[Actually open to correction, I swear] Didn't Georgia invade South Ossetia shortly after vague noises about it being able to join NATO one day? I understand that under modern international law South Ossetia is part of Georgia but it's never been actually ruled by post-Soviet Georgia. They were invading.
On a separate note, why would any country treat the UK's guarantee as worth anything after Cyprus?
In response to the coup, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sent Joseph Sisco to try to mediate the conflict.[42] Turkey issued a list of demands to Greece via a US negotiator. These demands included the immediate removal of Nikos Sampson, the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard, the admission of Turkish troops to protect their population, equal rights for both populations, and access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots.[47] These demands were rejected as they would have given Turkey an unacceptable amount of power on the island. Turkey, led by Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit, then applied to Britain as a signatory of the Treaty of Guarantee to take action to return Cyprus to its neutral status. Britain declined this offer, and refused to let Turkey use its bases on Cyprus as part of the operation.
There is a nuance between first and second operations in July and August. While occupation in second operation is pretty much an over reaction, first one was quite legal and necessary from the Turkish point of view. Greek state was in a turmoil and nationalists were trying to 'get the Cyprus back'.
You’re right, the Turks invaded before the Greeks managed to do so. I suppose the U.K. might have been the closest to sincere of the signatories to the Treaty of Guarantee. Let it be noted that the Turkish invasion was a response to a Greek government backed coup of the Cypriot government.
Fuck nuance. Never give up your nukes and never trust anyone for your vital interests.
Unfortunately, like you said the 37% is occupied since the 1974 invasion. Greek-Cypriots were raped and forced out of their homes and their land and they are 80% of the population.
Cyprus won its independece in 1960 from the British (who have been on the island since late 18th century).
The Turks came to the island for the first time on 15th century.
The history of the island is totally Greek so if someone is going to refer to the island then at least should do it correctly cause otherwise is only doing propaganda and helping the wrong information to be known.
Attempts are made that the political situation is resolved but I am not very optimistic.
Isn't Cyprus the most heavily militarized land in the world, being contested by the turks, greeks, and locals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus
"The island is de facto partitioned into four main parts:[4]
* the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, in the south of the island;
* the Turkish-occupied area in the north,[5] calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey);
* the United Nations-controlled Green Line, separating the two; and
* two British Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia).[6]"
Important to note that we are talking about Turkey giving a casus belli on installation of AA systems in a foreign country. A foreign country that Turkey invaded some years prior to that, and still occupies 20% of the island. Pretty easy to draw parallels to today, and understanding why Cyprus, middle east and global south in general do not view the demonization of Russia as rational. These things were happening in EU neighbourhood for some time now. Cyprus is an EU member..
Context was that Greek army invaded Asia minor during WWI, period. The reasons of the invasion is always justifiable by the invader.
That land was invaded by Turkish Tribes during 12th century. So historical occupation that far cannot be justified with 20th century invasion. Greek people living in the invaded areas were around %18 of the population.
In the times of Cold War, Cyprus was an important base for NATO and UK therefore to keep them there with none-to-low amount of legitimacy it was beneficial to keep Cyprus somehow divided.
There are also 'conspiracy theories' that British intelligence had agenda of creating unrest intentionally on the island so they can keep the bases, but that sounds too much of 4d chess, since this unrest led into Greece leaving military part of NATO and made western alliance look shaky against USSR.
That's not what I meant. Greece and Turkey doesn't have any military conflicts currently, and are unlikely to get any in the near future. What Greece does have are dumb and immature gripes with Macedonia and Turkey. Cyprus should be a solved problem by now. There's no reason to have it hanging around as this diplomatic pain point. The Macedonia conflict is stranger than parody, and is about to be solved because Macedonia is showing itself to be slightly less stubborn than Greece.
Why 'occupation' and not occupation ?
reply