"As strange as it sounds, air defense is Turkey's Achilles' heel," writes the international expert Yannos Charalambidis in the Cyprus newspaper "Simerini".
He specifically emphasizes: "If things were not like this, there would not be such a big discussion about the issue of the S-400s, which are stored, as Turkey claims, at least the one array, in Ankara.
But, as Tayyip Erdoğan and Hulusi Akar clarify, they can be operational within an hour. Of course, Ankara never sits idle. It has already begun and is, as it claims, in the final stages of building its own "Iron Dome" modeled on Israel.
CONTINUE READING
«Η Δικαιοσύνη της Λιβύης είναι ανεξάρτητη-αποδεικνύεται από την ακύρωση της συμφωνίας με την Τουρκία»
Turkish air defense
Essentially, Turkey is playing games with the Americans. Why; Because she seeks to convince them that she would even be ready to decommit the S-400s if: 1) They gave her new F-16s and modernized the existing ones. 2) Grant her the latest generation Patriot system. Ankara seeks to fill its air defense gap with short (Hisar A+) and medium range (Hisar O+) anti-aircraft systems, as well as through its air force. By 2023 it expects to operationalize its own long-range Siper anti-aircraft - anti-ballistic systems. The tests involved targets at 90 kilometers and an altitude of about 26 thousand feet. The design is like the Siper's capability has a useful range of about 150 kilometers.
The problem is that not all vital areas, spaces and facilities can be covered in the immediate future. In any case, no one knows its true capabilities unless it is tested like the Patriots and S-400s in real combat conditions. What the Turkish claim is that they will gradually have their own "Iron Dome".
Economic and strategic feasibility
In addition to the above, there is one more reason: Turkey seeks to avoid new sanctions against it because NATO prohibits the supply of weapons from Russia, especially at the current stage, when the war in Ukraine is ongoing. It is, after all, also a matter of financial interests. By no means does the USA and other NATO countries want arms sales within the Alliance from Moscow.
In other words, we are witnessing a diplomatic poker game between Erdogan's Turkey and the USA. The refusal of the Senate and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Bob Menendez to grant the F-16s to Ankara is due, among others, to the following reasons:
It would not be possible to be given weapons to Turkey, so as to be used against another allied country, such as Greece, and to endanger the cohesion of NATO's south-eastern wing. Under these circumstances, what is the message the US is sending? That Turkey should change its existing policy. And what does that mean? That it should stop questioning the sovereign rights of Greece and end the casus belli in the case that Athens extends, as the International Law of the Sea determines, its sovereign rights to 12 nautical miles. In addition, that it must respect the Republic of Cyprus and withdraw even the last Turkish soldier from its occupied territories.
- It is a form of response to the Turks who adopt the pendulum policy, who move, depending on their interests, sometimes towards the USA and sometimes towards Russia. The Americans are keeping Erdogan tied down through economic developments and through military technology and armaments. On the one hand, they can sink his economy and on the other hand, weaken him militarily, to the point where his own interests and those of NATO will not be harmed.
Principle positions and alternative strategy
On the other hand, however, the USA would never like to see Turkey fall into the arms of Moscow. And this is where the relevant question arises: It is not only what the Americans are doing, but how Cyprus and Greece are acting in the context of an alternative strategy, approaching their own political positions with those of the USA to resolve the Aegean and Cypriot disputes. Based on the current scenario, we have two important events that determine political positions and strategic choices: The first is the positions of the International Community, and in particular the USA and the EU, on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The second is the attitude of the USA towards Turkish insolence, which arises through the policy of the pendulum. An alternative strategy for Cyprus and Greece should be based on the following pillars:
No revisionist policy and revival of old empires can be accepted, especially with victims of Cyprus and Greece, which Turkey wants to turn into satellite states and protectorates.
No Turkish soldier can remain in Cyprus as is claimed in a similar way for the Russians in the case of Ukraine.
Full respect for the sovereign rights of EU and UN member states.
No acceptance of any achievements may arise as a result of invasion and occupation, a development prohibited by Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, even this bizonal bicommunal federation cannot be accepted as a matter of democratic principle because: 1) It is a violation of International Law and European principles and values, while at the same time it is part of what we call Turkish revisionist policy, with the aim of revival of the Ottoman Empire. 2) It serves neither the interests of the Turkish Cypriots nor the Greek Cypriots, only Ankara's. 3) It opened the way to two states and equal sovereignty. 4) To pass after 48 years from the realm of utopia to that of realism, all Turkish positions must be accepted.
Alliances and solution
Principles cannot be enforced by themselves unless they are accompanied by force. The refuge of the weak is not only the authorities of the UN and the EU, but also the creation of alliances that can arise through international developments and the convergence of interests. At the present stage there is common ground for cooperation between Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt, regarding the exploitation of natural gas and the creation of a new security architecture under the blessings of the USA and the EU, as for example the Strategic Compass determines. If Turkey wishes to be included in such cooperation, it can do so, when it harmonizes with the principles and values of the EU and the UN.
And this means the departure of the last Turkish soldier from Cyprus, so that there are no talks with the Turkish pistol in our own temple. And so that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, within the framework of an Assembly, of a review nature, can improve the shortcomings of the Zurich Constitution under the supervision of the EU. And not to continue the existing process. That is, the dissolution of the legal state and the recognition of the pseudo-state as an equal constituent state within the logic of political equality, which the Turkish interpret in practice as equal sovereignty.
Guarantees and NATO
Since the talk is about security, it is a utopia that any guarantees of the new state system can be given by the Security Council, which, as it proved in the case of Ukraine, cannot provide them. That collective security system that can guarantee the security of Cyprus and the region is that of NATO, to which the three guarantor powers, namely Greece, Turkey and Britain, belong.
NATO membership cannot be part of a policy to legitimize the acts of invasion through the administrative population and geographical separation, as envisaged by any Federation, but through a state system that will be unified, with a decentralized character and will constitute the development and continuity of the state of the Republic of Cyprus based on, in fact, the bottom up process and not top down.This means that the basis for solving the problem should be the Republic of Cyprus and its revision so that it becomes more democratic and not to adopt the logic that will lead to the recognition of the occupied and their temporary stay under the Turkish Cypriot separate condominium, as the existing procedure provides.
Ensuring citizens and natural gas
We are already in the last month of the pre-election campaign and there has not been heard of a structured strategy on the basis of which a solution to the Cyprus issue could be found. Only regurgitated recipes for failure, like those of Cran Montana, are heard. They have costed everything, they claim, but have not told us what will be done with the fundamental issue of safety. Why fundamental? Because every state has two main missions: its internal and external security. The latter is the responsibility of the Armed Forces. More so in the case of Cyprus, where Attila is within the gates. Without the Armed Forces and security, not only we can not escape from the Turkish threats, but also the possibility of concluding alliances and exploitation of natural gas cannot arise. Unless a decision has been made to partition and that the natural gas will be exploited when Turkey allows us. That is, when a tailor-made solution will be found. Since this is not the case, and it is otherwise, the least that its would-be leaders could explain to Cypriot Hellenism is how they will ensure it on the ground, in the air and at sea, where Cyprus is eleven times larger than the land. There lies its national wealth. Therefore, apart from the land forces, it is necessary to acquire a navy and a fleet of ships that will be decided by the experts.These issues should be discussed together with Greece in a unified strategic planning based on the so-called "military economy", so that every bolt purchased has its own significance in the context of a deterrent practice from the Balkans to the Middle East. Without infrastructure and weapon systems you cannot have alliances in practice but on paper. And serious and reliable policy needs costing, because it is a related issue with the economy. And the acquisition of equipment systems should not be part of the logic of cost but of investment, through - among others - the opportunities offered by the EU.
Double Achilles heel
Such a strategic approach from Thrace to Cyprus is imposed by Ankara itself. Those who claim that Erdogan's threats are just pre-election rhetorical flares are seriously mistaken. Crises and wars do not arise when you are armored, but when you are unarmored. This happened in 1974. And if at this moment the crisis in the Aegean has not yet broken out, it is due to the deterrent ability of Greece, which was awakened by Erdogan's war cries, as well as to NATO, which does not want two of its member states to shake the his southeast wing in the air. Be careful, however, because even in 1974 the crisis was expected in the Aegean and finally broke out in Cyprus, where it was and remains the "Achilles heel" of Hellenism. It is the space from which Turkey can blackmail with its threats and win over not only us Cypriots but also Athens through the shadow of its power. Erdogan has set up an entire system to cover his own "Achilles heel" in the area of air defense through the Russian S-400 and his own weapons systems. Question: First Cyprus and then Athens when and how will they decide to cover our own "Achilles heel"? The circumstances are there for such a thing. The question is whether there is the required political perception of things and above all the will. This is another, second "Achilles heel" of ours..."
