BRITISH DIPLOMAT CAUSES OUTRAGE 1 Jul 2023

[laptawrinkly]

From: https://www.brstrnc.com/press.asp?r=brs

BRITISH DIPLOMAT CAUSES OUTRAGE 1 Jul 2023
By ELTAN HALIL
UK High Commissioner says second phase of Turkish Peace Operation was a ‘land grab'

THE United Kingdom's most senior official in Cyprus, High Commissioner Irfan Siddiq, sparked outrage by referring to the second phase of the 1974 Turkish Peace Operation in Cyprus as a “land grab”.
Mr Siddiq, who also caused a stir by saying that the 1960 Republic of Cyprus Constitution is “no longer in effect” due to the changes “on the ground” caused by the Turkish intervention, made the highly controversial comment at a public event held in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
He was speaking to a group of around a hundred British residents of North Cyprus who had been invited to a “town hall” style meeting at the Olive Tree Hotel in Çatalköy on Tuesday, June 27.
While Mr Siddiq has visited North Cyprus before to meet with the TRNC leadership and other Turkish Cypriots, this was the first time that Mr Siddiq, who took up his post last summer, has met publicly with members of the British expat community in the TRNC.
Speaking exclusively to Cyprus Today ahead of the event, the top British diplomat had said he is “conscious that there's a large British resident community here in the North” and that he is “keen to keep good relations with them”.
“Because of the particular nature of the North, the fact that the self-declared TRNC is not recognised by anybody apart from Turkey, that does create some particular administrative challenges for the residents. So it's important for us to understand that, which is why I'm here to meet with them.”
However the public gathering, which was also attended by two officials from the British High Commission in South Nicosia, was dominated by the Cyprus problem and the UK's stance on it, with tensions running high at times.
Referring to the events of 1974 following a question from the audience, Mr Siddiq – who later attempted to prevent this newspaper from publishing his comments at the public meeting by claiming he had been speaking “off the record” and warning that there would be “consequences” if we did – said: “The reality is that the 1974 conflict, some would argue . . . the intervention was justified under the system of guarantees.
“From my reading of history, there were two phases to that operation, and arguably, the first phase [on July 20] was legitimate, and the second [on August 14] was a land grab.”
His use of the phrase “land grab”, which the Oxford dictionary describes as an “act of buying or taking land illegally or in a way that is considered morally wrong”, triggered outrage among members of the audience.
One man shouted “you're talking absolute garbage” and recommended that Mr Siddiq “read this book”, The Death of Friendship by Turkish Cypriot Türkan Aziz, while others said “No” and continued to interrupt Mr Siddiq, who at one point threatened to walk out.
“If you would like me to speak then I'm happy to speak, if you would like to speak I can leave and you can speak,” he said.
Continuing to talk while being heckled by some members of the audience, Mr Siddiq added: “I understand it's emotive and I said I respect the frustration, but there's no facts in politics, there's perceptions. So it's a reality that there was a . . . Greek military junta that stimulated a coup [on July 15, 1974], and there was a risk of Enosis [union of Cyprus with Greece] which triggered a Turkish military intervention. . . At that point, there was a pause in the fighting and before any agreement could be reached, there was a second wave, which took a lot more territory and land.
“It's clear that there wasn't confidence on the Turkish side that any political agreement would be satisfactory and therefore they wanted to create a boundary that gave them strategic depth and allow the presence of more Turkish troops.
“Now my view of international law is that first intervention was arguably justified because it was a direct response to this risk of Enosis and a change to the Constitutional status, which enables and allows for military intervention by the guarantor powers.
“But they [Türkiye] did that to stop that risk [and] that risk was no longer there now once they'd come.
“The second phase was a policy decision. And that policy decision to try to create [a] strategic buffer has consequences, and the consequences, just like, and although people don't like the analogy and the intervention and the justification is totally different, but there is a war going on in Ukraine now because Russia is trying to change borders. . . And there is no legally sanctioned way to change territorial boundaries without UN support.
“So what the TRNC, by declaring its independence, and what Turkey has done, by occupying a larger part of the land than the defensive operation to stop Enosis required, is create political facts on the ground which have consequences.
“And the consequences [are that] the TRNC is isolated because nobody will recognise it, because you cannot establish a state through a military operation – that's what Russia's trying to do in the Donbas region [of Ukraine].
“So as a consequence, the only way that this will be resolved is through a political negotiation. “And until there is a settlement, that means that the TRNC and the Turkish Cypriots will be isolated.
“That's the unfortunate consequences of the way that the politics played out. Now that doesn't mean that Turkish Cypriots don't have rights, or shouldn't be treated fairly, or shouldn't have the same aspirations. Of course they have inherent rights as citizens of that united Cypriot state that was established in 1960.
“Now I know that a lot of people say that they were forced out [in 1963], therefore it's not their fault, that's a point of view I respect, but the reality is they're not going to have the same rights until you have a settlement which is agreed, because nowhere in international law, in the UN, will anybody recognise that rights can be accrued through a military operation.
“And if that is an uncomfortable truth, I'm sorry to share an uncomfortable truth, but it is a truth, which is why there is such a strong reaction to any attempt to change borders by military force, as we're seeing in Ukraine now.
“The justifications are totally different, but the reality is the same thing, that the world organises to protect the core principle of territorial integrity.”
Mr Siddiq's comments regarding the second phase of the Turkish Peace Operation and likening it to Russia's invasion of Ukraine will likely anger the TRNC and Türkiye, which say it was necessary to protect Turkish Cypriots, who had been forced into enclaves and were still at risk of massacre.
These included around 13,000 Turkish Cypriots who were besieged within the old walls of Gazimagusa until they were liberated by the Turkish Army on August 16, 1974.
In the period between July 20 and August 15, 1974, attacks continued on the Turkish Cypriot population.
The grim justification for the second phase of the Turkish military operation was further supported with the discovery of the mass graves of civilians, including young children, from villages such as Murataga, Atlilar, Sandallar and Tochni (Taskent).
Michael Stephen, a former British MP and barrister, listed the atrocities that had been committed against Turkish Cypriots across the island during the days between the first and second phases of the Peace Operation, and which were documented in detail by the international press, such as the Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, France Soir, Die Zeit, the Daily Telegraph.
Providing written evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee as part of a 2004 inquiry into British government policy on Cyprus, he wrote: “Some people argue that having defeated the Sampson coup, and Makarios having returned to the Presidential Palace, Turkey should have withdrawn and left the Turkish Cypriots again at the mercy of Makarios, the man who had been responsible for the earlier massacres.
“That proposition has only to be stated for its absurdity to be appreciated. It must be remembered that UN troops had been in Cyprus since March 1964 and had failed to protect the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots were later to see what happened to the Muslim people of Srebrenica under international protection.
“Turkey could discharge its treaty obligation only by providing a safe haven for the Turkish Cypriots in which they could live in peace and freedom, and by encouraging them to reach a new political arrangement with the Greek Cypriots in which they could play their part as political equals in the government of the island.”

‘TRUST DEFICIT'

During the meeting with British residents, Mr Siddiq also said that the TRNC authorities have been taking a tougher stance when it comes to cooperating with the British and UN authorities on the island by “challenging the Greek Cypriot preference for a bicommunal solution”, such as ending bicommunal initiatives, which is: “Making the Greek Cypriots think that it's not actually so comfortable to just sit on their seat and say ‘we'll continue to isolate the Turkish Cypriots, they will feel the pain, at some point they'll come and if they don't, we're fine anyway, so it doesn't bother us'. I think that logic and that analysis is changing.”
He added that the new Greek Cypriot leader Nikos Christodoulides has been making it clear that the “status quo is not comfortable” and that “if something isn't done to try to create a new push for a resumption of talks and resolution of the problem, there's a risk that the North would be lost”.
Mr Siddiq continued: “I think that risk is becoming more and more real for the Greek Cypriots. “And therefore, I think despite there being a huge amount of scepticism, I think they are genuine when they say they want to resume talks and they really want to get an agreement.”
Stating that the “incentives and pressures” for a solution have changed since the last attempt in 2017, and referring to the “difficult economic situation” in Türkiye due to the devaluation of the Turkish lira, Mr Siddiq said there are “potential incentives that could be put on the table for Turkey” but that the “biggest problem at the moment” is the “massive lack of trust and confidence between the two sides” and that “something needs to be done to bridge that trust deficit”.
“And because the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey aren't the ones who are advocating for a federal solution now, it probably needs to come from the Greek Cypriot side,” he said.
“In my discussions with the Greek Cypriot leadership, I think they've begun to internalise that they might need to do something. They've started with this pitch for a bigger EU role, which essentially is trying to make the benefits and incentives for Turkey through a better relationship with the EU clearer.”
With leadership elections this year in South Cyprus, Türkiye and Greece now over, Mr Siddiq said he believes a “window of opportunity” has now opened for the Greek Cypriot leadership to “try to breach that trust deficit and convince Turkish Cypriots and Turkey that it's worth coming back to the table”.

TRNC TRYING TO ‘CAUSE PAIN'

Describing how the attitude of the TRNC authorities has shifted recently, Mr Siddiq said: “The self-declared TRNC wants to be recognised and wants to be normalised and have relations with the world.
“It doesn't like the fact that nobody other than Turkey recognises it. So whereas in the past, maybe we had an understanding with the TRNC, and they tried to facilitate administrative challenges, because they wanted to have a relationship with us, I think they've got tired of waiting for us to accede to their position, and so they've shifted position a little bit.
“And they are in many cases, just like they're doing with the Greek Cypriots, [where they are] deliberately creating problems where they can, for us . . . they've chosen to make things harder, and that's a deliberate choice for them.
“And it's consistent with their approach that ‘if people won't support our vision of how we want to operate then, we won't make things easy for you'.”
Giving one example of an area where, according to Mr Siddiq, the TRNC is making matters more difficult for British officials, he referred to the problem of children who are subject to court orders in the UK being abducted, usually by one of their parents, and taken to North Cyprus, an issue that has previously been reported by this newspaper.
“We often have situations where there are children who are potentially at risk in the North, [and] the caregivers [are] maybe not even in a fit state to support them.
“And we've asked for access to check that the children are OK, that they're not being exploited or abused, and they won't give us the access, don't give us any information because they sort of hide behind a very draconian data protection law and say, ‘No, this is our responsibility. We're not going to give you any assistance on this'.
“So it has very material impact, and we've asked them, it's a humanitarian issue, it's a safeguarding issue, [but] they're not budging.
“So, unfortunately, on some of the other administrative issues where they have potentially the authority to make things easier for us . . . I don't think that they are necessarily going to go out their way to make things easy for us because they want, just like with the Greek Cypriots, to cause pain for anybody in the world who is not adhering to or accepting their world view, that they should be recognised as a separate state.
“And we've had quite high level discussions with the Turkish Cypriot authorities on this, and they haven't really budged.”

‘FRINGES AGAINST RECONCILIATION'

Responding to comments from another member of the audience about Greek Cypriot “ethnic cleansing” and Eoka terrorists, Mr Siddiq replied to applause from other attendees: “If you think all Greek Cypriots, the majority of them, are fascist terrorists – that's what you sort of suggested, that they are terrorists – if you think that they are intrinsically inimical and have hatred towards Turkish Cypriots, and can't reconcile, I respect your point of view. I don't agree with that.
“I live on the South side. I meet our Greek Cypriots. I think people across the world are just people. And there's history that creates bad blood. But we shouldn't live in history because we'll never progress.
“So I can see Turkish Cypriots keen to see reconciliation. I can see Greek Cypriots keen to see reconciliation. I can see some fringes who are against that, but I think they are fringes and they are the minority and I think we strive to work with the majority to try to create a better future.
“Now if you've given up on that, that's your right, and I respect your position. I haven't given up on that. And I'm going to work to try to realise that reconciliation. And maybe I'll get nowhere as you think I will. But I'll try and I'd rather spend my life trying to achieve better outcomes, than give up.”

‘VICTIMHOOD'

In response to another comment from a member of the audience about the difference between the content of history books provided to schools on both sides of Cyprus, Mr Siddiq had this to say: “There's a contested history . . . and there are competing narratives. And what's really interesting for me is that on both sides you have this sense of victimhood. It's as clear on the other side as it is here.
“So here [the Turkish Cypriots are] numerically smaller feel like, you know, the Greek Cypriots are isolating and dominating [them] . . . and on the other side, they feel the same as a smaller number against Turkey, and Turkey is dominating. . . those competing narratives, and those different perceptions, are the root of the problem, because it means that people don't understand the other.”
On the issue of increasing military ties between South Cyprus and the US and France, who are not guarantor countries of Cyprus, Mr Siddiq said the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus does not prevent it from having relations with other countries.
He also said that following the UK's exit from the European Union, British citizens are now “third country” nationals.
Mr Siddiq also denied that British citizens are being “discriminated” against for living in the TRNC, telling the audience: “You chose to come here knowing it is not a recognised state.”
During the public meeting, which lasted for well over an hour, other topics such as the one-day “TOM” car insurance for British citizens wanting to drive from the TRNC to South Cyprus, problems accessing the Waynes Keep Military Cemetery located in the UN Buffer Zone, end of life care and the ageing population, and passports and the urgent collection of travel documents were also discussed.
Mr Siddiq said he would be very happy to hold another meeting with British citizens to talk “less about history” and more about consular matters.
On the British Residents Society's ongoing campaign to lobby the British government and MPs to end the isolation of North Cyprus, Mr Siddiq said “good luck with that”.

‘GLARING ERRORS'

British Residents Society chairman Julian Mawdesley, who was among those who listened to what Mr Siddiq had to say, said the High Commissioner “brought no new surprises” for residents living in North Cyprus.
Sharing his “personal interpretation” of the gathering, Mr Mawdesley said Mr Siddiq is on a “hiding to nothing when it comes to the TRNC”.
“We all need to understand that no matter what the British High Commissioner thinks personally, he is the representative of the British Government and has to support ‘the party line'.
“Yes, he made some glaring errors on history and land ownership, for which the attendees were quick to jump on, but how much of this comes from advisers?”
Mr Siddiq's public meeting with British people living in North Cyprus is believed to be the first since a former high commissioner, Matthew Kidd, met with British residents at the Le Chateau Lambousa hotel in Lapta in October 2017.
That too created controversy, when Mr Kidd said that international recognition of the TRNC would be “dangerous”, leading to life peer Lord Maginnis asking the British government in Parliament if it would be taking any “disciplinary action” against Mr Kidd.

Source: Cyprus Today

[Soner]

We were still running for our lives when there was a ceasefire. Fast decisions at the table were not forthcoming, hence, Turkiye pushed with second phase, before more TCs and GCs were slaughtered. The only Gaurantor that acted on its reponsibilities. What more can I say???

GAURANTORS:

Greece - invades
Great Britain - does nothing
Turkiye - intervenes to stop genecide

EU should have no say. Kofi Annan clearly stated neither side will join EU, unless there was a resolution. TCs vote yes, GCs vote no. Who's a member of the EU now? That can never be right in my books. Something is seriously wrong somewhere.

Finally, if Turkiye is the issue, then embargo Turkiye, or is that too much of a risk?

Rant over.

[MnM]

+1. Not a rant though Soner, it's the truth. The British Government did nothing then and are doing nothing now. And yet they're "friends" with the GC's who built a monument in Larnaca to EOKA and said on BBC TV regarding the death of HM The Queen, "The Queen is dead, so what, we don't care - good riddance". Though i assume Irfan Siddiq respects their point of view.

[PoshinDevon]

We were still running for our lives when there was a ceasefire. Fast decisions at the table were not forthcoming, hence, Turkiye pushed with second phase, before more TCs and GCs were slaughtered. The only Gaurantor that acted on its reponsibilities. What more can I say???

GAURANTORS:

Greece - invades
Great Britain - does nothing
Turkiye - intervenes to stop genecide

EU should have no say. Kofi Annan clearly stated neither side will join EU, unless there was a resolution. TCs vote yes, GCs vote no. Who's a member of the EU now? That can never be right in my books. Something is seriously wrong somewhere.

Finally, if Turkiye is the issue, then embargo Turkiye, or is that too much of a risk?

Rant over.

I do understand what the BHC was trying to say re phase 1 of the Turkish intervention and then phase 2 a few weeks later.

However; he was giving a simplistic answer to a very complicated situation.

During the period of those few weeks between phase 1 and phase 2 of the intervention there was nothing forthcoming from the GC side to suggest that things could normalise.

Indeed from a Turkish perspective they were very vulnerable militarily as those few weeks were an opportunity for the GC side to fortify defences and also look to build military assets. In terms of a foothold in Cyprus it wasn’t very firm. In addition as has been mentioned the killings of Turkish Cypriots continued and Famagusta old town was under siege. The GC side were stalling and looking to drag things out whilst the nationalist EOKA fighters continued there dirty work. Did anyone really believe Nicos Sampson when he became leader and said it is an internal affair and Turkish Cypriots must not be worried. After 3 weeks with nil progress and the killings by EOKA fighters of Turkish Cypriots continuing , Turkey had to start phase 2 of the operation. To wait longer would have resulted in many more deaths.

What did the BHC expect Turkey to do? Sit back for an indefinite period of time whilst the killings continued?

The BHC did give an insight into the way the HC side were thinking but it’s clear nothing is likely to change. I do agree that if the BHC does do follow up meetings then he probably should concentrate more on the areas of direct concern to British ex pats.

We shall see.

[ozbey]

Soner, ref your message 2.

An excellent summary of events at the time, and suitably brief to be understood by anyone. Well done.

Please, please forward it to the BHC, how can they fail to understand it, and they could also research the documentary evidence written at the time to prove it is true.

Also, keep it in readiness to forward to any other politicians, from any country, who write and speak their incorrect version of events.

[Soner]

"And I'm going to work to try to realise that reconciliation. And maybe I'll get nowhere as you think I will. But I'll try and I'd rather spend my life trying to achieve better outcomes, than give up.”

Good luck with that.

[Kanonier]

Hardly "Diplomatic" language! I think that the term "Land Grab" is a description that he will come to regret.

[Nc2016]

I vaguely knew Irfan when he was Deputy Head of Mission in Baghdad years ago. I’ll revisit all of this in the cold light of day, but I do remember that he used to attend the Mosque in the Green Zone every Friday.

[Mimosanow]

I’ve looked up the definition of diplomat: “a person who is tactful and skilful in managing delicate situations, handling people, etc”.
Mr Siddiq is allegedly a diplomat.
Oh dear.

[waz-24-7]

Certainly the Turkish intervention was both justified and as a guarantor was needed to halt the bloodshed. UK forces were feeling the raw end of eoka violence and killings too. The UK could have taken a much stronger stance and if they had ; would Turkey have acted as it did?

Turkey has certainly capitalised upon the post intervention with a massive military presence that is firmly entrenched and powerful. The current "occupation" is hardly now a peace keeping garrison. Similarly the UK has a significant military presence on the island. Not as a peace keeper or a guarantor but as a definite military staging post for middle and near east military operations.

I wonder.. Did Turkey in fact see an opportunity to also occupy and hold a position upon "battleship Cyprus" just like the UK.
Land grap..no not really. Intentional occupancy of as much battle prepared ground as they could get away with...possibly.

Turkey has , in the view of many, overstayed its invite. The ROC have a campaign to alienate Turkish Cypriots from the "mother land" and its invasive workers. Is that working ? I think possibly as so many Mainlanders dilute the indigenous TC population.
Certainly the TRNC administration loves Turkish monetary support and it is almost incapable now to "go it alone" The TRNC remains backward in its ambitions and aspirations to hold its own in the modern capitalist world. It is Turkey that holds almost all the cards and as peace prevails under the military occupation on both sides of the green line. There is little appetite to rock the good ship Cyprus.

[PoshinDevon]

Certainly the Turkish intervention was both justified and as a guarantor was needed to halt the bloodshed. UK forces were feeling the raw end of eoka violence and killings too. The UK could have taken a much stronger stance and if they had ; would Turkey have acted as it did?

Turkey has certainly capitalised upon the post intervention with a massive military presence that is firmly entrenched and powerful. The current "occupation" is hardly now a peace keeping garrison. Similarly the UK has a significant military presence on the island. Not as a peace keeper or a guarantor but as a definite military staging post for middle and near east military operations.

I wonder.. Did Turkey in fact see an opportunity to also occupy and hold a position upon "battleship Cyprus" just like the UK.
Land grap..no not really. Intentional occupancy of as much battle prepared ground as they could get away with...possibly.

Turkey has , in the view of many, overstayed its invite. The ROC have a campaign to alienate Turkish Cypriots from the "mother land" and its invasive workers. Is that working ? I think possibly as so many Mainlanders dilute the indigenous TC population.
Certainly the TRNC administration loves Turkish monetary support and it is almost incapable now to "go it alone" The TRNC remains backward in its ambitions and aspirations to hold its own in the modern capitalist world. It is Turkey that holds almost all the cards and as peace prevails under the military occupation on both sides of the green line. There is little appetite to rock the good ship Cyprus.

It was the USA who held the biggest influence in these events. The intervention by Turkiye was justified and necessary and the UKs decision not to act as a guarantor power was imo at the behest of the USA.

Turkiye was and is NATOs southern flank and back in the early/mid 70s the all powerful USSR was exerting its influence in the region. Makarios was making noises and leaning towards Moscow at the time. The coup in 1974 and the intervention by Turkiye was a perfect excuse for the USA to persuade the U.K. to not do anything. Turkiye was allowed to proceed with its action with the USA knowing that once they had completed the operation the threat from the soviets to its southern flank would be much reduced. Turkiye would have a military presence on the island and be able to protect the TC population whilst also protecting NATO. Turkiye would take all the blame for the intervention whilst the USA would be happy it didn’t have to do anything itself to counter soviet influence. In other words let Turkiye perhaps unknowingly do our dirty work for us.

Cyprus is a very strategic island and important to the U.K. and USA. It was a period in history where the soviet threat was huge and there was and is a much bigger picture to what happened.

[kibsolar1999]

We were still running for our lives when there was a ceasefire. Fast decisions at the table were not forthcoming, hence, Turkiye pushed with second phase, before more TCs and GCs were slaughtered. The only Gaurantor that acted on its reponsibilities. What more can I say???

GAURANTORS:

Greece - invades
Great Britain - does nothing
Turkiye - intervenes to stop genecide

EU should have no say. Kofi Annan clearly stated neither side will join EU, unless there was a resolution. TCs vote yes, GCs vote no. Who's a member of the EU now? That can never be right in my books. Something is seriously wrong somewhere.

Finally, if Turkiye is the issue, then embargo Turkiye, or is that too much of a risk?

Rant over.

of course, Kofi Annan can say what he wants..but he was not the EU...
what i believe is that the EU was acting very pragmatic... the EU (incl the UK of course) wanted to have "the island" in the EU... for several reasons (not discussed here). and... they knew that there will be problems with the "yes" from the GC side.

but, for years there was also the idea of Turkiye to "integrate" the territory of the TRNC to the territory of Turkiye.

so, by accepting "the whole territory of the island" into the EU that was made basically impossible.

as a result... nearly all "bio" Turkish Cypriots ( the original "target group", the ones who voted "yes") went to the south, applied for a passport and are now citizens of the EU.

[PoshinDevon]

We were still running for our lives when there was a ceasefire. Fast decisions at the table were not forthcoming, hence, Turkiye pushed with second phase, before more TCs and GCs were slaughtered. The only Gaurantor that acted on its reponsibilities. What more can I say???

GAURANTORS:

Greece - invades
Great Britain - does nothing
Turkiye - intervenes to stop genecide

EU should have no say. Kofi Annan clearly stated neither side will join EU, unless there was a resolution. TCs vote yes, GCs vote no. Who's a member of the EU now? That can never be right in my books. Something is seriously wrong somewhere.

Finally, if Turkiye is the issue, then embargo Turkiye, or is that too much of a risk?

Rant over.

of course, Kofi Annan can say what he wants..but he was not the EU...
what i believe is that the EU was acting very pragmatic... the EU (incl the UK of course) wanted to have "the island" in the EU... for several reasons (not discussed here). and... they knew that there will be problems with the "yes" from the GC side.

but, for years there was also the idea of Turkiye to "integrate" the territory of the TRNC to the territory of Turkiye.

so, by accepting "the whole territory of the island" into the EU that was made basically impossible.

as a result... nearly all "bio" Turkish Cypriots ( the original "target group", the ones who voted "yes") went to the south, applied for a passport and are now citizens of the EU.

Very fair points made.

However; I still believe the EU should have exerted more pressure on the ROC by not admitting Cyprus as an EU member until an agreed solution for the island was in place. Yes Turkish Cypriots applying for passports are EU citizens , however it has done nothing to end the isolation of the TRNC.

[waz-24-7]

I'm not sure that the Russians would be very much interested in Kibris its hardly something they could take whilst under watch from the powerful guarantors. Just not worth the risk and too far from home.
Russian historical aspirations in Afghanistan and a direct route to southern oceans most certainly.

The USA were not overly interested as their strong ally Israel and aspirations with Turkey meant they had most bases covered in the Region. Today of course they have UK on Cyprus, Israel and Turkey as allies if needed.
Meanwhile:
AB Makarios was all for Enosis, supported Eoka and wanted the island cleansed of non Greek affiliates. His plan somewhat backfired as Eoka B and a lack of Greek support led to his demise from power.

Turkey did the "Right" thing as the guarantor that did something.... Relatively and logistically easy to launch from the mainland and once done. What a useful backyard to turn into a full on military garrison. That what we have today and unlikely to be relinquished.
Peace prevails, lot of mud slinging and talking but other issues such as those in Palestine/Israel are a deal more pressing.

[Nc2016]

I don’t think it helps that some TC’s do not want ‘settlers ‘ as they call them, here. Yes, Turkish Cypriots are entitled to an EU passport as indigenous population when the entire island was admitted to the EU (albeit the north is currently suspended). Settlers (unless married to a TC or EU citizen) and Turks cannot cross the UN Green Line as far as I’m aware.

It’s all very complicated and nothing which will be resolved in the foreseeable.

Whatever Irfan Saddiq said, he did it with the best of diplomatic intentions. Don’t think he wasn’t fully briefed on the situation.

So a slack handful of expats ( who ought to have known they were buying in an unrecognised ‘country’ isn’t going to make one iota of difference to the foreign policy of HMK’s government.

[waddo]

Post deleted by poster - off topic.

[Nc2016]

Because you have left Waddo? And made a conscious decision to do that? You bang on about how many years you have been here. I’m interested, did you move here relying on EU membership or did you you realise what it was?

[waddo]

Upon rereading my last post I found it to be off topic so have deleted it.

[waz-24-7]

my view point:
I agree that the UK government have very little interest upon the woes of the TRNC. If there was any threat at all upon its sovereign military garrisons then that would certainly change.
The Turkish army and UK forces are "uninvited " occupants but no one is or has the ability and strength to threaten that position. UN forces simply keep the domestic peace.
Greek involvement faded many years ago when the Makarios era ended.
Certainly atrocities of the past cannot be forgotten and are difficult to move on from. Grave errors were made and many deaths and atrocities could have been avoided.
I see no change upon the current military position on the Island. The major players are content with the territories held and remain combat ready if any takers step up.
The referenced "land grab" was not to secure real estate but to ensure that others are aware that Europe's largest land army are entrenched and ready. At the time; there was and remains no political or military ability to counter the Turkish objective.

[PoshinDevon]

I'm not sure that the Russians would be very much interested in Kibris its hardly something they could take whilst under watch from the powerful guarantors. Just not worth the risk and too far from home.
Russian historical aspirations in Afghanistan and a direct route to southern oceans most certainly.

The USA were not overly interested as their strong ally Israel and aspirations with Turkey meant they had most bases covered in the Region. Today of course they have UK on Cyprus, Israel and Turkey as allies if needed.
Meanwhile:
AB Makarios was all for Enosis, supported Eoka and wanted the island cleansed of non Greek affiliates. His plan somewhat backfired as Eoka B and a lack of Greek support led to his demise from power.

Turkey did the "Right" thing as the guarantor that did something.... Relatively and logistically easy to launch from the mainland and once done. What a useful backyard to turn into a full on military garrison. That what we have today and unlikely to be relinquished.
Peace prevails, lot of mud slinging and talking but other issues such as those in Palestine/Israel are a deal more pressing.

As someone who was on island in the early 70s and working on island in the 80s and 90s, I can assure you that during that time the USSR was very interested in Cyprus. Makarios in the 70-74 period was moving away from Greece and courting the soviets. They had a significant presence on the island in the 80s and 90s. The fact is that in 1974 the coup created the right scenario which suited the USA and its NATO allies. Turkiye intervened in a coup. Ecevit flew to the U.K. to discuss both parties taking action as guarantor powers. The U.K. consult with the USA during all meetings and were “told”, “persuaded” not to get involved. Turkiye got no assurance the U.K. would invoke there guarantor power so acted alone, Turkiye as NATOs southern flank are vital to the alliance. Let them take action alone, establish a military presence on the island along with the U.K. and negate the soviet aspirations.

Forget the 2000s, this is 30 years earlier. The USA had a massive influence on the events of that summer in 1974. They dictated what would/would not happen.

[Dalartokat]

Just to throw this in as extra reading for those interested…. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/m ... rus-12.php

[waz-24-7]

I'm not sure that the Russians would be very much interested in Kibris its hardly something they could take whilst under watch from the powerful guarantors. Just not worth the risk and too far from home.
Russian historical aspirations in Afghanistan and a direct route to southern oceans most certainly.

The USA were not overly interested as their strong ally Israel and aspirations with Turkey meant they had most bases covered in the Region. Today of course they have UK on Cyprus, Israel and Turkey as allies if needed.
Meanwhile:
AB Makarios was all for Enosis, supported Eoka and wanted the island cleansed of non Greek affiliates. His plan somewhat backfired as Eoka B and a lack of Greek support led to his demise from power.

Turkey did the "Right" thing as the guarantor that did something.... Relatively and logistically easy to launch from the mainland and once done. What a useful backyard to turn into a full on military garrison. That what we have today and unlikely to be relinquished.
Peace prevails, lot of mud slinging and talking but other issues such as those in Palestine/Israel are a deal more pressing.

As someone who was on island in the early 70s and working on island in the 80s and 90s, I can assure you that during that time the USSR was very interested in Cyprus. Makarios in the 70-74 period was moving away from Greece and courting the soviets. They had a significant presence on the island in the 80s and 90s. The fact is that in 1974 the coup created the right scenario which suited the USA and its NATO allies. Turkiye intervened in a coup. Ecevit flew to the U.K. to discuss both parties taking action as guarantor powers. The U.K. consult with the USA during all meetings and were “told”, “persuaded” not to get involved. Turkiye got no assurance the U.K. would invoke there guarantor power so acted alone, Turkiye as NATOs southern flank are vital to the alliance. Let them take action alone, establish a military presence on the island along with the U.K. and negate the soviet aspirations.

Forget the 2000s, this is 30 years earlier. The USA had a massive influence on the events of that summer in 1974. They dictated what would/would not happen.

Perhaps, perhaps.
I cannot understand why the Russians would be interested in Cyprus. Certainly all the guarantors would likely take up arms if a military move was made by the Russians. What significant presence did they have on the Island? I don't think events were at all driven by a soviet threat.

Turkey ceased the opportunity, yes following the failure of other guarantors, to establish a military garrison that remains today. If your Russian theory is indeed correct then it died in the 70's and having passed why do you think Turkey has not vacated. Perhaps the USA influence is not as strong as you may think and besides USA allies in Turkey, Israel and UK maintain serious regional influence.
The Russians, understandably, have no desires upon a Mediterranean garrison. Why would they?

[laptawrinkly]

Re post 15 by Nc2016

"I don’t think it helps that some TC’s do not want ‘settlers ‘ as they call them, here. Yes, Turkish Cypriots are entitled to an EU passport as indigenous population when the entire island was admitted to the EU (albeit the north is currently suspended). Settlers (unless married to a TC or EU citizen) and Turks cannot cross the UN Green Line as far as I’m aware.

It’s all very complicated and nothing which will be resolved in the foreseeable.

Whatever Irfan Saddiq said, he did it with the best of diplomatic intentions. Don’t think he wasn’t fully briefed on the situation.

So a slack handful of expats ( who ought to have known they were buying in an unrecognised ‘country’ isn’t going to make one iota of difference to the foreign policy of HMK’s government."

Sorry absolute tosh in my humble opinion. He is a seasoned diplomat in the FCDO, serving in many sensitive places before here. Most ambassador's before a new posting generally have a year out of the office on language training (Greek of course), in line with that he should have done his homework. The VC once (Greek lady?) told me they have a document given to visiting FCDO staff of language to avoid, not to upset either side. The HC also has junior diplomats to advise him, and also a press team (given most embassies have them).

What was the purpose of this event? If as it seems, it was for ex-pats to ask questions on how the BHC can help or advocate for them, he should have drawn a line under any political questions; after all I bet 99.9% of brits here are not dual nationals and therefore have no vote or sway in the political decision making in the TRNC. Instead he seems to have been drawn into an ill advised slanging-match; as in the 2017 meeting with the then HC at Chateau Lambosa, those who shout loudest are not always the ones we participants want to hear. All that has happened is now the BHC has an even bigger downer on ex-pats in the north and be less willing to help or advocate for them. Also the Greek Cypriot authorities won't be happy with the UK HC legalising the action on 20/07/74, given their view on that. So thanks, as the HC has also reduced any chance of his interventions for ex-pats, north or south. At this rate they must surely give him a knight hood!

Where was it advertised? Did anyone take an audio or video recording? This would clear up any misconceptions on what he was asked, and what he replied. Did he indeed threaten any journalist "of consequences, if you publish this." If he did, he should be recalled immediately - the FCDO is quick to criticise countries that do not allow free press reporting.

Given it was a public meeting you should conduct yourself as if it is all being filmed or recorded; by the way, there is no such thing 'as off the record' when journalists are present, to their horror!

This story continues to run in the Express today https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... rus-macron

[laptawrinkly]

Story continues to rumble on with President Tatar in the UK express: This story continues to run in the Express today https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... rus-macron

[waz-24-7]

It is quite plausible that the French are exploring possibilities for a garrison on Cyprus. The UK bases on Cyprus are of course sovereign territory but the now non European status has weakened relationships with the Europeans and British aliens are not quiet so welcome on the Island. The comments by British Diplomat does not help. The ROC will certainly be very happy to talk with their EU allies and possibly to the detriment of the UK.

The Turkish are , of course, also not well pleased over comments and the UK is certainly not a shinning light on the Island.
One TRNC source has suggested that the French trying to muscle the UK "could be part of a Brexit revenge strategy. I would rather say its a strategy to muscle in on a weakened UK position.

[PoshinDevon]

I'm not sure that the Russians would be very much interested in Kibris its hardly something they could take whilst under watch from the powerful guarantors. Just not worth the risk and too far from home.
Russian historical aspirations in Afghanistan and a direct route to southern oceans most certainly.

The USA were not overly interested as their strong ally Israel and aspirations with Turkey meant they had most bases covered in the Region. Today of course they have UK on Cyprus, Israel and Turkey as allies if needed.
Meanwhile:
AB Makarios was all for Enosis, supported Eoka and wanted the island cleansed of non Greek affiliates. His plan somewhat backfired as Eoka B and a lack of Greek support led to his demise from power.

Turkey did the "Right" thing as the guarantor that did something.... Relatively and logistically easy to launch from the mainland and once done. What a useful backyard to turn into a full on military garrison. That what we have today and unlikely to be relinquished.
Peace prevails, lot of mud slinging and talking but other issues such as those in Palestine/Israel are a deal more pressing.

As someone who was on island in the early 70s and working on island in the 80s and 90s, I can assure you that during that time the USSR was very interested in Cyprus. Makarios in the 70-74 period was moving away from Greece and courting the soviets. They had a significant presence on the island in the 80s and 90s. The fact is that in 1974 the coup created the right scenario which suited the USA and its NATO allies. Turkiye intervened in a coup. Ecevit flew to the U.K. to discuss both parties taking action as guarantor powers. The U.K. consult with the USA during all meetings and were “told”, “persuaded” not to get involved. Turkiye got no assurance the U.K. would invoke there guarantor power so acted alone, Turkiye as NATOs southern flank are vital to the alliance. Let them take action alone, establish a military presence on the island along with the U.K. and negate the soviet aspirations.

Forget the 2000s, this is 30 years earlier. The USA had a massive influence on the events of that summer in 1974. They dictated what would/would not happen.

Perhaps, perhaps.
I cannot understand why the Russians would be interested in Cyprus. Certainly all the guarantors would likely take up arms if a military move was made by the Russians. What significant presence did they have on the Island? I don't think events were at all driven by a soviet threat.

Turkey ceased the opportunity, yes following the failure of other guarantors, to establish a military garrison that remains today. If your Russian theory is indeed correct then it died in the 70's and having passed why do you think Turkey has not vacated. Perhaps the USA influence is not as strong as you may think and besides USA allies in Turkey, Israel and UK maintain serious regional influence.
The Russians, understandably, have no desires upon a Mediterranean garrison. Why would they?

I think you are getting confused.

The events leading to the Turkish intervention happened in 1974. This was the Cold War period which continued into the 80s. The world was a different place and the soviet interest and influence on the island of Cyprus was growing. So take the events of 1974 and ask yourself again would the USA in particular and the U.K. not try to persuade Turkiye not to intervene?

I can assure you that at that time, stopping the USSR influence in the region and a threat to NATOs southern flank was a priority. Makarios had moved away from Greece and was courting the soviets. The situation in the summer of 1974 was monitored and then manipulated by the USA with the U.K. who already had sovereign bases on the island assisting. The presence of Turkish, U.K. and also a convenient base for the USA to use stopped the influence of the soviet block spreading.

[waz-24-7]

Posh,
I do believe the Turkish genuinely intervened in order to halt the ethnic cleansing that was taking place. I also believe it was decided and actioned in a very short time. Was it expected? possibly. I think the USA was unwilling to get directly involved in a Cypriot/Turkish/British issue. Certainly the UK was lacking in its response even as far back as the 50's and when Eoka were murdering UK soldiers.

I don't think Cyprus is "a region" of interest to the USSR. More like battleship Cyprus occupied by British forces , Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
I very much doubt that Makarios would very easily sell a Russian intervention to a population already sold on Enosis (union with Greece)
The UK and indeed the USA , understandably , were content with holding and using UK sovereign bases.
In the bigger picture we see that since 1974 and the green line. Peace has prevailed and no more despicable murders and violence.
The settlement talks reflect this. Lots of discussion, proposals, demands, but no real intent that may rock the peaceful boat.

[kerry 6138]

US proposed a NATO peace keeping force in Cyprus, Makarios didn't agree and invited the UN instead.
US put forward the Acheson Plan which would given Turkey military bases in the Karpaz amongst other things.

[PoshinDevon]

Posh,
I do believe the Turkish genuinely intervened in order to halt the ethnic cleansing that was taking place. I also believe it was decided and actioned in a very short time. Was it expected? possibly. I think the USA was unwilling to get directly involved in a Cypriot/Turkish/British issue. Certainly the UK was lacking in its response even as far back as the 50's and when Eoka were murdering UK soldiers.

I don't think Cyprus is "a region" of interest to the USSR. More like battleship Cyprus occupied by British forces , Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
I very much doubt that Makarios would very easily sell a Russian intervention to a population already sold on Enosis (union with Greece)
The UK and indeed the USA , understandably , were content with holding and using UK sovereign bases.
In the bigger picture we see that since 1974 and the green line. Peace has prevailed and no more despicable murders and violence.
The settlement talks reflect this. Lots of discussion, proposals, demands, but no real intent that may rock the peaceful boat.

Again you don’t read before you type.

Turkiye was right to intervene in 1974. They obviously stopped those who started the coup from ongoing killing of the Turkish Cypriot population. All justified action as far as I am concerned.

However; you continually fail to understand history or acknowledge the wider picture. Yours is a very simplistic view of a complicated piece of history.

I was on island in the early 70s also the 80s and 90s. The U.K. didn’t exercise it’s guarantor power status. During meetings in the U.K. in July 1974 between the Turkish representatives and the U.K. side it is well documented that the U.K. constantly left the meetings to consult with the USA. Similar events in the 1960s almost resulted in Turkiye taking military action, however the USA persuaded them not to. In 1974 the USA were happy for them to intervene and the U.K. to take no part.

If you believe that the USSR in 1974 had no interest in the strategic island of Cyprus then you need to research further. I can recommend a few books if you like.

[kibsolar1999]

basically spoken.. historically, the UK fu.. it up to be a guarantor power in 1974... most probably it would have led into a(nother) civil war.
so, they decided that Turkiye must do "the job".
and if you read the sources (and the post here alone) : it is more than doubtful that the "genocide only" was the reason.
tbh, there must have been (additionally) dozens of "actions" against the TCs organzied by foreign powers to create exactly this situation.
or, in other words: if the GC nationalists would have been a bit more "sensible", the guarantor powers incl the US would have been in deep trouble.. and most probably we would see a russian marine base (and maybe more..) in Larnaca today.

waz: to believe that the ussr had and russia has no interest in cyprus or , at least, the east meditarenian, is naiv.
to your information: the small, but existing, marine base in syria was founded 1977, three years after 1974.
and why do you think they have an air base , since 2015, in latakia, equipped with s-400? (of course.. to fight terrorism, basically gangsters with some kalashnikovs)
not only the EU, also other nations act pragmatic: take what is available.

[Hector]

I was at the meeting. I think it was a waste of everyone's time (and so is prolonging the discussion on this forum thread) to argue over the rights and wrongs of the past or current political situation, as rightly pointed out. Whatever we have to say, the BHC isn't in a position to do anything about the past, or it appears to have any influence on UK G'ment policy. He was there to explain what the British HC can do for UK citizens in the TRNC (which isn't a lot). I agree some of his comments were not 'diplomatic' for us UK expats to hear, but unfortunately, that is the way it is.

[waz-24-7]

Posh,
I do believe the Turkish genuinely intervened in order to halt the ethnic cleansing that was taking place. I also believe it was decided and actioned in a very short time. Was it expected? possibly. I think the USA was unwilling to get directly involved in a Cypriot/Turkish/British issue. Certainly the UK was lacking in its response even as far back as the 50's and when Eoka were murdering UK soldiers.

I don't think Cyprus is "a region" of interest to the USSR. More like battleship Cyprus occupied by British forces , Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
I very much doubt that Makarios would very easily sell a Russian intervention to a population already sold on Enosis (union with Greece)
The UK and indeed the USA , understandably , were content with holding and using UK sovereign bases.
In the bigger picture we see that since 1974 and the green line. Peace has prevailed and no more despicable murders and violence.
The settlement talks reflect this. Lots of discussion, proposals, demands, but no real intent that may rock the peaceful boat.

Again you don’t read before you type.

Turkiye was right to intervene in 1974. They obviously stopped those who started the coup from ongoing killing of the Turkish Cypriot population. All justified action as far as I am concerned.

However; you continually fail to understand history or acknowledge the wider picture. Yours is a very simplistic view of a complicated piece of history.

I was on island in the early 70s also the 80s and 90s. The U.K. didn’t exercise it’s guarantor power status. During meetings in the U.K. in July 1974 between the Turkish representatives and the U.K. side it is well documented that the U.K. constantly left the meetings to consult with the USA. Similar events in the 1960s almost resulted in Turkiye taking military action, however the USA persuaded them not to. In 1974 the USA were happy for them to intervene and the U.K. to take no part.

If you believe that the USSR in 1974 had no interest in the strategic island of Cyprus then you need to research further. I can recommend a few books if you like.

Hmm not sure your point here Posh.
Are you saying that the UK and Turkey were puppets to the USA and that USA sole intention was to keep the Russians under check.

I agree the Russian have and are in the Mediterranean but hardly a fighting force to threaten Turkey or UK on Kibris or even the USA who has a full on ally with Israel and the UK

Russian presence is , in my opinion, in the main to protect its merchant shipping coming from the black sea into Europe. Even now Russian oil is flowing into Milford Haven in Wales via Nigeria. I don't think the level of threat in the region has ever been remarkable. In the Black Sea yes. Oil is money and the route to market is via the Mediterranean. Europe needs that oil and so Russian presence is tolerated to a level that allows trade to flow,

Of course and I accept that history can be rather complex and many scholars take differing views and write accordingly. I take a rather more pragmatic viewpoint. The driver of such matters is simple. Power and Money.

[Dalartokat]

was-24-7 wrote…..“Russian oil is flowing into Milford Haven in Wales via Nigeria”

What are you talking about, it was diverted and this was last year…. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60589462

[PoshinDevon]

Posh,
I do believe the Turkish genuinely intervened in order to halt the ethnic cleansing that was taking place. I also believe it was decided and actioned in a very short time. Was it expected? possibly. I think the USA was unwilling to get directly involved in a Cypriot/Turkish/British issue. Certainly the UK was lacking in its response even as far back as the 50's and when Eoka were murdering UK soldiers.

I don't think Cyprus is "a region" of interest to the USSR. More like battleship Cyprus occupied by British forces , Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
I very much doubt that Makarios would very easily sell a Russian intervention to a population already sold on Enosis (union with Greece)
The UK and indeed the USA , understandably , were content with holding and using UK sovereign bases.
In the bigger picture we see that since 1974 and the green line. Peace has prevailed and no more despicable murders and violence.
The settlement talks reflect this. Lots of discussion, proposals, demands, but no real intent that may rock the peaceful boat.

Again you don’t read before you type.

Turkiye was right to intervene in 1974. They obviously stopped those who started the coup from ongoing killing of the Turkish Cypriot population. All justified action as far as I am concerned.

However; you continually fail to understand history or acknowledge the wider picture. Yours is a very simplistic view of a complicated piece of history.

I was on island in the early 70s also the 80s and 90s. The U.K. didn’t exercise it’s guarantor power status. During meetings in the U.K. in July 1974 between the Turkish representatives and the U.K. side it is well documented that the U.K. constantly left the meetings to consult with the USA. Similar events in the 1960s almost resulted in Turkiye taking military action, however the USA persuaded them not to. In 1974 the USA were happy for them to intervene and the U.K. to take no part.

If you believe that the USSR in 1974 had no interest in the strategic island of Cyprus then you need to research further. I can recommend a few books if you like.

Hmm not sure your point here Posh.
Are you saying that the UK and Turkey were puppets to the USA and that USA sole intention was to keep the Russians under check.

I agree the Russian have and are in the Mediterranean but hardly a fighting force to threaten Turkey or UK on Kibris or even the USA who has a full on ally with Israel and the UK

Russian presence is , in my opinion, in the main to protect its merchant shipping coming from the black sea into Europe. Even now Russian oil is flowing into Milford Haven in Wales via Nigeria. I don't think the level of threat in the region has ever been remarkable. In the Black Sea yes. Oil is money and the route to market is via the Mediterranean. Europe needs that oil and so Russian presence is tolerated to a level that allows trade to flow,

Of course and I accept that history can be rather complex and many scholars take differing views and write accordingly. I take a rather more pragmatic viewpoint. The driver of such matters is simple. Power and Money.

I will give up. You clearly are not understanding the situation in 1974.

Turkiye, U.K. and the USA are all members of NATO. Turkiye is NATOs southern flank. NATO did not want the USSR gaining influence in the area. The USA a were and are the primary military and political power and yes they were very heavily involved manipulating the situation to the advantage of themselves and NATO.

Ask yourself why in the early 60s when Turkiye wanted to intervene due to the deteriorating situation but were persuaded by the USA to not proceed. The USA did not want conflict between two NATO members. Then fast forward to 1974, the political situation had changed and the USSR was exerting more influence in the area. Makarios was distancing himself from Greece which of course did not go well with those wanting Enosis. He was leaning towards the soviets. The coup set the wheels in motion for the Turkish intervention to prevent the suffering of TCs. This time the political situation was such that the USA stepped in. Greece was in no position to take worthwhile action, it was also an opportunity to destabilise the military junta. The USA did not try to stop the Turkish action and ensured the U.K. did not exercise its guarantor power status. The green line for the border was already in place and acted upon.

[waz-24-7]

was-24-7 wrote…..“Russian oil is flowing into Milford Haven in Wales via Nigeria”

What are you talking about, it was diverted and this was last year…. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60589462

D
your google skills are certainly impressive.

Pembrokeshire and Milford Haven is the land of my fathers. I have lived there for many years and my connections with the Harbour, including senior shipping pilots go back some time. The Port is bringing in more tonnage than they have past 25yrs. I believe Russian oil is entering very regularly
Your reference may well be correct.
When a typical Milford Haven super tanker carries 100,s millions $ the powers will find a way; a route and mask the source of the black gold. Bills of lading and certificates of origin are pieces of paper that only require a stamp.

Usually it is at pre entry sampling stage that it is very easy to identify the source of oil. Russian oil is bey different to Saudi for example. Sampling is only to satisfy the quality and suitability for whatever the end use is.


The same fuel is , for example, being piped directly to Manchester airport to keep those holiday makers happy.
Why is not public knowledge... Well it would certainly upset many and flights may be more expensive if the supply stopped.

[Dalartokat]

was-24-7 wrote…..“Russian oil is flowing into Milford Haven in Wales via Nigeria”

What are you talking about, it was diverted and this was last year…. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60589462

D
your google skills are certainly impressive.

Pembrokeshire and Milford Haven is the land of my fathers. I have lived there for many years and my connections with the Harbour, including senior shipping pilots go back some time. The Port is bringing in more tonnage than they have past 25yrs. I believe Russian oil is entering very regularly
Your reference may well be correct.
When a typical Milford Haven super tanker carries 100,s millions $ the powers will find a way; a route and mask the source of the black gold. Bills of lading and certificates of origin are pieces of paper that only require a stamp.

Usually it is at pre entry sampling stage that it is very easy to identify the source of oil. Russian oil is bey different to Saudi for example. Sampling is only to satisfy the quality and suitability for whatever the end use is.


The same fuel is , for example, being piped directly to Manchester airport to keep those holiday makers happy.
Why is not public knowledge... Well it would certainly upset many and flights may be more expensive if the supply stopped.

“I believe Russian oil is entering very regularly”

I find that hard to believe ……
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... l-products

“Your reference may well be correct”.……can you provide a reference that actually confirms all you have said in your post.

[waz-24-7]

Again you don’t read before you type.

Turkiye was right to intervene in 1974. They obviously stopped those who started the coup from ongoing killing of the Turkish Cypriot population. All justified action as far as I am concerned.

However; you continually fail to understand history or acknowledge the wider picture. Yours is a very simplistic view of a complicated piece of history.

I was on island in the early 70s also the 80s and 90s. The U.K. didn’t exercise it’s guarantor power status. During meetings in the U.K. in July 1974 between the Turkish representatives and the U.K. side it is well documented that the U.K. constantly left the meetings to consult with the USA. Similar events in the 1960s almost resulted in Turkiye taking military action, however the USA persuaded them not to. In 1974 the USA were happy for them to intervene and the U.K. to take no part.

If you believe that the USSR in 1974 had no interest in the strategic island of Cyprus then you need to research further. I can recommend a few books if you like.

Hmm not sure your point here Posh.
Are you saying that the UK and Turkey were puppets to the USA and that USA sole intention was to keep the Russians under check.

I agree the Russian have and are in the Mediterranean but hardly a fighting force to threaten Turkey or UK on Kibris or even the USA who has a full on ally with Israel and the UK

Russian presence is , in my opinion, in the main to protect its merchant shipping coming from the black sea into Europe. Even now Russian oil is flowing into Milford Haven in Wales via Nigeria. I don't think the level of threat in the region has ever been remarkable. In the Black Sea yes. Oil is money and the route to market is via the Mediterranean. Europe needs that oil and so Russian presence is tolerated to a level that allows trade to flow,

Of course and I accept that history can be rather complex and many scholars take differing views and write accordingly. I take a rather more pragmatic viewpoint. The driver of such matters is simple. Power and Money.

I will give up. You clearly are not understanding the situation in 1974.

Turkiye, U.K. and the USA are all members of NATO. Turkiye is NATOs southern flank. NATO did not want the USSR gaining influence in the area. The USA a were and are the primary military and political power and yes they were very heavily involved manipulating the situation to the advantage of themselves and NATO.

Ask yourself why in the early 60s when Turkiye wanted to intervene due to the deteriorating situation but were persuaded by the USA to not proceed. The USA did not want conflict between two NATO members. Then fast forward to 1974, the political situation had changed and the USSR was exerting more influence in the area. Makarios was distancing himself from Greece which of course did not go well with those wanting Enosis. He was leaning towards the soviets. The coup set the wheels in motion for the Turkish intervention to prevent the suffering of TCs. This time the political situation was such that the USA stepped in. Greece was in no position to take worthwhile action, it was also an opportunity to destabilise the military junta. The USA did not try to stop the Turkish action and ensured the U.K. did not exercise its guarantor power status. The green line for the border was already in place and acted upon.

OK
I think your point is that the USA were holding the cards and all the other guarantor powers were being manipulated towards American advantage.
If so, I wonder how Turkey was originally persuaded not to intervene and when they eventually did. What did the Americans get out of the action.
Whilst Eoka were murdering UK police and soldiers. Did the Americans sticky plaster over that atrocity? and coerce the British to do far to little in the whole Eoka, genocide, conflict as guarantor, a real estate holder and a peace keeper.

Of course the corridors of power have many dark secrets. Just ask any conspiracy theorist.

[Kanonier]

Before we know where we are this topic will gradually morph into Brexit!!

[waz-24-7]

Before we know where we are this topic will gradually morph into Brexit!!

Don't get me started.

War in Europe,
Recession,
Expensive money,
Travel nightmares,
Food shortages
No workers
energy and cost of living

Posh
Possibly close the topic. I'm done

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Don't get me started.

War in Europe,
Recession,
Expensive money,
Travel nightmares,
Food shortages
No workers
energy and cost of living

Posh
Possibly close the topic. I'm done

I’d love to know how Brexit caused the war in Ukraine but I remember that you seem to think NATO is part of the EU . If anything the fear of Ukraine being taken into NATO & the EU tipped Putin to invade.

Recession? Everyone in the world has economic problems, who’d have thought locking the World’s economy down for 2 years would cause a knock on effect?

Expensive money? See chart below

Travel nightmares? Maybe we’d have direct flights by now if the EU hadn’t granted membership to the South for voting no? Brilliant negotiating & use of leverage there.

Food shortages? Who’d have thought Brexit would change the weather in Morocco & effect the tomato crop?

No workers? We have 1.37 million unemployed in the U.K. The potential workers are there

Energy & cost of living? See Ukraine & lockdown

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Hmm not sure your point here Posh.
Are you saying that the UK and Turkey were puppets to the USA and that USA sole intention was to keep the Russians under check.

Siri can you explain the geopolitics of the Cold War?

[waddo]

I knew it - the first mention of Brexit and ETS is straight in with comments. If nothing changes it will always stay the same, the proof is on the Forum. Have fun, it's hot.

[kerry 6138]

In July 1944, representatives from 44 nations met in Bretton Woods, N.H., to design a framework for rebuilding the world's economy after the war. The final agreement was that the United States would fix the value of the dollar to gold at $35 an ounce and other countries would peg their currencies to the dollar.

President Nixon cancelled the fixed-rate convertibility of US dollars to gold in 1971. In the absence of fixed value convertability to gold, compared to other currencies, the US dollar subsequently deteriorated in value for several years, making fixed USD to local currency exchange rates unsustainable for most countries.

1956 Suez Canal crisis for the Western powers to remove Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had just nationalised the foreign-owned Suez Canal Company, which administered the canal. Israel's primary objective was to reopen the blocked Straits of Tiran. After the fighting had started, political pressure from the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations led to a withdrawal by the three invaders. The episode humiliated the United Kingdom and France and strengthened Nasser

Waz. You have to ask who else benefited post WW2 with the collapse of the colonial powers

[waz-24-7]

Apologies for off topic.
ETS
many moons ago and even before the Ukraine (european) war. I explained that peace in Europe was a strong reason to be in a Union with others within Europe...that didn't include the USA. What's happened ... another European war !! The UK is in that war save having boots on the ground. Where and what is the end game.
I reference a link for your reference regarding Brexit and that same European war
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... rhofstadt/

Mr Putin, I agree ,feels, and rightly so, threatened by having NATO on its borders. The exit of the UK from the Union, showed a weaker and divided Union. Strike when the opposition is weak and more vulnerable would surely have been the Kremlin discussion. The EU is weakened and also the aftermath of Covid presents further advantage. GO go NOW. Oh how that has changed as Europe stands firm. The UK stands with Europe . Not just to support but because many can absolutely see the folly of Brexit and what a unprecedented disaster it has been.

I wonder the situation if a Union of European nations had not been there. I fear another 1939 outbreak.

What will be the outcome. The Americans must feel rather smug as NATO attempts to sort out a very delicate situation that is essentially another war in Europe scenario just like that last great war. NATO is without doubt no alternative to the European Union. NATO is a war mongering military organisation currently ruled principally by the Americans . The outbreak of issues in South China sea, immigration into USA from South America is keeping the World's global power very busy. What will happen if Trump regains power and takes on Putin. Will NATO and members tow the line?

ETS
Of course BREXIT has been a resounding success. Has it Siri ?

[waz-24-7]

Don't get me started.

War in Europe,
Recession,
Expensive money,
Travel nightmares,
Food shortages
No workers
energy and cost of living

Posh
Possibly close the topic. I'm done

I’d love to know how Brexit caused the war in Ukraine but I remember that you seem to think NATO is part of the EU . If anything the fear of Ukraine being taken into NATO & the EU tipped Putin to invade.

Recession? Everyone in the world has economic problems, who’d have thought locking the World’s economy down for 2 years would cause a knock on effect?

Expensive money? See chart below

39AEFA78-12D8-482D-80C9-D0EE4ABF85C4.jpeg

Travel nightmares? Maybe we’d have direct flights by now if the EU hadn’t granted membership to the South for voting no? Brilliant negotiating & use of leverage there.

Food shortages? Who’d have thought Brexit would change the weather in Morocco & effect the tomato crop?

No workers? We have 1.37 million unemployed in the U.K. The potential workers are there

Energy & cost of living? See Ukraine & lockdown

Oh Dear ETS
Currency exchange is NOT the "cost of money"
Its interest rates.
So

Did Brexit affect interest rates?
Mark Carney, who warned leaving the EU was the “biggest domestic risk” facing Britain before the 2016 referendum, said there is “no joy” in being proved right because of the impact on millions of households. And Mr Carney said as a result of the Brexit “shock”, interest rates are likely to remain higher for years.

[Kanonier]

I did warn you!!

[EnjoyingTheSun]

What will happen if Trump regains power and takes on Putin. Will NATO and members tow the line?

Yep still don’t understand the difference between the EU & NATO.
Had Trump been in power Putin would never have attacked the Ukraine. Putin rightly realised Biden will talk big but not do anything.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

Did Brexit affect interest rates?
Mark Carney, who warned leaving the EU was the “biggest domestic risk” facing Britain before the 2016 referendum, said there is “no joy” in being proved right because of the impact on millions of households. And Mr Carney said as a result of the Brexit “shock”, interest rates are likely to remain higher for years.

Interest rates are used to control inflation & stabilise your currency rate.
Again you lock down your economy for 2 years you are going to have economic problems. It’s not rocket science.
Tell you what leave your car on the drive for 2 years & then try & start it

Anyway I’m out as it’s off topic.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I knew it - the first mention of Brexit and ETS is straight in with comments.

Sorry I forgot how it works on here.
Someone can veer off topic without any challenge but if you do challenge it you have to be shut down for going off topic.
Anyhow I’m going back onto twitter to laugh at the lefties trying desperately to save Huw Edwards career