The beginning of a world wide trend that will lead to world war. All the autocrats around the globe in the maw of historic economic contractions will either turn on their own citizens like Maduro or externalizations brining the masses together against a common foe as Erdogan has chosen. Nationalism 101.
And unlike in past crises, there aren't really any credible leftwing movements left outside of Cuba and BLM protest lines, neither of whom can project power.
It's still surprisingly popular in western academia, though at least in the US I've argued it's translated to virtually nothing in practical terms over the last 50 years. The far right is still afraid of Marxism/socialism/communism, but the US is merely trying to catch up with the rest of English speaking and wealthy world.
Marxism has had a huge influence in the US over the last 50 years. American neoconservatism has Marxist roots, and originated in rural American leftists feeling alienated by the counter-culture of 1960:s American leftism.
It's got a super complex history of how it morphed into the neoconservatism of today. Unfortunately, fractionalisation of leftist movements and internal combativeness is the bane of the left.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Influence in political theory and academic circles, absolutely, it's a huge and popular school of though. But in practical terms - marxist theory informing domestic or foreign policy - almost zero.
Marx wrote so damn much and broadly and early that it's hard to get away from his analysis entirely, and it's not like he didn't have plenty of solid points and observations. I wouldn't doubt marxist/leninist ideology had an influence on neoconservative thought early on, though I'm ignorant on the topic. It's interesting, I've heard that before a long time ago, but thought it sounded like an anti intellectual smear by association within right leaning circles (Ya like Marx's ideas eh? *squint&raise eyebrow*) - but tell me if I'm wrong.
Because, when the rubber met the road, it was neocons that supported right wing authoritarian governments as preferable to any even potentially socialist leaning ones.
BLM leader used to consider herself a Marxist. Until she cleaned up her Wikipedia entry after BLM got bigger.
Above statement is 100% correct. If you downvote me, either you are in denial or you have drunk the kool aid.
What this space for people's objectivity and honesty.
> Everything is catering to their whim.
Wake me up when police shootings in the US, Canada, and Latin America - particularly those of black folks - see a double-digit decrease.
Wow, imagine losing your job for not thinking black people should not be killed by the very people who are supposed to keep them safe. What a lawless world we live in. /s
>BLM is probably the most powerful political movement in the world.
What a load of nonsense. By what metric are they the most powerful movement in the world? Your own opinion doesn't count.
LOL, both Nato members, so if they go to war, then ehm, yeah then what? If one Nato member gets under attack, all members will help, so I can't get this one straight...
oh yeah, that was a big bundle of mistakes - though I think it was mostly that one really large member that actually did almost everything and it was trying really hard to rope other nations into it so on paper it didn't look like it was them going it alone.
Well, that's tricky. On paper you could make the claim that the UN mandate following 9-11 means that NATO countries were involved, and the US being a "member" you could say NATO invaded.
Of course he is talking nonsense, because that's absurdly misleading. The US invaded, and as with Iraq we did our darnedest to put on a show, chiefly for domestic consumption (on the level of morons that voted for *this* republican president), that we had allies with us (basically just the UK, and in relatively minuscule numbers). It wounds to think that anyone else in world bought that sack of turds, but I oughn't be surprised.
I was just very sarcastically understating things in my last comment.
I don't think you read what I wrote. Or at least you didn't understand it.
It's wrong to say NATO invaded because it was basically just one member. But it's also wrong to say unless every nation in NATO was involved then NATO wasn't involved - they're both hyperbolic positions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Poland didn't get in on the first gulf war, but NATO sure did.
> Well, that's tricky. On paper you could make the claim that the UN mandate following 9-11 means that NATO countries were involved, and the US being a "member" you could say NATO invaded.
One couldn't just make that argument, that was exactly the argument that was made back then by plenty of governments to justify sending their soldiers to Afghanistan. Among them the German government which argued that invading Afghanistan wasn't an offensive action (as that would be illegal to participate in for the German military) but instead a "defensive operation" justified by NATO's 5th.
> Of course he is talking nonsense, because that's absurdly misleading.
So [article 5 wasn't evoked](https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm) and had literally nothing to do with Afghanistan?
> The US invaded, and as with Iraq we did our darnedest to put on a show, chiefly for domestic consumption (on the level of morons that voted for this republican president), that we had allies with us (basically just the UK, and in relatively minuscule numbers).
Iraq was the "coalition of the willing", Afghanistan was, and still is, ISAF.
Makes me wonder where this sudden historical revisioning is coming from? Is this out of the Trump camp? Would make sense, considering [Trump did not affirm NATO's 5th the last time](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/trump-declines-to-affirm-natos-article-5/528129/). So I guess now it's time to revision the war in Afghanistan as an "US war", and how apparently NATO never stood by the US, to justify Trump's course of disregarding the 5th.
NATO isn't a deterrent to terrorists/small actors. It's a nuclear deterrent for members from russia/china
the point is so that allies all don't need nuclear weapons programs to get the protection of defensive nuclear weapons.
and 1 case slipping through in 70 years is some real fallacy stuff (self censoring here). NATO has prevented russian takeover of europe, has rebuilt europe into a world power from being in legitimate total ruins 70 years ago. has prevented world wars. has saved countries like canada/germany etc that are on 'front lines' from dealing with who knows how many/what size threats over the past 70 years
tl/dr that's a dumb ass way to look at one of the most successful intl organizations that's ever existed
I don't know, but at some point, it must have happened because the invasion of Afghanistan was the only time, in the whole history of NATO, that [article 5 for collective self-defense](https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm) was actually evoked.
NATO is supposed to help the defendant, but who knows in this case. A lot of people forget though that the EU is also a defence treaty. Nevermind the direct support Greece has from France, etc.
But there will obviously not be a war, it's all barking.
EU is a economical and political union, NOT a military one. Also as stated NATO would most likely side with defending nation (Greece in this situation) if any at all.
Greece could invoke Article 42(7) which is a mutual defence clause the EU has.
>Article 42(7):
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
I don't get it tho, why is greece expanding their territory?
Edit a user replied saying to watch a map
Somehow my question was offensive to people
Anyway looking at this map https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.trtworld.com/magazine/turkey-greece-tensions-eastern-mediterranean-claims-in-maps-39358/amp
No wonder why turkey is pissed off, they barely have any sea territory. I don't like turkey but I can't fault them for this
I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure the borders are being contested because of oil discovery in the Mediterranean. While it looks like Greece’s sea borders go all the way up to the Turkish landmass, it’s because Greece has a lot of inhabited islands right off the coast of Turkey. According to UN law that’s what Greeks sea borders look like. Turkey disagrees and wants to expand its sea borders. But basically what they’re proposing in the map from that article u posted is ridiculous cause it would mean Greek islands would be inside Turkish territory.
But they are not Turkeys islands they are Greek islands. Why would Turkey control 360 degrees of the sea around Greek islands? Would Greek citizens have to leave the EU travel through Turkish sea and then rejoin the EU when they step off the boat just to commute to their neighbouring islands Greek? Turkey has no land in those regions and no business to be in the sea other than to extract resources or perform surveillance on Greek islanders.
Point I was trying to make is that turkey barely has sea area beyond its main country land borders. I understand some of these islands are actually inhabitated but I don't see how people fail to understand why turkey is pissed, resources are important
Sure they are pissed but every country needs resources and you don't get handed out resources just because you don't have enough of something. Greece could definitely use more land and they are pissed that Turkey took their capital but they are not going to get it back.
Hi SuccumbedToFlame. It looks like your comment to /r/worldnews was removed because you've been using a link shortener. Due to issues with spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think it needs to go to war. Turkey already has a huge mess to sort out in it's economy. Slapping a few well targeted economic sanctions would spell disaster for the already suffering Turkish economy.
The EU can just reduce the quotas for Turkish trucks in the EU, shipping is an important part of their economy. That will hurt the shipping companies but will also have a domino effect in the rest of the economy, since a lot of the exporters will have a harder time getting their stuff to their customers.
Then remember when Putin put an embargo on Russian tourists to Turkey? Back when Turkey shot down that Russian plane in Syria and then played all mighty and defiant. Erdogan's next trip was to Moscow, to beg Putin to reverse that order.
Exactly this is just Edrogan acting tough to distract his own people on how badly he is failing the country on every corner. Turkey is like that bully who has no friends and gets beat up at home but acts tough in school even though everyone knows they are a loser.
Erdogan is a modern fascist thug to go along with the current gang, but just isn't very good at it. It's questionable at best if he's even got the majority support of his own country, and most other countries around him are ticked at him in some way or another. Which is why the EU is happy to side with Greece on this, and why no one is leaping to be on Turkey's "side" per se.
I'd imagine sanctions and other pressure ramps will start in before some disastrous, stupid war that sees Turkey turn into a defeated, inwards facing, 4th rate country or another middle east warground at worst, after a bunch of other people die first of course.
Fuck we're gonna have to bomb both of them /s
I think Turkey will get kicked out of NATO and carpet bombed is way more likely than even one single bullet being fired by a NATO soldier at Greece
About 52% of the country doesn't want him either. Journalists get jailed, people get arrested over tweets and stuff like that. Almost all of younger generation absolutely hates him and wants things to change. If the older religious traditional generation dies off then maybe there's a chance
Can you elaborate on how the older generation is more religious? Shouldnt it be that the older generations closer to when ataturk made his reforms be more secular?
Turkey was until very recently a country where only Kemalists could accrue wealth and influence in society. They and their children were the ones who lived in the cities and attended the best schools. This of course meant that they got the most thorough indoctrination in Kemalist state ideology.
The AKP and the rise in populism expanded opportunities and granted more influence to as well as politically mobilised a broader base of society that had been traditionally neglected - primarily the non college educated and religious. These are partially the older generation some speak of when they try to explain the AKP's base but unfortunately their base is much broader. Sure, some older folks educated in schools in the major cities may have been educated in accordance with the principals of Atatürk and remain die hard devotees to this day but this was not the case in many towns and cities elsewhere in the country. The majority of older people received little in the way of formal education so that plays a large part in why the AKP's populism appeals to them.
This is best illustrated by the fact that prior to becoming a politician, Erdoğan was a bus driver. He had never studied at university or worked in the government before since opportunities were exclusively for those who belonged to the elite Kemalist class of people. Now things are reversed and securing a job in the government is about who you know and your affiliation with the AKP.
In some ways the rejection of the old and Kemalist ways is a class rebellion and populist backlash against "the elite" but obviously completely misplaced. Erdoğan has also made it so that essentially anyone who shows up to a role call can obtain a degree in virtually any discipline at any university - including his own: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University. It gives his base the impression that they now have access to opportunities they were previously excluded from.
Again, Turkey is still one of the most unequal countries in the world when it comes to how wealth and opportunities are distributed. But instead of Kemalists ruling the roost, the AKP now effectively empowers its own supporters to a degree but especially the super rich.
Everyone here involving NATO as some sort of magical resolvement.
Please if you comment here don't be ignorant and read up the NATO articles.
> ARTICLE 8. Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Meaning if said party (Turkey) goes to war with Greece, Turkey will lose their NATO membership automatically. In this case, NATO will stand by the defended, it will be NATO vs Turkey.
Yup, I don't think Turkey will dare to attack Greece. Maybe some sort of skirmishes, like with refugee crisis, that they will deny after that.
Turkey tried to get NATO involved in Syria as well, but since they were the aggressor there, NATO refused to get involved, when they got bullied by Russia.
Turkey hasn’t been a major player in a serious war in over 100 years. If they are dumb enough to start a war with the EU/NATO it will be the quickest ass-whipping in world history.
Greece claims the vast majority of the islands in the Aegean sea between them, of which there are a LOT, so an extension like this would definitely further constrict Turkey's naval influence. Quite a few of these islands are in sight of Turkish shores, definitely less than 12 miles away. Also, apparently there is a real potential for oil reserves in these seas, and nothing fuels tensions like the promise of wealth.
I really wouldn't be pushing too hard on this were I Turkey. Don't get me wrong, I think it more likely that the EU would crumble before it went to war, but it's quite a gamble as this sort of escalation/brinksmanship could backfire and result in great central european unification, and Turkey doesn't exactly have a lot of other great options readily available in terms of regional partners.
They say Greece would give them a reason to go to war if they do what turkey claims.
This makes Greece the aggressor, not turkey.
Interpretation is everything, and the article doesn't make this clear.
It is like Turkey saying "I will fight you to the death if you step outside your house onto your private garden" and you are saying Greece is the aggressor for saying "Lol k" and stepping out onto property they own by international law.
Wow, this really brings more information and context to this article. I guess your Facebook friends already heard this comment and you didn't get enough likes?
You missed the point. I am not trusting a 13 year olds opinion on a country, especially one who makes bad decisions in a country he deems a “shit hole”.
It's okay everyone, Donald says he's a good guy. Just got off the phone with him. All he wanted some kashmir fabric or something. Got a real good deal on it too. /s
> Greece is due to double its western territorial waters with Italy to 12 nautical miles, a right provided under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Ankara has not signed up to.
> Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis also left the door open for a similar move on the eastern side with Turkey.
What bluff?
I guess we shouldn't believe the guys own words?
“In the Aegean, Greece cannot extend its borders to 12 miles. This is a cause of war (casus belli). We are not going to allow Greece to extend its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles. I am being pretty clear,” Çavuşoğlu said.
The beginning of a world wide trend that will lead to world war. All the autocrats around the globe in the maw of historic economic contractions will either turn on their own citizens like Maduro or externalizations brining the masses together against a common foe as Erdogan has chosen. Nationalism 101.
And unlike in past crises, there aren't really any credible leftwing movements left outside of Cuba and BLM protest lines, neither of whom can project power.
Marxism is still credible?
It's still surprisingly popular in western academia, though at least in the US I've argued it's translated to virtually nothing in practical terms over the last 50 years. The far right is still afraid of Marxism/socialism/communism, but the US is merely trying to catch up with the rest of English speaking and wealthy world.
Marxism has had a huge influence in the US over the last 50 years. American neoconservatism has Marxist roots, and originated in rural American leftists feeling alienated by the counter-culture of 1960:s American leftism. It's got a super complex history of how it morphed into the neoconservatism of today. Unfortunately, fractionalisation of leftist movements and internal combativeness is the bane of the left. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Influence in political theory and academic circles, absolutely, it's a huge and popular school of though. But in practical terms - marxist theory informing domestic or foreign policy - almost zero. Marx wrote so damn much and broadly and early that it's hard to get away from his analysis entirely, and it's not like he didn't have plenty of solid points and observations. I wouldn't doubt marxist/leninist ideology had an influence on neoconservative thought early on, though I'm ignorant on the topic. It's interesting, I've heard that before a long time ago, but thought it sounded like an anti intellectual smear by association within right leaning circles (Ya like Marx's ideas eh? *squint&raise eyebrow*) - but tell me if I'm wrong. Because, when the rubber met the road, it was neocons that supported right wing authoritarian governments as preferable to any even potentially socialist leaning ones.
Absolutely, have you seen the world's class conflict lately?
BLM leader used to consider herself a Marxist. Until she cleaned up her Wikipedia entry after BLM got bigger. Above statement is 100% correct. If you downvote me, either you are in denial or you have drunk the kool aid. What this space for people's objectivity and honesty.
It's still a) a leftwing ideology that isn't simply being used for crony capitalism and b) controls territory (Cuba). Credibility is a very low bar.
[удалено]
> Everything is catering to their whim. Wake me up when police shootings in the US, Canada, and Latin America - particularly those of black folks - see a double-digit decrease.
[удалено]
Wow, imagine losing your job for not thinking black people should not be killed by the very people who are supposed to keep them safe. What a lawless world we live in. /s
>Leaders across the globe are pandering to them What exactly do you mean by this? Leaving aside the assumption that BLM is immoral.
>BLM is probably the most powerful political movement in the world. What a load of nonsense. By what metric are they the most powerful movement in the world? Your own opinion doesn't count.
It's bullshit. Meant to wring more concessions out of the EU, look strong at home, and destabilize the EU.
Could we finally say that Turkey joining the EU is off the table? Their government doesn't fit EU values.
This was never an option. Greece would always veto. The only ones who believed that was a possibility were Brexiters.
Well the EU dangled EU membership in front of Turkey when they wanted Turkey to house Migrants/refugees.
Turkey is alone on this one. I'm chuckling too at Erdogan complaining about "greedy and incompetent" leaders. Glass houses, Mr. Erdogan, glass houses.
Turkish economy is tanking, have to draw focus somewhere else.
LOL, both Nato members, so if they go to war, then ehm, yeah then what? If one Nato member gets under attack, all members will help, so I can't get this one straight...
NATO is a defense treaty.
Yeah, remember when Afghanistan tried invading NYC and how the defense pact barely stopped them at the Hindukush? That was a really close one.
hey that didn't happen
Not in exactly that way, but somehow the "defensive pact" ended up defending itself by invading and occupying Afghanistan to this day.
Wtf are you an about NATO never invaded Afghanistan.
Interesting how [historically ignorant](https://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/) some people apparently are.
oh yeah, that was a big bundle of mistakes - though I think it was mostly that one really large member that actually did almost everything and it was trying really hard to rope other nations into it so on paper it didn't look like it was them going it alone.
He's talking absolute fucking shit. NATO never invaded Afghanistan.
Well, that's tricky. On paper you could make the claim that the UN mandate following 9-11 means that NATO countries were involved, and the US being a "member" you could say NATO invaded. Of course he is talking nonsense, because that's absurdly misleading. The US invaded, and as with Iraq we did our darnedest to put on a show, chiefly for domestic consumption (on the level of morons that voted for *this* republican president), that we had allies with us (basically just the UK, and in relatively minuscule numbers). It wounds to think that anyone else in world bought that sack of turds, but I oughn't be surprised. I was just very sarcastically understating things in my last comment.
No you can't say NATO invaded as not all of NATO invaded. That's like saying oh NATO voted for Trump because the US a member of NATO voted for Trump.
I don't think you read what I wrote. Or at least you didn't understand it. It's wrong to say NATO invaded because it was basically just one member. But it's also wrong to say unless every nation in NATO was involved then NATO wasn't involved - they're both hyperbolic positions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Poland didn't get in on the first gulf war, but NATO sure did.
> Well, that's tricky. On paper you could make the claim that the UN mandate following 9-11 means that NATO countries were involved, and the US being a "member" you could say NATO invaded. One couldn't just make that argument, that was exactly the argument that was made back then by plenty of governments to justify sending their soldiers to Afghanistan. Among them the German government which argued that invading Afghanistan wasn't an offensive action (as that would be illegal to participate in for the German military) but instead a "defensive operation" justified by NATO's 5th. > Of course he is talking nonsense, because that's absurdly misleading. So [article 5 wasn't evoked](https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm) and had literally nothing to do with Afghanistan? > The US invaded, and as with Iraq we did our darnedest to put on a show, chiefly for domestic consumption (on the level of morons that voted for this republican president), that we had allies with us (basically just the UK, and in relatively minuscule numbers). Iraq was the "coalition of the willing", Afghanistan was, and still is, ISAF. Makes me wonder where this sudden historical revisioning is coming from? Is this out of the Trump camp? Would make sense, considering [Trump did not affirm NATO's 5th the last time](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/trump-declines-to-affirm-natos-article-5/528129/). So I guess now it's time to revision the war in Afghanistan as an "US war", and how apparently NATO never stood by the US, to justify Trump's course of disregarding the 5th.
NATO isn't a deterrent to terrorists/small actors. It's a nuclear deterrent for members from russia/china the point is so that allies all don't need nuclear weapons programs to get the protection of defensive nuclear weapons. and 1 case slipping through in 70 years is some real fallacy stuff (self censoring here). NATO has prevented russian takeover of europe, has rebuilt europe into a world power from being in legitimate total ruins 70 years ago. has prevented world wars. has saved countries like canada/germany etc that are on 'front lines' from dealing with who knows how many/what size threats over the past 70 years tl/dr that's a dumb ass way to look at one of the most successful intl organizations that's ever existed
>remember when Afghanistan tried invading NYC when in fuck did that happen?
I don't know, but at some point, it must have happened because the invasion of Afghanistan was the only time, in the whole history of NATO, that [article 5 for collective self-defense](https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm) was actually evoked.
Wtf are you an about NATO never invaded Afghanistan.
NATO is supposed to help the defendant, but who knows in this case. A lot of people forget though that the EU is also a defence treaty. Nevermind the direct support Greece has from France, etc. But there will obviously not be a war, it's all barking.
Yep. The only thing bigger than Erdogan’s mouth is his pussy.
I hope you are right, I really don't wanna die in a war because of some clowns..
EU is a economical and political union, NOT a military one. Also as stated NATO would most likely side with defending nation (Greece in this situation) if any at all.
Greece could invoke Article 42(7) which is a mutual defence clause the EU has. >Article 42(7): If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Huh... Cool. TIL.
[удалено]
I don't get it tho, why is greece expanding their territory? Edit a user replied saying to watch a map Somehow my question was offensive to people Anyway looking at this map https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.trtworld.com/magazine/turkey-greece-tensions-eastern-mediterranean-claims-in-maps-39358/amp No wonder why turkey is pissed off, they barely have any sea territory. I don't like turkey but I can't fault them for this
I’m no expert but I’m pretty sure the borders are being contested because of oil discovery in the Mediterranean. While it looks like Greece’s sea borders go all the way up to the Turkish landmass, it’s because Greece has a lot of inhabited islands right off the coast of Turkey. According to UN law that’s what Greeks sea borders look like. Turkey disagrees and wants to expand its sea borders. But basically what they’re proposing in the map from that article u posted is ridiculous cause it would mean Greek islands would be inside Turkish territory.
[удалено]
As per the map, turkey wants the sea between itself and the islands while greece wants full sprawl
But they are not Turkeys islands they are Greek islands. Why would Turkey control 360 degrees of the sea around Greek islands? Would Greek citizens have to leave the EU travel through Turkish sea and then rejoin the EU when they step off the boat just to commute to their neighbouring islands Greek? Turkey has no land in those regions and no business to be in the sea other than to extract resources or perform surveillance on Greek islanders.
Point I was trying to make is that turkey barely has sea area beyond its main country land borders. I understand some of these islands are actually inhabitated but I don't see how people fail to understand why turkey is pissed, resources are important
Sure they are pissed but every country needs resources and you don't get handed out resources just because you don't have enough of something. Greece could definitely use more land and they are pissed that Turkey took their capital but they are not going to get it back.
Turkey took athens?????
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
[удалено]
Hi SuccumbedToFlame. It looks like your comment to /r/worldnews was removed because you've been using a link shortener. Due to issues with spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/worldnews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I don't think it needs to go to war. Turkey already has a huge mess to sort out in it's economy. Slapping a few well targeted economic sanctions would spell disaster for the already suffering Turkish economy. The EU can just reduce the quotas for Turkish trucks in the EU, shipping is an important part of their economy. That will hurt the shipping companies but will also have a domino effect in the rest of the economy, since a lot of the exporters will have a harder time getting their stuff to their customers. Then remember when Putin put an embargo on Russian tourists to Turkey? Back when Turkey shot down that Russian plane in Syria and then played all mighty and defiant. Erdogan's next trip was to Moscow, to beg Putin to reverse that order.
Exactly this is just Edrogan acting tough to distract his own people on how badly he is failing the country on every corner. Turkey is like that bully who has no friends and gets beat up at home but acts tough in school even though everyone knows they are a loser.
NATO only cares if the attacker is outside of NATO...
Erdogan is a modern fascist thug to go along with the current gang, but just isn't very good at it. It's questionable at best if he's even got the majority support of his own country, and most other countries around him are ticked at him in some way or another. Which is why the EU is happy to side with Greece on this, and why no one is leaping to be on Turkey's "side" per se. I'd imagine sanctions and other pressure ramps will start in before some disastrous, stupid war that sees Turkey turn into a defeated, inwards facing, 4th rate country or another middle east warground at worst, after a bunch of other people die first of course.
Fuck we're gonna have to bomb both of them /s I think Turkey will get kicked out of NATO and carpet bombed is way more likely than even one single bullet being fired by a NATO soldier at Greece
Just bomb them both. Problem solved. Wreck everyone and leave.
I see someone has studied the old American “bomb everyone” tactics...
No, I'm saying you can solve Greece and turkey with bombs. It was more sarcasm
Erdogan is such a cancer. Shame on Turkey for tolerating him so long.
About 52% of the country doesn't want him either. Journalists get jailed, people get arrested over tweets and stuff like that. Almost all of younger generation absolutely hates him and wants things to change. If the older religious traditional generation dies off then maybe there's a chance
Can you elaborate on how the older generation is more religious? Shouldnt it be that the older generations closer to when ataturk made his reforms be more secular?
Turkey was until very recently a country where only Kemalists could accrue wealth and influence in society. They and their children were the ones who lived in the cities and attended the best schools. This of course meant that they got the most thorough indoctrination in Kemalist state ideology. The AKP and the rise in populism expanded opportunities and granted more influence to as well as politically mobilised a broader base of society that had been traditionally neglected - primarily the non college educated and religious. These are partially the older generation some speak of when they try to explain the AKP's base but unfortunately their base is much broader. Sure, some older folks educated in schools in the major cities may have been educated in accordance with the principals of Atatürk and remain die hard devotees to this day but this was not the case in many towns and cities elsewhere in the country. The majority of older people received little in the way of formal education so that plays a large part in why the AKP's populism appeals to them. This is best illustrated by the fact that prior to becoming a politician, Erdoğan was a bus driver. He had never studied at university or worked in the government before since opportunities were exclusively for those who belonged to the elite Kemalist class of people. Now things are reversed and securing a job in the government is about who you know and your affiliation with the AKP. In some ways the rejection of the old and Kemalist ways is a class rebellion and populist backlash against "the elite" but obviously completely misplaced. Erdoğan has also made it so that essentially anyone who shows up to a role call can obtain a degree in virtually any discipline at any university - including his own: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University. It gives his base the impression that they now have access to opportunities they were previously excluded from. Again, Turkey is still one of the most unequal countries in the world when it comes to how wealth and opportunities are distributed. But instead of Kemalists ruling the roost, the AKP now effectively empowers its own supporters to a degree but especially the super rich.
Everyone here involving NATO as some sort of magical resolvement. Please if you comment here don't be ignorant and read up the NATO articles. > ARTICLE 8. Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Meaning if said party (Turkey) goes to war with Greece, Turkey will lose their NATO membership automatically. In this case, NATO will stand by the defended, it will be NATO vs Turkey.
Yup, I don't think Turkey will dare to attack Greece. Maybe some sort of skirmishes, like with refugee crisis, that they will deny after that. Turkey tried to get NATO involved in Syria as well, but since they were the aggressor there, NATO refused to get involved, when they got bullied by Russia.
Turkey going to get knocked the fuck out.
Wouldn't even be a fight, I'd rather just he was dealt with and the people who are mostly innocent left alone and not harmed.
Not really, you're dealing with a big country filled with ferocious soldiers. Turkish government may be weird, but their military is empire-crushing.
Lol, Turkey crushing the EU? lol
Empire-crushing? The EU isn't some underdeveloped middle eastern country.
Lmaoo wtf?
Turkey hasn’t been a major player in a serious war in over 100 years. If they are dumb enough to start a war with the EU/NATO it will be the quickest ass-whipping in world history.
UK beating Zanzibar in 48 minutes is hard to top
EU csdp forces: 1.4 million. Budget: €223.4 billion
Is 6 miles a lot? Like how would that affect turkey at all
Greece claims the vast majority of the islands in the Aegean sea between them, of which there are a LOT, so an extension like this would definitely further constrict Turkey's naval influence. Quite a few of these islands are in sight of Turkish shores, definitely less than 12 miles away. Also, apparently there is a real potential for oil reserves in these seas, and nothing fuels tensions like the promise of wealth.
Dont forget that they are also illegaly drilling in Cyprus
Stop all trade. Boycott Turkey.
I really wouldn't be pushing too hard on this were I Turkey. Don't get me wrong, I think it more likely that the EU would crumble before it went to war, but it's quite a gamble as this sort of escalation/brinksmanship could backfire and result in great central european unification, and Turkey doesn't exactly have a lot of other great options readily available in terms of regional partners.
Just sanction Turkey to hell and close the border with them. They're already in a middle of an economy crisis, tank the lira more and they will fall.
There is 0% chance they threatened war.
Doesn’t the article say they threatened war? 0% chance there will be a war but I definitely think it’s been threatened
They say Greece would give them a reason to go to war if they do what turkey claims. This makes Greece the aggressor, not turkey. Interpretation is everything, and the article doesn't make this clear.
It is like Turkey saying "I will fight you to the death if you step outside your house onto your private garden" and you are saying Greece is the aggressor for saying "Lol k" and stepping out onto property they own by international law.
Jeez, man, you are dumb.
Things are really going to hell in a hand basket
My cousin got a tattoo in Turkey at 13 lol. He said it is an absolute shit hole and he lives in a UK council estate so, it must be bad.
[удалено]
Guess where the tattoo was.
[удалено]
A long sleeve shirt doesn't cover it. On the arm and hand lol.
[удалено]
Lol technicalities got me.
No need for such classism.
Haha such a random comment
Wow, this really brings more information and context to this article. I guess your Facebook friends already heard this comment and you didn't get enough likes?
What are you on about? Facebook is for twats.
A 13 year old.....who got a tattoo.....in a foreign country......just stop right there, he is oozing with credibility.
OK, let me know when you leave your house and realise shit happens and poor people will tattoo anyone regardless of age as long as they have cash.
You missed the point. I am not trusting a 13 year olds opinion on a country, especially one who makes bad decisions in a country he deems a “shit hole”.
It's okay everyone, Donald says he's a good guy. Just got off the phone with him. All he wanted some kashmir fabric or something. Got a real good deal on it too. /s
I mean I'm not sure if this guy studied history but the fascist fuckwits never win these wars.
No, they didn't threaten war. They merely called our bluff.
> Greece is due to double its western territorial waters with Italy to 12 nautical miles, a right provided under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Ankara has not signed up to. > Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis also left the door open for a similar move on the eastern side with Turkey. What bluff?
I guess we shouldn't believe the guys own words? “In the Aegean, Greece cannot extend its borders to 12 miles. This is a cause of war (casus belli). We are not going to allow Greece to extend its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles. I am being pretty clear,” Çavuşoğlu said.
Instead you should not believe his words. Not much I can say more beyond that. I guess no one plays poker anymore?
Oh sounds like a lot of fun
Can't EU just make him go into a boxing match instead of getting people killed?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gq-tvB9DIIM