Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

As we all know, Greece has certain obligations to the RoC which have not been met.

On the one hand, Greece's stance, does allow the RoC to challenge the integrity of the Treaty of Alliance and Guarantee, since both Greece and the UK have not even attempted to maintain the RoC's territorial integrity in the face of continued occupation. This is a good thing, and perhaps Greece may be correct to have such a stance.

On the other hand, Greece's inaction in Cyprus, leaves the RoC in a very vulnerable situation, especially since the RoC has little leverage apart from the EU and the impending legal actions of thousands of Cy refugees around the the world at the ECHR, and ECJ.

Should Greece deploy thousands of troops, aircraft and ships in Cyprus in order to maintain a balance of power on the island, and as a defense against Turkish conquest over the entire island? Will this give the RoC more leverage in the negotiations, since Greece is effectively now able to project power upon Turkey's southern flank and further afield into the Middle East?

I am of the opinion that such an action by Greece would be extremely troublesome for Turkey, and may be the catalyst for some compromise by them in order to remove the Greek troops from their southern flank. But on the other hand, Turkey may use this as an opportunity to resurrect the defunct Treaty of Alliance and Guarantee....

Should Greece project its military power in the Middle East for the benefit of the RoC, or is Greece's current stance more beneficial as we attempt to negotiate with an occupying power which wants it all or nothing?

Greece is one of the largest military powers in Europe. Its military is armed with some of the most advance equipment money can buy! For such a well armed and militarily powerful country, it seems that Greece is too scared of its own shadow and has not only left Cyprus out to dry, but is also politically incapable of dealing with Turkish recalcitrance in the Aegean by not extending its territorial seas out to 12nms.

I would have thought, that Greece should be obligated to station 40,000 to 50,000 troops on Cyprus, on the ready for a "Freedom or Death" (ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ Η ΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ), quest for liberation by marching upon Kyrenia alongside 90,000 odd CNG regulars and reservists, under HAF air cover, whilst HN submarines are blockading Turkish supply lines, especially since Greece is quite responsible for the current situation.

[Kifeas]

Unbelievable!!! And I had you down for someone slightly more intelligent!

[Epiktitos]

While this is an interesting debate for armchair generals everywhere, the risks and costs involved are simply tremendous. The ensuing bloodbath would make 1974 look like a picnic, and there is a serious risk that instead of the outcome you desire, you could end up with all of Cyprus, half of the Aegean islands, and western Thrace all hosting a big red flag, along with the 50,000 casualties you'll get regardless of the outcome.

[Paphitis]

Unbelievable!!! And I had you down for someone slightly more intelligent!

It is just a very simple question which you can answer if you wish.

I am well aware of the implications one way or the other, but am also aware that we are currently headed nowhere, which is why I believe that the above is an interesting debate as it could be politically costly on the one hand, or something which may force Turkey to be more willing to negotiate a comprehensive settlement as I think it is not in Turkey's interests for Greece to have troops in Cyprus. Or is it?

[Paphitis]

While this is an interesting debate for armchair generals everywhere, the risks and costs involved are simply tremendous. The ensuing bloodbath would make 1974 look like a picnic, and there is a serious risk that instead of the outcome you desire, you could end up with all of Cyprus, half of the Aegean islands, and western Thrace all hosting a big red flag, along with the 50,000 casualties you'll get regardless of the outcome.

Any mention of a liberation campaign by Greece is implied as to denote Greece's obligations to the RoC. It is Greece that should be looking at ways to change the balance of power in the region, only if beneficial to the RoC, and this is what this debate is all about.

Your analysis is extremely unrealistic and based on many assumptions such as the willingness of Turkey to fight Greece, and the willingness of NATO or the US to allow this to happen. 50,000 casualties are way over the top and unfounded, as you seem to believe that any campaign will be allowed to continue beyond 2 weeks.

But this is not the jist of this thread. I would have thought that Greece's inaction and the RoC's vulnerability at present due to this inaction is something that needs to be discussed.

[Epiktitos]

Unbelievable!!! And I had you down for someone slightly more intelligent!

It is just a very simple question which you can answer if you wish.

I am well aware of the implications one way or the other, but am also aware that we are currently headed nowhere, which is why I believe that the above is an interesting debate as it could be politically costly on the one hand, or something which may force Turkey to be more willing to negotiate a comprehensive settlement as I think it is not in Turkey's interests for Greece to have troops in Cyprus. Or is it?

The propaganda from turkey is that Cyprus is (was) "a dagger pointed at the heart of Turkey", and hence had to be neutralised as a threat. Even today with a fairly capable military force, it is laughable that Greece has designs on turkey (let alone the capability to act on them). The real fear is that the projection of Greek military power from Cyprus will act as a credible deterrent against turkish military aggression, and the turks would prefer to reserve the right to military aggression, thank you very much.

Do you remember the furor over the S-300 missile deployment? They're essentially defensive weapons, but they would have seriously changed the balance in any future shooting war by restricting turkish air operations (which would both make seaborne military re-supply for the CNG and the HFC from the west easier, and make airborne resupply and air support to the turks from the north more challenging).

[Epiktitos]

Your analysis is extremely unrealistic and based on many assumptions such as the willingness of Turkey to fight Greece, and the willingness of NATO or the US to allow this to happen. 50,000 casualties are way over the top and unfounded, as you seem to believe that any campaign will be allowed to continue beyond 2 weeks.

I'm a pretty crappy armchair general, but I am certainly pessimistic about the outcome of an attempted liberation using force.

First off, NATO as an alliance would not get involved. NATO only concerns itself with attacks on members by outside parties. Any US involvement would not be positive from the Greek side because they have consistently backed turkey in this dispute and in any dispute involving Greece or Cyprus.

As for the casualties and the potential for a catastrophic outcome, some things to think about: the turks have (I believe) 2 armored divisions garrisoning cyprus, admittedly with most likely older equipment, but they will take some beating nonetheless. Also their resupply and reinforcements are say 100km away whereas the CNG needs to be resupplied from as far away as Crete, and under hostile conditions. The other major problem is that the turks would not hesitate to counterattack across the Evros and in the aegean, so Greece would have to hold the majority of her naval and air force assets (to say nothing of armour) back in Greece to prevent the loss of 50 times as much territory as might be liberated in Cyprus.

If the kataxoumena are to be liberated, it will take the intervention of the great satan, or turkey to realise that a settlement is in her best interest.

[runaway]

Greece is welcome to have as many bases in south cyprus as she wishes. She is far from being a threat to Türkiye militarily. Only Lebanon or Syria may be disturbed. And it is unlikely that bankrupt Greece will be after any bases in tiny Greece nowadays.

[miltiades]

Your analysis is extremely unrealistic and based on many assumptions such as the willingness of Turkey to fight Greece, and the willingness of NATO or the US to allow this to happen. 50,000 casualties are way over the top and unfounded, as you seem to believe that any campaign will be allowed to continue beyond 2 weeks.

I'm a pretty crappy armchair general, but I am certainly pessimistic about the outcome of an attempted liberation using force.

First off, NATO as an alliance would not get involved. NATO only concerns itself with attacks on members by outside parties. Any US involvement would not be positive from the Greek side because they have consistently backed turkey in this dispute and in any dispute involving Greece or Cyprus.

As for the casualties and the potential for a catastrophic outcome, some things to think about: the turks have (I believe) 2 armored divisions garrisoning cyprus, admittedly with most likely older equipment, but they will take some beating nonetheless. Also their resupply and reinforcements are say 100km away whereas the CNG needs to be resupplied from as far away as Crete, and under hostile conditions. The other major problem is that the turks would not hesitate to counterattack across the Evros and in the aegean, so Greece would have to hold the majority of her naval and air force assets (to say nothing of armour) back in Greece to prevent the loss of 50 times as much territory as might be liberated in Cyprus.

If the kataxoumena are to be liberated, it will take the intervention of the great satan, or turkey to realise that a settlement is in her best interest.

I agree entirely with your assessment .
Only one option is available in order to get Turkey out of Cyprus.
The political arsenal at our disposal and the T/C moderates who unlike runaway who is after all a foreigner and should have nothing to do with Cyprus want Turkey to end its occupation of northern Cyprus .
Make them an offer they can not refuse .Remove from the RoC the ridiculous emblems of foreign nations. Educate the kids at school , teach them about Cyprus not the glory of a foreign nation and ask that our T/C compatriots do the same. I have always advocated that those who consider either Greece or Turkey as their motherland ought to do the right thing and depart to their respective motherlands .

[Paphitis]

Unbelievable!!! And I had you down for someone slightly more intelligent!

It is just a very simple question which you can answer if you wish.

I am well aware of the implications one way or the other, but am also aware that we are currently headed nowhere, which is why I believe that the above is an interesting debate as it could be politically costly on the one hand, or something which may force Turkey to be more willing to negotiate a comprehensive settlement as I think it is not in Turkey's interests for Greece to have troops in Cyprus. Or is it?

Epiktitos wrote:

The propaganda from turkey is that Cyprus is (was) "a dagger pointed at the heart of Turkey", and hence had to be neutralised as a threat. Even today with a fairly capable military force, it is laughable that Greece has designs on turkey (let alone the capability to act on them). The real fear is that the projection of Greek military power from Cyprus will act as a credible deterrent against turkish military aggression, and the turks would prefer to reserve the right to military aggression, thank you very much.

No one ever mentioned any military designs over Turkey.

Your comprehension as to the subject at hand is laughable, and you have taken this thread into a direction that was not intended.

This thread is about Greece's legal obligations to the RoC and whether Greece should use these legal avenues to deploy troops in Cyprus which should have the ultimate aim of liberating the island from the mess many argue Greece is at least partly responsible.

Epiktitos wrote:

Do you remember the furor over the S-300 missile deployment? They're essentially defensive weapons, but they would have seriously changed the balance in any future shooting war by restricting turkish air operations (which would both make seaborne military re-supply for the CNG and the HFC from the west easier, and make airborne resupply and air support to the turks from the north more challenging).

Yes I do remember the S300 fiasco, and if you ask me, this fiasco was an absolute disgrace and maybe even a betrayal to the people of Cyprus. These weapons should have been deployed in the RoC and Clerides should hang his head in shame.

Furthermore, the main reason why Turkey objected to these weapons is because of its long range radar which could track potential targets within a 300nm radius which means that the RoC could track movements from deep within Turkey. The S300 could not restrict TAF operations, but is still a threat nonetheless, just like the TOR and BUK M1 are, but without the long range radar!

Again, you seem to have no idea what the hell your talking about, so stop derailing this thread. You need to learn some English and brush up on your comprehension so that you can discuss the subject at hand.