouldn't arm. I wonder why you feel the need to lie.
@@baskansparrow8260 That is not a treaty on maritime international law, you are talking about the treaty that awarded the dodecanese islands to Greece, which stipulates that they should be disarmed. Greece maintains that Turkey has no say in the matter, as Turkey is not a signatory to that treaty, it is between Italy and Greece. Greece has indeed armed the islands as they are being threatened. Greece and Italy can revise the treaty, removing the demilitarized condition.
@@baskansparrow8260 Did you even understand what the man is saying?
1st Turkey has no say in the treaty between Greece and Italy. Turkey hasn't sign it.
2nd Greece , and this is a well known fact, is willing to take Turkey to the ICJ but Turkey is refusing with passion for the past years.
Stop being bling for your sake pal.
When you highlight that the Greek islands are located just a few miles off the Turkish coast you should have mentioned that there's over 1500 islands all over the Aegean sea, spreading from the Greek mainland to the Turkish coast and that all of those islands together form a network that covers the whole Aegean sea. So it's not that the Aegean sea is empty and there are only a few Greek islands next to Turkiye, instead Greece spreads out all over the Aegean sea through hundreds of islands.
One out of ten Greeks lives on an island, that's one Million people living in the Aegean sea. How many Turkish people live in the Aegean sea? A few hundred.
There's a reason why UNCLOS gives islands the same rights as to mainland only if the island has been inhabited for a long time.
Türklerin nefesi ensenizde Yunanistan için artık konuşma aşaması yoktur türk askerleri 19 saate Atina'da sigara içerler Türkiye boş bir ülke değil
@@Mbappe7799 wenn Du in einer Sprache schreibst, die ich verstehe, können wir kommunizieren, Bruder.
i think greeks, turks don't live on the islands because you killed them you can find them on the internet 100 thousand folk songs killed in mora island
@@demirkandemir10 actually I live on a Greek island and of course we have Turkish living here.
Also maybe you don't know that on the islands the Turkish population never was high.
@@helgaioannidis9365 helga i hope see you soon after we get the islands i can visit you without visa problem
Turkey should respect the European border and international law .
Simple... Turkey has already invaded Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, interfered in the neighboring Armenia Adjerbaijan war and Libya civil war and now wants to invade the only remaining country being Greece, unfortunately for Turkey, Greece is not in Ruins like the rest but is recovering from financial crisis so Turkey knows it has a small remaining time window to try
Are those the lies you live within to justify your ignorant biases? OR Are those lies that you learned from your kitty high school? New puppet state for US is greece however, they will abandon them when tension is go up with Turkiye. Learn something from history for god sake.
@@MrErdem95
Cyprus: the turks destabilising the goverment and causing a fuss because god forbid the majority gets it's will of unification, driving the people who only cared about driving the brits off the island into friction with them (Because imagine if only the brits didn't win in the end by playing both sides). Also good job of them causing one of the worst humanitarian crisies of the 20th century, keeping a country torn in half and refusing to leave for 48 years(and unfortunately, still counting) ,even though any justification since attila 2 was unsubstantiated and the global community condems it(not to mention all of the military and civilian MIA's who's fate turkey still wont disclose, and the mass graves left on their wake).
Syria: kind of ironic whining about this concidering turkey supports islamic extemists/terrorists and is a safe heaven for them.
Armenia: oh boooohoooo the little Armenians that could bearly win against azerbaijan is such a threat to big turkey....the Turkish goverment wants half of the surrounding area but suddently the non existant threat of Armenia is an excuse to be an ass huh?
Libya: Recognised or unrecognised doesn't change the fact Turkey still supplied arms and mercenaries to a zone that was supposed to be under an ARMS EMBARGO TO HELP HOSTILIES SETTLE DOWN. Oh, plus Turkey couldn't care less about what's the legit goverment...they just want the one that sides with their illusions of grandeur and their E.E.Z. plans.
Indeed, such a good day we're having.
@@MrErdem95 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@bluesky8797 Turkey as a guarantor country landed on the island to stop Greeks killing Turks so they cant claim a greek only island. You should thank makarios for it, he fucked it up all for you. For the record , 371 British servicemen killed by EOKA in Cyprus as well as 700 Turkish civilians plus 500 odd still missing. Turks ruled Cyprus for 307 years, did you think Turks were gonna watch and do nothing while you were killing Turks , claiming the whole island and unite with greece.
Secondly, there is no maritime boundary between greece and cyprus , even USA backed off from your pipeline plans as well as Israel. Egypt is now claiming to have more territory after signing a deal with greece too. they realised they made a mistake.
Finally, everyone can check the map now and compare the size of the countries and how they share the EEZ. Turkey will never give up her rights in Eastern Med as well as Aegean Sea. Better mention here that Greece is the only country on planet earth claiming that greek islands in Aegean Sea has 6 miles territorial sea and 11 miles airspace which is laughable.
if you again trust EU , USA or France to support these fucked up ideas of yours, you gonna end up in the Aegean Sea again and it might not be in September this time. All these countries are using greece to put pressure on Turkey which is not working and will never work.
Cyprus was not invaded, Turkish Cypriots were rescued from a genocide... Turkey did not invade Syria, merely created a 30km zone to protect our civilians living close to the border (so far 4000 Turkish and Kurdish people living on the Turkish side of the border were killed due to artillery and mortar attacks. Turkey has very limited presence in Iraq, and that is mainly to chase and terminate PKK terrorists harbored by the Iraqi, Irani, and US governments... The whole world was supporting Armenia, I guess that's ok, but when we support our brothers that bugs you... Greece has the worst economy compared to the others mentioned (except Armenia), and with a population of 10 Million, has negligible power on any front against Turkey. You should wake up from your daydream asap...
I have an even better idea, what if Greece reinstated the megali idea and took the Turkish coast? Then turkey won't have to worry about its EEZ anymore, win-win 🥴
Good luck with that.
Dont give them ideas there will be a very shitty war and Turkey will probably win it. Although it would be devastating for both parties.
@@exosproudmamabear558 Good idea. Try and see Turkish flag over the Acropolis 👍
@@recepkucuk6516 you only have drones we are armed to the teeth and with secret weapons all the aegean is boobytraped remember that little mongol you will be swiming back to mongolia
they are free to try, but let them think about the end, once the war has started, we don't think about the end, we will go to the end
Which country is this channel from? I love unbiased news like this
you mean in favor of Greece lol
@@envadd.6556 well in this situation unbiased news is in favor towards Greece because international law is in favor of Greece. Turkey is in the wrong.
Turkey will never go to ICJ over EEZ borders cause they know that they might gain some square miles in Kastelorrizo but will lose in the rest of the Aegean islands and that will be the end of Mavi Vatan.
Are you Greek ?
@@jaeger9374 and what if ???
@@jaeger9374Are you German?
Cancel your reservation in ICJ that refuse to recognize authority of ICJ about territorial water and airspace limitations and military activities, then let's see who is right and winning the case!
@@oguzhancan5477Read again what are you writting and if it makes sense let me know !!!
most people don't understand the situation because their countries don't have islands or as many as we do and they don't get that mainland=islands for Greek people the islands are as important , as any other place in mainland Greece . it just happen to have sea instead of ground in between. Those islands were are and they are gonna be Greek till the end of time.
Lol sure dude the meis island is just 2km away from turkey and it is used by the Greek government to extradite people who are against the government just like the French did when they didn’t like officers they send them to Haiti but there is a little problem about this for Greece Haiti was an ocean away while meis in your words is “mainland Greece” sure dude whatever you believe
@@alpacino6859 You are ignoring islands like Chios, Lesvos, Samos, Rhodes , Crete , Karpathos etc that have thousands of people living there for hundreds of years. Greek islands are not just greek on the map, they have history and a special relationship with the sea from which they live off of
1. Even without Kastelorizo (Meis) Island, Greece still is entitled to sovereign rights east of Crete in East Med. Unless you think the 5th biggest island of Mediterranean sea along with Karpathos and Rhodes islands, are not entitled to any EEZ.
2. Even if USA or Israel are signatory to UNCLOS, both of them follows it. An example for that is Cyprus and Israel's maritime borders and EEZ agreement.
3. There are not "unfairly benefits" as you claim, for multi-island sates. What kind of phrase is this? It's the LAW. Otherwise Denmark a similar case with Greece, wouldn't be entitled to EEZ. Similar with Indonesia.
4. and this goes for all Turkish trolls:
Greece has islands that their teritorial waters(= sovereignty, not sovereign right as with EEZ) start next to mainland and ends near Turkish coasts. This makes Agean sea a homogeneous Greek "lake" that almost 70%(in 12nm from 6nm that is now) is Greek sovereignty. Because of this reality, we are entitled to such EEZ, there is not any suspicion any conspiracy about greece-friendly laws. It's the geography, the law and the sovereignty. And because Turkey knows that who owns the islands, owns the sea, threatens us with war or makes up absurd claims like that "the militarization of islands, dispute the sovereignty".
5. In case a Turk claims that Greece with one or the other way, landlocks turkey's exit on sea, free transition passages is a navigation rule in UNCLOS. An example for that is Denmark, which according to turkish logic closes the from Baltic to North sea, but it doesn't.
* 2)...aren't signatory...
* 5)...closes the transition...
Can’t even have a proper economy and now’s he’s talking about “liberating”?
in 2022 Turkey Draws maps and think they will get sea and islands from Greece...Are they Crazy?
Let them
If they invaded our land, it will give us a reason to retake Constantinople and the rest of Anatolia.
@B B yes
While I disagree on many (maybe even all) public policies of Turkey, I invite you to forget the maps you saw in the video and try to divide the sea in the region yourself as fairly as possible. Also consider the fact that most of the small islands in the aegean sea has no population and include any human activity. You will see the borders that is proposed in international law for Turkey is truly unfair.
Fairly as possible? Poor excuses for making war statements from a country that respects noone.Just try!
Why divide the sea exactly? Why not divide the coastal line at Anatolia or the area at the passage to Black Sea nice and fairly?
Because Turkey wants the sea Greece has to give its territory? What if Greece claims the shore of Anatolia, would you support to divide that fairly or not?
@@annas4843 Divide the sea because historically sea is divided according to already defined land borders. Even international law defines maritine borders according to coastal borders. Thus land comes first than waters and apart from cyprus there is no land disputes between Turkey and Greece in their continental territories. That is the reason why Greece claiming Anatiolian Lands or Istanbul would be much more absurd than Turkey's claim that international law is not fair in their situation.
@@irkv1007 That was my personal invitation not Turkey's. Just eye ball it what border do you think is appropriate between two states? I don't think if that wasn't for Turkey's bad reputation on international issues, The border that Turkey proposes (especially on eageon sea) is quite close to most people would agree. at least much closer than that UN law proposes.
@@furkanunsal5814 the sea is already divided according to already defined land borders, international law of sea and Treaty of Lausanne. What more is needed?
You claim Greece’s attempt to make same claim as Turkey does would be irrational but Turkey’s make sense only shows how biased your view is.
For Greece there is no dispute, these are the borders that have been agreed, if Turkey doesn’t like what it has signed then that gives the right to Greece to claim areas as well and not only unilaterally to Turkey.
im not expert but turkey's eez demands seems quite fair
Would you think the same if Greece made equal demands to land? Or you are biased?
@@annas4843 turkey is a big country equals big eez
Of course. Also the map is not really true. Greeks islands have 6 mile(10km I guess)eez according to real map. I would link it but youtube delete it. İt is greek propaganda trying to make Turkey look bad
Ok then as a Greek I want a rightfull part of Constantinople, a part of the Black sea and off course a big chunk of the historically Greek coast of Anatolia. That's also fair I believe. Also it's fair for the poor millions of Kurds to have a country where they lived for milemnia, meaning in many parts of Turkey. Afte rall they are millions, with their own ethnic properties, culture and language. That's fair too. Do you agree?
@@TMPOUZI you are talking about land borders
Why is every country's expansionist ideas discussed but not greater Israel? Isn't this a news/non-biased info channel?
so we're not allowed to talk about any nation in a bad way because Israel still exists? Bro...
@@c.k.636 NO what im saying is that talk about them as well. Why only not talk about them?
I'm Cypriot myself. Cyprus, the island as a whole is recognized internationally as a country since 1960, celebrating 62 years. Turkey invaded it in 1974 with a similar excuse that Russia invaded Ukraine and illegally occupies the north part since then. No one but Turkey recognizes the north as a seperated state, it's Turkey's puppet state with Turkish politicians and settlers imported by Turkey and its actions there are codemned internationally (see Varosha Ghost Town etc.).
It's important for the world to know how things really are in this area and how many nations, not just Cyprus, are tormented regularly by Turkey.
Syria was also invaded by Turkey 2 years prior and it's about to do it again as we speak.
It joined the 2020 war with Azerbaijan (a Turkic tribe) against Armenia, a nation that Turkey commited genocide against 100 years ago, 1,5 out of 2 million Armenians killed.
An other genocide around that time was commited against Pontic Greeks, speaking of which, Turkey violates the Greek air space many times DAILY (probably they are doing it now as well) and delusionally claim the Greek islands for theirs and demand their demilitarization, it's not only about the EEZ.
Turkey constantly hunts down Kurds in an attempt to exterminate them from Turkey. That's how the whole PKK came around and they used them as an excuse to kill all the Kurds or to support their views for other maters (Sweden and Finland in NATO). They teach Turks from an early age that every Kurd is a terrorist (see Kurd talks to Turks, in youtube).
Turkey violated the international arms embargo set in Libya and intervened militarily there.
It blackmails the EU with more immigrants if they don't meet their demands.
It cooperates closely with Russia for missiles and other weapons and it's the only NATO member that refuses to impose sanctions on them but in the contrary, it offers them more benefits as we speak.
The whole veto on Sweden and Finland joining NATO is an arrangement it had with Putin so Russia can get what it wants, with the fake excuse ofcourse, that these 2 countries support terrorist organizations.
These and more is happening with Turkey in our area and I only scratched the surface with what they did in JUST THE LAST 2 YEARS. This nation is a threat to our society and the world.
no liar greek lmao
Even though the long term occupation was unjustified, the initial invasion of Cyprus was absolutely justified. As for the EU, their demands are pretty reasonable, as they’re only asking for resources to deal with the refugee crisis they’re saving Europe’s ass from. They don’t HAVE to hold all these refugees if they don’t want to
As a Turk, I congratulate you, there is not a single truth in what you wrote.
😁👍
@@furkangurbuz8583 I mean there's a LITTLE bit, the occupation of Cyprus has overstayed its welcome, and the Armenian/Pontic genocides were very clearly a thing, we have the records from witnesses and the Ottoman government. Plus I think the Kurds could be treated a little better, though it's not nearly as bad as it was.
@@furkangurbuz8583 What I stated with my previous comment is 100% based on FACTS and nothing else. It's information one can find anywhere with a little search. There is no reason to lie about something so serious. I would advise you Turks to take a good look in your government and evaluate it before going in every page trying to debank everything bad associated with your nation. It's ok if you don't like the situation with your country, but go after your government/politicians, not the people who simply state what's going on in the outside world, otherwise it will be too late for you to fix it.
Turkey and Greece have been debating about their sea borders since they singed and agreed to them in a treaty the problem here being that it has been discovered recently that there is a lot of oil in the Greek and Cypriot economic zones and Turkey even though it has no claims wants a piece of that
The only problem is that Turkey doesn't follow the Lozane treaty and doesn't accept the international AL sea law... Nothing else
no. We have an agreement and we comply with it. There's no single discovery made in the Turkish coast. Turkey still offers fair share of resources if found. Don't confuse people as claims whilsts we are offering peace and collaboration in order to resolve the conflict.
What GR wants is to exclude Turkey and make news everyday just like now in order to cry and ask for help for fake threts greece produces.
@@konpap1972 🤣🤣Are you for real!!!! According to those treaties Greek islands should only have 3 miles of territorial water.
Source:Trust me Bro
@@yabadabadoo3418 everything outside of 3 nautical miles of Minor Asia (Anatolia), with the exception of Imbros and Tenedos, belongs to Greece. Source: Treaty of Lausanne
Islands do not have a continental shelf. only the mainland becomes a continental shelf
well i mean he could try.. but...
Someone with a British accent criticising anyone else for having imperial ideas is a bit on the nose!
... stop being childish he is just reporting
@@DoubleAAce pointing out the humour/irony of a situation isn't childish
@@foxyboiiyt3332 Therer is no irony the imperial days are gone and you cant hold him accountable for it.
How did you pick your ad? I didnt think you were able to do that
There is no such thing as a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". There is only the Republic of Cyprus, with 40% of it's territory being occupied by Turkey.
This is the status of the North given by the international community, security council, etc. So just for future references, call it with it's appropriate name. - Occupied part of Cyprus..
Cope
Cope and seethe.. İt is right there..
Mavi Vatan docrine is based on 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty signed between Greece and Turkey. This agreement sets the territorial waters to 3 nautical miles, in 1936 (when there was no UNCLOS) Greece unilaterally raised its territorial waters to 6 nautical miles (in violation of the peace treaty). Thus Greece took the first step to create a change to the peaceful stability of the Aegean. Turkey resisted this revisionism till 1960's and then raised its own territorial waters to 6 nautical miles as a means to create equality across the shores. Essentially both of these countries are legally obligated by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty to return their Territorial waters back to 3 nautical miles. This will ensure peace and stability. As for the exclusive economic zone aka the waters that lay beyond territorial waters to which the coastal country has economic rights to, issues are bit more complicated. First of all UNCLOS states that islands can only have the same amount of eez with a mainland, if the said islands constitute an archipelagic state. Archipelagic states do not have any mainlands, so for example like Japan. Greece is currently claiming maximal amounts of exclusive economic zone, for Greece claims that its islands constitute an archipelagic state... yet as we all know Greek islands are not an independent state and are part of the Greek country which has a mainland. Since Greece is a mainland country with islands, unlike Japan, technically Greek islands can only possess territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine underlines this and states that in the Aegean sea, all those Greek islands which lay on eastern side of the mid line, can have an eez only insofar as their territorial waters. Mavi Vatan doctrine shows ICJ cases between UK-France, Spain-Morocco, Canada-France and many others to support its claims. For example Jersey Islands which belong to UK but are closer to the French Riviera only have territorial waters. Yet if UK followed Greek logic, the entire channel sea would belong to UK. Similarly if Spain followed Greek logic Morocco would have almost no sea in the mediterranean. Yet thankfully ICJ denied these claims. THE PROBLEM IS, even legally valid claims of Turkey are being manipulated by the media. Erdogans negative image is utilized to discredit Turkey's legal claims. However Mavi Vatan doctrine is supported by the entire nation regardless of political affiliation. The solution to all these problems are in the 1923 Lausanne Treaty which was established to create a stable and peaceful Aegean. As for the EEZ, international law principles state that mainlands have superiority to islands when there are no island states in question, thus Turkey's claims are legal. Lastly Greece says that Turkey and Greece should go to ICJ to solve the EEZ issue in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece then uses this recommendation to show the world that Turkey is not intending to go to ICJ and is therefore a state which doesnt respect law. Yet Turkey states that it is willing to go to ICJ, but Turkey also states that if both of these countries go to ICJ they need to go for all issues aka both Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. Essentially Turkey says that one cannot solve Eastern Mediterranean maritime delimitation without delimiting the Aegean sea. Greece on the other hand assumes that there is nothing wrong with the Aegean thus only Eastern Mediterranean should be taken to the court. Turkey as a response states that there are superior issues within the Aegean which will affect the Eastern Mediterranean issue thus the Aegean must be solved in the courts first. For Turkey the issues in the Aegean include: The Demilitarized status of the Greek Aegean islands next to Turkish riviera; the legal owner of certain islands which were never ceded to Greece with 1923 Lausanne Treaty. So Erdogan recently said, if demilitarized islands are kept militarized in violation of the Lausanne Treaty, their sovereignity will be open to question. Most western media portrayed this as Erdogan being Putin Jr and Greece as Ukraine. Yet the reality is different 1923 Lausanne Treaty names each and every island transferred to Greece and adds that this transfer is dependent on the demilitarized status of the islands. In international law this means that once these islands are militarized the contract/treaty of transfer is violated and therefore Greek ownership of the islands returns to pre 1923. Essentially Turkey does not want these islands, which is why up until today and ever since 1960's Turkey only gave notes and letters to Greece and UN stating that it is observing the violation and urging Greece to abide by the 1923 Treaty... however in 2022 it seems that Turkey ran out of patience. Erdogan stated that Turkeys patience in this issue has been received as compromise by the Greeks, so he stated that Turkey is not Joking when it comes to safe-keeping its rights secured by the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. Bear in mind that 1923 Lausanne Treaty was signed in the aftermath of Greek attempt to invade western Turkey. After Greece lost this treaty was signed. AKA Turkey shed blood to have this Treaty. Turkey sees this treaty as the legal ground of its existance, so when Greece (the old invader) attempts to revise the clauses of the treaty Turkey is claiming that its entire existance is threatened for it says international law is ignored by Greece. The irony is since the Western media has an undeniable bias towards Greece, the general masses do not know about the nuances. Let me remind you that ever since 1830's aka establishment of the Greek state, Greece has expanded its territory around 6 times. In each time it carved some area from Ottomans (Turks). So if one is to search for a revisionist state history points to the Greeks not the Turks. On the rise of China Russia and Iran, west must realize that Turkey is not a foe but a fucking ally. Yet this bullying attitude to the muslim Turks by the christian western coalition, makes Turkey worried. Turkey doe not see it self part of any camp due to this trust issue, which is why its trying to protect its own rights alone, much like how it did 100 years ago against British, French, Russian, Italian and Greeks. History never forgets, and unfortunately repeats itself. Turks will never shy away from fighting to persevere their rights and dignity. Yet this does not mean Turks are barbaric, that inclination is a mere racist ideology. Turks are humans, who have created many empires with distinct civilizations. Racism or aryanism is not a Turkish ideology, which is why you can find Turkic people from all races and religions. Whether one likes it or not, this is the truth.
@erdal k. So glorious that since nobody is recognizing it has shit economy and even drags your mainland together down 😂 good riddance turks
@@zeynepceyhan1909 Shut your copy and paste boy
Turkey occupies almost half of Cyprus illegally
Do something about it
Imvros and Tenedos are islands with Greek population given to Turkey a century ago with the obligation to respect the Greek inhabitants. After a few decades Turkey forced the local Greek populations to abandon their islands where they had been living for thousands of years. After this violation Imvros and Tenedos should be given back to Greece since Turkey did not respect the terms under which obtained these Greek islands. The ultimate goal of Turkey is to do to the rest of the Aegean islands what they have done to Imvros, Tenedos and to Cyprus: Invasion and ethnic cleansing. The Turkish claims on the Aegean sea waters are part of this goal.
Turkey had zero problems with the borders when they became a country
To not risk a war, yes. Now that we can risk a war, why not? It is unfair to us, and the moment has come. Either Greeks agree to a fair-share, or we enforce the fair-share.
Yes, because the islands were under Italian control. When Germany invaded Greece, it offered to give the Islands to Turkey, but Turkey remained neutral and refused the islands.
@@bbugrayuksel kid we don't care about your feelings you should grow up and learn to respect the international law but i guess everything can ve explained easily since erdogan is gonna have a rough time with the new elections plus your inflation rate just reached 73% no wonder he wants to distract you all
@@sbd03 well too bad
Greece is not a country, it is a province of France.
?
Turkey is not a country, it's a hotel for terrorists and autocrats :D
Not France, USA
Yet
This channel is obviously biased. Turkey's 'plan' you mentioned is aligned with international law of the sea and case law. Turkey has the longest coastline in the Mediterrenian. We can't just give up on our rights. Islands should have only limited continental shelf and eez. They can't be considered as their own mainlands. Greece extending their territorial waters to 12 miles is ridiculous and this is a 'casus belli' for Turkey.
Which article of the international law are you talking about?
I want to read it.
@@hamlet557 Greece isnt an island country. Their small islands and islets cant have their own EEZ. Look at similar cases between other countries in history
Turkey doesnt have the largest coastline in the meditteranean. Thats Greece Croatia and Italy
2:15 It's pronounced like "jam"
They mispronounce French and Spanish common words... Do you seriously expect them to pronounce Turkish correctly?
GREEC 🇬🇷❤️🇹🇷TURKEY YES
yaw dayı s.g söyle m4l m4l şeyler yazıp durma suraya
🇹🇷❤️🇬🇷
Sadly not everyone like that
🇹🇷👎🤡
Well, let's clear some things out. First of all, all countries (even island countries) have a right to their EEZ. Let's take Malta as an example. Since they are an island as well as a country they have a right to claim what the international laws allow. The same applies to both the UK and Cyprus. Furthermore, countries that also happen to have islands also have rights to have a normal EEZ / maritime borders. Take Italy and France for example. They both own islands within the Mediterranean sea and they recognize the fact that each island also affects the way the maritime borders are set since they are considered as actual national territories. Just because Corse (French island) is closer to Italy than France doesn't mean that Corse is not eligible for EEZ/ maritime bordes. The median line between France and Italy is not calculated based on the "mainlands", on the contrary, their islands have affected its outcome. As a result, Turkey's point on drawing a median line based on the mainlands is not logical. From negotiations POV (if they ever go there), Greece could be more relaxed towards Kastellorizo to ensure a permanent Aegean greek sea.
You don't give a biscuit to appease a thirsty monster otherwise its going to eat your finger.
No, kastelorizo is entitled to EEZ as well. Let's go to the court.
@TheSoundInYourHead You don't want to go to the court, for many years now. Otherwise, you would had accepted our invitation to bring all matters to the International Court of Hague! Instead of that, you use pressure, force & threats to make us talk outside of a court and come to a solution. So do not lie my friend because facts are undisputable! The thirsty monster can die out of thirst. This is not and never will be our problem!
@@SpirosMargelis I'm geek man. What are you talking about!? I said that kastelorizo is entitled to EEZ as well and we don't make discounts on our rights to appease turkey. That's all I said.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 LOL! Sorry sude! I must have confused your sayings with some other's sayings! LOL again ... There too many F* comments about this conflict! A real war ... of the keyboards LOL
Dear Dimitris,
None of those case seem to shed light to the problems between Turkiye and Greece, because all of the case are in open sea unlike Egeans which is close sea. In none of those case one party block the sea to the other party.
Increasing your neutical miles to 12 means blocking Turkey to mediternean sea, which is unbearable. Given that Turkiye is the side of the sea, she should naturally have right on the resources. Do you think limiting the fair share of Turkey to 3 ml. logical.
Needless to mention about the logic in the case of Kastellorizo, -a tiny island unvisible on the map - which also block Turkish mediternean sea.
not a fan of modern Turkey. What they did to the Armenians and other minorities as well as their invasion of Cyprus and threatening Greece. should be removed from NATO.
Europe should become brown and islamic 😊
3:28 it is NOT "Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus" but Occupied areas of the (united) Republic of Cyprus because those areas have been invaded in 1974 by Turkey and are illegaly occupied since then. This is not a state just to make it clear.
cry
It's the favorite excuse of loser countries around the world.
Tbf the turkish people who lived there were getting kicked out and turkey was protecting there own people
@@alexanderballa6152 yeah? You must believe Russia is just “protecting Russian speakers in Ukraine” too
We won't leave anytime soon.
4:58 in 1923, after the brutal Asia Minor war, we made a peace agreement where the Greek lands in Anatolia would be given to Turkey, however all islands in the Aegean except certain rocks 3 miles from the coast would remain Greek. This means that all the maritime areas are also Greek. Turkey should be satisfied with what it has, because the Aegean is rightfully Greek.
@@youraverage90sguys7 If you want more war to change borders, we're ready to defend our fatherland. Your loss. I was just explaining the situation to an international audience, which yes, prefers peace over war. But then don't come saying boo hoo Greece wants war, because you're the one causing it and you're the one who wants to steal our land and people.
@@youraverage90sguys7 are you out of your mind? What is nonsensical about clearly defined ethnic borders? This is not Africa pal. In Greece live Greeks, and Turkey has no moral or legal right to claim Greek lands. It did it before and ended in genocide. We're not allowing that for a second time.
@@youraverage90sguys7 What genocides? Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Assyrians... yep, all done by Turkey.
@@dimitrispvoice133 you mean mora genocide which result of killing 620000 Turkish people? by greeks
@erdal kazancı it hasn't "slapped" me a single time. Greece on the other hand has beaten Turkey countless times in war and in diplomacy. That's why I'm not afraid of you or anyone who's trying to bully us without any knowledge of history. Your claims are baseless and the Greek government is for the first time in 10 years doing the right thing by not caring at all about them. Soon we will also extend the maritime zone to 12 nautical miles, to disarm the Turkish cause of war. Erdogan can't reasonably attack, given the war in Ukraine, and then his entire reputation will crumble like a house of cards. Greece has justice on its side, that's why it's not backing down. If I come to your house and I say it's mine, you don't split it or share it. You tell me to get out and show me the property papers. This is exactly what Greece is doing right now and it's good. Run back to your cave
Treaty of Lausanne, the maritime jurisdiction area is 3 miles. Greece opposed the agreement by increasing it to 6 miles. Then Turkey went up to 6 miles. Actually, Turkey was supposed to stick to the agreement and not do it.
Turkey left the islands and rocks it left to Greece on the condition not to arm them, but Greece even placed air defense systems and multiple rocket launchers there.
They wants something that is not accepted in the world and wants the islands it owns to have maritime jurisdiction. If it is accepted in this world, many countries will have to fight. Maritime jurisdictions are calculated with reference to the mainland.
you crazy or what?
the international law , which is above any local agreement, defines the minimum of 6 miles. And the last changes , give the ability to raise that to 12 miles, without asking anyone.
I don't know if Lausanne really says for 3 miles , I have go read that, but even if it did, that can't change the international LAW.
@@wakeno.6047 There are many decisions in the world that the islands do not naturally have the right to create a continental shelf and exclusive economic zone. International law aims to reach a just solution in delimitations.
- In the case between England and France in 1977, it was decided to completely surround the islands close to the French coast and not to give them the right to the continental shelf.
- In the case between Malta and Libya in 1984, equidistance to Malta was not taken into account, Libya was given more maritime jurisdiction.
- Between Tunisia and Libya, the Italian islands close to the Tunisian coast were not granted a continental shelf and an exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial waters.
- In the 2012 lawsuit between Nicaragua and Colombia, the Colombian islands were located off the coast of Nicaragua. These islands were also not given influence beyond the territorial waters.
@@buraktufekci9615 bro only 4 isalnds should be unarmed have u even read the lozani agreement?Not all islands
@@buraktufekci9615 First of all UNCLOS III came into force in 1994. Anything before that was under different laws.
Secondly while the 12 NM of territorials waters of islands are non-negotiable under UNCLOS it is true that EEZ is open to negotiations and if those fail the matter is tranfered to the Internation Court of Justice.
Problem is that turkey neither recognizes the international law nor the ICJ unless it is of benefit to them such as in the case of Blac Sea that they use 12NM territorial waters while not signing UNCLOS themselves.
Lausanne doesn't have to do neither with territorial water nor EEZ but land. The 3 n.m you mention are indeed states in Lausanne Treaty but for different purpose. According to Lausanne all islands more than 3 n.m from anatolian coast belong to Greece and less than 3 n.m belong to Turkey. When Lausanne Treaty was signed there wasn't any knowledge on EEZ. These came up later with UNCLOS when Turkey suddenly realized that things don't suit it anymore.
I think these claims make 1000 times more sense than greeces which would pandlock turkey and is as extendet as the chinese claims
Greece's claims make sense. They are entitled to the water surrounding their own islands. Turkish claims on the other hand make no sense, they want to control the water around Greek islands, even though they are populated, practically wanting to cut people off from their own country.
@@imo6927 well you say they Will be cut from their motherland but you literally trying to cut sea acces to turkey with your unclos fantasy.. You really think Turkey would allow this? I don't
There is no law saying that if island is closer to my mainland it belongs to me
5:42
I don't get what's the point of landlocked states signing the UNCLOS agreement?
yes but but but but... Turkey has enforced unclos in the Black sea
@@TMPOUZI I don't know what Turkey is doing in the Black sea, but I:
- doubt they would enforce something that they never signed
- am pretty sure the black sea isn't a landlocked body of water (due to the Bosphorus)
- doubt they have the authority to do that anyways
I welcome you (or anyone else) to discredit any of my points with (preferably) logical statement(s).
It's not you, it's me, seen way to much trash talk that doesn't make much sense.
@@lionlog2053 instead of writing nonsense you can check and verify it
You made the claim on black sea UNCLOS enforcement, it is up to you to prove it
@lionlog205 only pointed out his doubts on the matter, which adds little but is very welcomed to do as part of the conversation.
@@TMPOUZI But you made the claim that Turkey was enforcing UNCLOS, why am I the one who has to prove anything?
And also, I never said my points were absolutely correct, but I have my doubts on the validity of your comment.
Lastly, I don't see how my comments are 'nonsense', I personally believe that they are entirely logical.
Greece is not Ukraine and Turkey is definitely not Russia. They could try and invade since they have large army but the Greeks have a massive army as well compared to the country's size. It won't end well.
+ Modern military equipment + military alliance with France + the support of Eu & Us and all the world.
@@IOANNOU28 it will be not the first time that your allies betrays you. We don't need anyone to fight for our honor.
@@fercek9452 Is it really something you want to do though? Sure you make take/destroy a bunch of islands, but will it be worth it if for example Izmir with 4 million citizens is turned to rubble as well..? I hope both our leaders are not that stupid and we will continue to have peace...
@@ar1sm70 barış istemiyoruz bıktık sizden boş hayal dünyanızdan
@@ar1sm70 ofc not, I like Greek ppl. We have lived together for many years. We have a lot of common things. But I support my country in this matter. We just want have our rights in the Aegeon sea and not be isolated
Greece is not an island country like Japan or Indonesia. It is a mainland country with islands. Therefore the continental shelf is calculated based on the mainland of Turkey and Greece. Turkey is right in its thesis because according to the international laws, islands of a mainland country do not have continental shelf.
For example, the Spanish islands close to Morocco have no continental shelf. They divided the continental shelf according to the mainland of Spain and Morocco. This example confirms Turkey's thesis.
The Greek Islands have 6 miles of territorial waters. Turkey does not object to this. Turkey also does not want to seize the islands. Turkey just says the islands do not have a 200-mile continental shelf.
If you conveniently pick and choose what UN laws should apply to you, I'm sure you can find a way to have a border with Spain... No Greek would object with some middle ground in areas where you're too restricted, but the law is explained in the video VERY CLEARLY. And if anything is unfair in an inhabited Greek island to be surrounded by Turkish waters when you own only 2 islands! ridiculous
That's fair enough, but the refusal to acknowledge Cyprus as a country just looks bad. Also the direction of travel of Erdoğans government in general is worrying. Are you still seeing inflation rates over 70%?
Greece is equally an island country and a continental country, since ancient times. The islands and their people are essential parts of the greek nation, they're not of lesser importance than mainland. We're an island nation like Japan but we're not a continental country with a couple of islands like Italy for example (excluding Sicily). You can compare Greece to Denmark. Go tell them that Copenaghen isn't as Danish as the Jutland.
So Greece wants to own all the Aegean sea and Turkey is opposing this got it.
Not all of it - the areas surrounding Greek islands. Which is basically what happens in EVERY other part of the world.
If Turkey doesn’t like the fact that these islands are Greek, I’m afraid they’ve got to deal with it - or declare war, which I’m sure would get Turkey destroyed very easily.
@@kappa3787 So basically you are saying Greece will control 100% of Egean sea while Turkey also has a massive coastline. It will not gonna happen.
@@mertcankaya279 Aegean is a Greek sea like it or not! Not a single country in the world supports any Turkey claim against that fact.
@@IOANNOU28 Do you really believe any country will accept to have zero control of its sea when they have 2800 km of coastline in that sea? No country will accept such a thing. So Turkey will never accept. Even If whole world supports Greek claims, Turkey will not accept.
@@mertcankaya279 The thing is that at some point Turkey would have to make a choice. Go to war against Greece, which means against world law and order or accept and respect international laws, respect its neighbors, stop wanting to grasp other countries' territories and have international compliance. Turkey has vast resources and capabilities! Within the Eu could skyrocket its economy and the living of its people...instead of that some part of Turkey, seems to focus on neo-ottoman conquest fantasies.
I like how eu is so fully focused on ukraine a non european member and neglecting/ignoring its own eu member greece who is under an immediate threat from turkey
~i am not saying ukrained should be ignored but i dont like double standards or hipocrisy
let's be honest though, Turkey is not in any position to do anything. Their economy is crumbling and if they attack an EU state, they will be given some serious sanctions effectively damaging their economy and political suicide for Erdogan. Plus, Turkey would be having 3 stand off at the same time, 1 with Russia since they decided to get more involved that they should've, the second with Syria and Russia as a pair and the third would be against the EU.
Erdogan is not good at politics but damn, even he would see that this is political suicide.
Yeah because russia is a superpower and america wants it boycotted, no one will give a shit about greece they are all sheep believing whatever Americans want them to see
Is it ignoring it? What do you think they need to be doing about it that they aren't? I suppose you're worried about Turkey just claiming parts of ocean, like in the deal with Libya and building oil rigs, and you would like the EU to help Greece seize any Turkish construction like this or to keep the Turkish navy out of Greek waters and they aren't? Are you hoping for some kind of "diplomatic" help you're not seeing. (I'm not really sure what that entails.) Or are you just talking about public awareness? On that note I don't think it's very fair to expect different:
(The rest of this reply is a bit rambly and obvious.)
Ukraine has been at war since 2014 and is now facing a massive Russian invasion. There is no war in Greece, nor (I think) even on Cyprus. I will grant that Ukraine is not IN the EU, and there is no war anywhere in the EU (though troops of some EU countries are involved in conflicts outside the EU) and Cyprus is probably the most at risk EU member, with Greece nearby. Thus, Cyprus and Greece are likely the EU's biggest defense commitment that's actually inside the EU (and, given how much the EU disparages Russia for thinking the internal politics of neighboring countries can constitute a security risk, it's maybe hypocritical for the EU to think that a war inside neighboring country, indeed the same neighboring country, is one).
However, my understanding is that the EU is primarily an economic and customs alliances, with political and especially military cooperation secondary, snd that NATO is the primary alliance for defensive issues for most EU countries, including Greece, and also for Turkey. As for NATO neglecting member states, if any one's security is being neglected, it's clearly Turkey's, since Turkey is the only NATO member which has a significant armed conflict ongoing on it's soil (ca. 100~300 dying per year, though that MIGHT be conflating Turkey with parts of Syria, in any case it's down from >2000 killed in 2016) and I don't THINK that NATO's helping them much at all, except that most or all members (not sure about Norway) call the PKK a terrorist organization and SOME NATO members also shun or persecute Rojava organizations in some ways without calling them terrorists. (To be clear, I'm not actually saying NATO should help Turkey more, since it's woes are a combination of a civil war/police action and it's invasion of the neighboring country of Syria, supporting it's own particular brand of rebels and occupying a buffer zone around it's border. Neither of these is a foreign power attacking Turkey on Turkish soil, or at least not doing so unprovoked, so Article 5 doesn't really apply, though NATO is also more than just Article 5.)
As for NATO protecting Greece from Turkey. It is a little bit unclear how Article 5 would work if ine NATO member fought another, but, if read literally, it should trigger against the aggressor. Now, in wars, both sides usually claim the other side started it, but, international law ought to favor the country protecting it's old borders from foreign incursion, and most of NATO is probably biased towards Greece anyway (except in that Turkey is a more militarily useful ally), so I imagine most of NATO would back Greece if Turkey were to actually launch some land-grabbing invasion.
@@Mr.Nichan First of all the EU can start by not selling weapons to a war mongering nation that could potentially use these weapons against a European Union member (Spain building aircraft carriers for Turkey) , secondly they could impose further sanctions that would make erdogan sweat with his country's economy in tatters and thirdly the European Union should make an hardline announcement that Greece would be defended at all costs....you have to understand that Turkey doesn't understand the art of diplomacy from its foundations they only knew war and genocides (Greek genocide, pontic genocide, Armenian genocide). As for Turkish involvement in Syria , what do they want there? They don't care about Syria they just want to further oppress and kill Kurds (another justification that the Turks only know violence) i can see turkey only backing down with strong threats and economic "slaps".Call me a Greek nationalist but its not Greece that creates trouble with its neighbors but its turkey (Greece, Cyprus,Armenia,Syria,Iran) no wonder many accuse them of neo-ottomanism. As for NATO i have not seen anything more biased against Greece (i will send a video where stolkenberg disregards/ignores the daily Greek airspace violations but only cares about Russian violations against turkey)
@@Mr.Nichan Here is the proof th-cam.com/video/ST7YcfJF8Wk/w-d-xo.html
Question is, do 🦃 swim?
Intelligent comment, thanks for contributing to this discussion
@@smugpug4509 The Greeks are the nation with the best swimming skills in the world. Their high level of swimming abilities come from their genes. They have always swam throughout history.
@@smugpug4509 same the Turks 😂😂😂 and you did swim 🏊♂️ crying from Greece back to Turkeyland 🦃
No but greeks do 🤣🤣🤣
100 Million people will not get anything from Egean sea and little Greek Island and population is only 3000 will get everything ? Do you think it is farl
First you aren't 100 million and second the unclos as you show in the video allow for a small island to have that much area. I know that you don't like it but you've got to deal with it just like you deal with the rich getting all the wealth and the middle class just a piece.
With that logic UK should claim all Atlantic ocean cuz of falkland islands. We don't claim islands but say small islands can not have all the sea area agianst a huge continental mainland . Europeans having double standarts as always.
With that logic.. there is not any logic.
UK contintenal shelf doesn't reach Falkland islands. Greece tho does. Besides, Greek island's teritorial waters(=sovereignty) are connected each other staring near the mainland and ending near Turkish coasts, which makes the agean sea 70% and more, sovergn Greeks territory,thus such EEZ. We are entitled for it under law and the law is law. OK?
It's not the eurpeans as you claim on.
You mean with Greece's logic? Someone said something about Greece considering itself an "archipelagic country", which changes the rules, to get more ocean claims. It's an exageration either way. The Atlantic is a lot bigger than 200km across.
@@Mr.Nichan Greece is a mainland country. It's a part of European landmass itself. Stop coping.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 You are not entitled to anything Greek. West is on your side cuz they just hate us. Not cuz of you are right. Yes we need to work harder and after TFX we should produce our 6th gen unmanned fighter jet , fighter drones and we also need nukes. Thanks for reminding us that we need to work harder greek. Good day.
@@thesoundinyourhead1782 "Law is law" , the law you are mentioning is not signed by Turkey , it didn't get signed by bunch of countries.You can't just sign some papers and direct your rule to another country with it if they didn't sign it as well.
Claiming entire place just because Greece have small islands where nobody lives couples km to Turkish mainland is just stupid.Why in the world Turkey should accept your so called "law(!)".
Both countries should come together and come with an agreement themselves where they both accept the rules and sign an agreement.It doesn't happen because both Greece and Turkey are joke countries where we can't talk about anything.
Greece doesn’t want war Turkey wants war but Greece has the upper hand
Greece wıth its maxımalıst clıms askıng everything but no reactıon from othersıde and if any reactıon it is called " war ". u better to break hellenıc dreams and respect others rıgjts..
@@recepkucuk6516 A puppet state, as you claim has maximalist claims and you did nothing for a 100 years? You the superpower? Wow, I'm impressed with Greece
@@amartinakis it ıs not greece at all and never ever it was. Just be smart to see who controls them if you have an avarage understandıng 👍
On opposite
@@recepkucuk6516 You lost the sea mongols. You lost the islands because the Greeks beat you in the Balkan wars. This is history stop crying about it.
We talking about Greece first. I did not say that Cyprus has no EEZ . The big circle is Continental Shelf and inner circle is EEZ . U can not mix them . If there is connection within 200miles with mainland country and an island , island may have limited EEZ due first circle but u Just treat that u are an island in open sea.. Come on
Tha mas KLASEI TA PAPARIA.
The area in the black sea is compeltely normal as Turkiye is the country with the biggest black sea border. The eagean sea debate has been going on for a hundred years because of the massive number of islands and smaller rock-like bodies of land which are not clearly owned by anyone. Both nations have been competing for the eagean sea for a while. The only questionable debate here is the eastern mediterranean, and even that is questionable for greece also with their maximised claims and the whole twelve sea miles issue. As someone who votes for CHP and despises Erdogan, there is no wrong-doing here in erdogans part. It is simply a fight to protect Turkey from Greece's similar claims, just like the mentioned small island just below turkey making greeces claims larger. Of course Turkey is going to try to maximize its sea control when you have a neighbor doing the same thing in thr mediterranean. Its simply politics.
Lmfao
Yeah, they definitely have a point here. Obviously I’m not privy to all the finer points but it certainly seems like Turkey is getting screwed here, especially with how ridiculously large Greece’s EEZ is.
Only in this case expanding the sea control to half the aegean disregards the control of the greek islands on the waters? Why is that? You do realize who is the maximalist here, right?
@@tsaprailis You are greek my brother, of course you are going to support greecr and I will support turkey; because we both look at different points of view. But please tell me how a nation like greece can have double the size of maritime control over the mediterranean when turkey has half of it? How can a single island that far away from greece can completely block turkey from the mediterranean access? Does that make any sense to you?
@@EpsilonUnitGaming Both countries are going for the maximalist approach because the other doesnt back down. Both have faults clearly. But telling this issue from greek point of view and completely making it seem like turkey is the one in the wrong here is making me sick. I am disappointed of this channel, biased.