Greece and Turkey are on the verge of military conflict
I've pointed out that Turkey and the U.S. are in an armed standoff over the city of Manbij, Syria.
Largely overlooked is a dangerous escalation of tensions between two NATO allies.
Last week, a low-flying Turkish helicopter had passed provocatively close to a military base on the nearby Greek island of Ro, drawing warning shots from soldiers. That incident was followed three days later by the death of a Greek fighter pilot who crashed, his government said, after attempting to intercept a Turkish aircraft that had entered the country’s airspace.In all, the number of incursions by Turkish military ships and jets into Greek territory has spiked in recent months, according to Greek officials, stoking concerns of a new military conflict in a region where Turkey is already embroiled in the war raging in Syria.
This probably won't turn into war. After all, Greece and Turkey have been disputing over ownership of small islands since the Turks were called Ottomans, and very rarely did it end in shooting.
Nevertheless, there is something different this time.
The neighboring countries have been at war with each other several times in the 20th century and were close to military conflict over the Greek islet Imia in 1996, before the United States stepped in to avert disaster.The NATO allies are now at the brink again, goaded by populists on both sides — and this time, Washington is nowhere to be found.
On Monday, a Greek-Turkish confrontation rekindled old memories. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, during an event in Ankara, claimed that the Turkish coast guard had removed a Greek flag from an islet near the island of Fournoi, after it was placed there earlier by three Greeks.
Besides the lack of a coherent foreign policy from the White House, the standoff at Manbij reduces Washington's leverage with Turkey.
Another thing that is different is the sharpness of the words out of Ankara.
Turkey’s position was reiterated by Erdogan during his visit to Athens last year. He claimed that the Treaty of Lausanne needs to be reconsidered, evoking the Turkish-speaking minority of Thrace, a region of northern Greece, as justification. As if to underscore Erdogan’s intentions, Turkish warships recently stopped an Italian research boat from reaching its destination in Greek Cypriot waters.
Even amid this dangerous climate, both sides are indulging in reckless rhetoric...Kammenos, as defense minister, has repeatedly taunted the Turks, making statements along the lines of “let them come and get it.” Kammenos’s deputy in the Ministry of National Defense, the leftist Fotis Kouvelis, said on Monday night that Greece finds itself in “undeclared war in the Aegean.”
Greece is being careless with their rhetoric, but Turkey is being outright belligerent.
“Erdogan is a little bit out of control — he’s picking a lot of fights and there is a lot of uncertainty about how far he’s prepared to go,” said Nikos Tsafos, who researches the politics of the Eastern Mediterranean at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
“The odds of something going wrong are increasing on a weekly basis,” he said.
Now we are seeing the costs of having a man-child in charge, and no check on the Pentagon.
Comments
the Greece-Turkey thing
Actually, here's an example of a problem we Americans did nothing whatsoever to create.
The Greece-Turkey thing is much older than the European presence in the Americas. It goes back before the usual benchmark assigned to it, the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.
The only Europeans known to be dwelling in North America at that time were tiny Viking offshoots who left no living descendants.
Greeks consider all of Anatolia to rightly belong to Greece, and would be quite happy if all the Muslim Turks would go back to Turkmenistan where they "belong".
Turks are far too willing to remember when they actually ruled all of Greece and Macedonia, and would be quite happy to see that state of affairs restored.
And it's been that way longer than most of North America has known of the existence of white people. Or horses.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
My point
True. But this is a situation that could use some leadership from Washington.
However, if the choice in Washington is diplomacy or dropping bombs, we always chose dropping bombs.
Do we even have a Secretary of State?
Extra credit points to you for knowing about this landmark battle and one reason why it's still important.
leadership from Washington?
Washington? Well could both parties rebuff Washington with an hearty "Physician, heal thyself!"
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Sparta!
Yeah, ummm . . . no
This is in no way the cost of having Trump in office. Damn, this place is starting to sound like Rachael Maddow.
I don't like Trump one bit, but the man-child may have supported Mattis instead of Bolton during the strikes last week. Rumor has it (and yes, it is only rumor) that Bolton wanted a strike to destroy Syria's offensive capabilities, strike armor, things like that, and Mattis supported the useless strike that occurred. If so, Trump might have averted a war with Russia (again). (Then again, he did appoint Bolton, but likely at the insistence of AIPAC.)
I guess I wasn't clear
I'm not blaming Trump for creating the situation.
My point is that Washington could do things to defuse the situation.
It did back in 96.
One of the very few things I give President Clinton credit for, is that he took diplomacy seriously.
"...the Treaty of Lausanne needs to be reconsidered..."
Opening up the whole can of worms that was the post WWI settlement??
And we think the Dems are dumb for re-litigating the 2016 election.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.