Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Copperline,

How can any nation neighbor of Turkey not include the military aspect in its thinking when Turkey itself is constantly underlining that factor with its actions?

Take the neighbors one by one, clockwise on the map, and figure any one country which has not been pressured militarily by Turkey recently. Just this morning a formation of fourteen Turkish jets flew right over the Greek island of Agathonisi at less than one thousand feet. If you were woken up at 6 am by screaming jets over your house you too would be dreaming of shoving rockets up those pilots orifices.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas
I'm not sure why your paost is addressed to me. My earlier comments on this thread were (a) to question the accuracy of the examples of third world states at war with the US and (b) to decry the manner of "Boy's Own" fantasising of war.
I'm not saying that military aspects of politics should not be considered. But as George Clemenceau might have said "War is too important to be left to the armchair generals."

[Kikapu]

Nikitas
I'm not sure why your paost is addressed to me. My earlier comments on this thread were (a) to question the accuracy of the examples of third world states at war with the US and (b) to decry the manner of "Boy's Own" fantasising of war.
I'm not saying that military aspects of politics should not be considered. But as George Clemenceau might have said "War is too important to be left to the armchair generals."

CopperLine,

I really have not followed this thread at all and my question to you may or may not have any relation to this thread as being relative or not, but let me ask it to you regardless as a side topic.

Do you think there is a country today that cannot be defeated by a smaller country, in terms of military capabilities.? In other words, is it all about military hardware or is it about determination of the people in the smaller country who are willing to pay the price at all costs to defeat the larger one.? Vietnam comes to mind , of course, but also places like Cuba, who has kept the Americans off the island (except for Guantanamo Bay) since the ""Bay of Pigs". There are other examples I'm sure, but in general, what do you say.?

[CopperLine]

Kikapu
I don't think that there is a rule, probably not even a pattern regarding 'smaller' states militarily defeating or being militarily defeated by 'large' states. The only thing I would say is that military matters - if that is taken to mean strictly what happens on the battlefield - is of less and less significance in determining the outcome of a conflict. Similarly therefore the number of deaths or the 'valour' of soldiers is of less and less significance (I'm not saying of no significance).

On the outdated principle of inter-state conflict of 'unconditional surrender' then sheer firepower or clear superiority of military hardware and support systems was, arguably, crucial. But the wars of the second half of the twentieth century including to the present are rarely (a) inter-state - they're now in a small minority of cases and (b) the terms of these conflicts, including state-state conflicts have not been based on unconditional surrender.


For me the question is how the conflict is resolved i.e, brought to an end, who pays the principal price in terms of lives, destruction, displacement. So even if a 'small' country defeats a much 'bigger' country in the third world examples referred to the conflicts have taken place in the former countries. That is to say none of the wars against bigger countries have taken place in (or even near) the latter. My examples were Vietnam, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq .... thus whether US, Russian or Chinese forces the bloody cost of war was not principally borne by the big guys.

The big guys face a different problem, especially the US, namely that all of the interventions they've been involved in depend for their success not upon military victory but upon a political settlement at the least cost to their soldiers lives as possible. That is a difficult square to circle. In many cases you've got the paradox that whilst the big powers don't lose wars they are incapable of winning the peace (eg US in Iraq; NATO in Afghanistan; Russians in Afghanistan)

Regarding this thread's talk - silly, fantastical and irresponsible imoh - about Cyprus, Turkey and Greece I fail to see the benefit of speculating about conducting a war in or about Cyprus. The military balance is so overwhelmingly in favour of Turkey against Cyprus that scheming some kind of a military ejection of Turkish forces is verging on the suicidal. That being the case the Cyprus question cannot be resolved militarily - it has to be negotiated politically and, in my view, in such a way that militaries are removed completely from the equation.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu
I don't think that there is a rule, probably not even a pattern regarding 'smaller' states militarily defeating or being militarily defeated by 'large' states. The only thing I would say is that military matters - if that is taken to mean strictly what happens on the battlefield - is of less and less significance in determining the outcome of a conflict. Similarly therefore the number of deaths or the 'valour' of soldiers is of less and less significance (I'm not saying of no significance).

On the outdated principle of inter-state conflict of 'unconditional surrender' then sheer firepower or clear superiority of military hardware and support systems was, arguably, crucial. But the wars of the second half of the twentieth century including to the present are rarely (a) inter-state - they're now in a small minority of cases and (b) the terms of these conflicts, including state-state conflicts have not been based on unconditional surrender.


For me the question is how the conflict is resolved i.e, brought to an end, who pays the principal price in terms of lives, destruction, displacement. So even if a 'small' country defeats a much 'bigger' country in the third world examples referred to the conflicts have taken place in the former countries. That is to say none of the wars against bigger countries have taken place in (or even near) the latter. My examples were Vietnam, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq .... thus whether US, Russian or Chinese forces the bloody cost of war was not principally borne by the big guys.

The big guys face a different problem, especially the US, namely that all of the interventions they've been involved in depend for their success not upon military victory but upon a political settlement at the least cost to their soldiers lives as possible. That is a difficult square to circle. In many cases you've got the paradox that whilst the big powers don't lose wars they are incapable of winning the peace (eg US in Iraq; NATO in Afghanistan; Russians in Afghanistan)

Regarding this thread's talk - silly, fantastical and irresponsible imoh - about Cyprus, Turkey and Greece I fail to see the benefit of speculating about conducting a war in or about Cyprus. The military balance is so overwhelmingly in favour of Turkey against Cyprus that scheming some kind of a military ejection of Turkish forces is verging on the suicidal. That being the case the Cyprus question cannot be resolved militarily - it has to be negotiated politically and, in my view, in such a way that militaries are removed completely from the equation.

Thanks for the above post, CopperLine. I tend to agree with you almost on all of your points. I also agree with you that Cyprus on her own is no match to Turkey's military might, but then again, Israel did not defeat the Arabs in 1967 on her own either, but rather military intelligence and hardware that were gotten from the US, so it all depends on how much help a smaller country gets from her allies to defeat a larger country (enemy). One could say, the EU states are now Cyprus's allies, in theory anyway, which some of them are able to provide everything militarily necessary to Cyprus to defeat a larger country. The negatives for Cyprus are however, that there can never be a United Front by the Cypriots if the "enemy" is Turkey or Greece. Israel did not have such problems, despite having 1 million Arabs living in Israel at the time of 1967 wars. Without united people in any country by it's citizens, that country cannot win wars, which the mighty US had found out in Vietnam and now in the Middle East..!

[Nikitas]

To add to the above, a lot depends on the definition of victory. If there is any kind of military action in Cyprus and the RoC national guard manages to hold the Green line, that result would count as a major victory for the RoC and a correspondingly major defeat for the Turkish army. It dould be a situation where the self advertised "best in NATO", with full air and naval superiority, would not be able to shift by military means an inferior opponent.

The diplomatic outcome of such a situation is pretty much predictable, since the west, which is the factor that really counts, thinks in sports termsm, (footbal terms really) and loves a winner. Such an event would also cast heavy doubts on the so called security value of Turkey.

The generals in Ankara know this. And that is why their exercise scenarios place so much emphasis on a massive effort in the area between Greece and Cyprus. Their scenarios foresee a total blockade of Cyprus in the event of a conflict. It is interesting to ponder how that would go down with other EU Mediterranean countries who will be told they cannot communicate with a fellow member nation, not even to deliver food and medical supplies.

The sledge hammer approach will also raise one hell of a row at other levels and nullify the efforts to project the TC and Turkish side as the victims.