Category: News

UBI-Talk on our Walk
Dear UBI Advocates,

We would like to invite and hope to see all UBI Advocates, together with their friends and networks, at the ‘UBI-Talk on our Walk’;
- a Zoom based (due pandemic) Basic Income March,
- facilitated by ‘Worldwide Meetings of UBI Advocates and UBI Networks’,
- organized by UBI Networks,
- on 19th of September 2020, Saturday,
- at GMT 12:00, or at GMT 14:30, or at GMT 19:00,
- as a participation in the 2nd Basic Income March (an initiative by; Income Movement),
- during the 13th International Basic Income Week.
(Please, see attached two slides.)

Please take a shoe of yours with you for the screen shots in groups.

All the screen shots (photos) will be used for promotion of the UBI idea.

During the events, as time permits, limited number of participants may also give their short messages regarding UBI.

Please, kindly participate in one of the below (at the end of this message) listed Zoom Meetings.

We would like to thank our dear friends Alexander de Roo (Netherlands), Claudia Leduc (Canada), Peter Knight (Brazil) and Ali Mutlu Köylüoğlu (Turkey) for their contributions during development of this project, and to our dear friends Gerdur Palmadottir (Iceland) for her proposal regarding the title of the event (‘UBI-Talk on our Walked’) and Gaylene Middleton (New Zealand) for seconding the proposal.

Special thanks to the our dear friends, Klaus Sambor (Austria), Peter Knight (Brazil), Ivaylo Kirilov (Bulgaria), Sheila Regehr (Canada), Fabricio Bonilla (Costa Rica ), Marek Hrubek (Czech Republic), Jaanus Nurmoja (Estonia), Michaela Kerstan (Germany), Evamaria Langer-Dombrady (Hungary), Gerdur Palmadottir (Iceland), Shobana Nelasco (India), Paul Harnett (Ireland), Robin Ketelars (Netherlands), Kristine Endsjo (Norway), Claudia Leduc (Quebec, Canada), Annie Miller (Scotland), Angle Bravo (Spain), Ali Mutlu Köylüoğlu (Turkey), Barb Jacobson (United Kingdom), Stacey Rutland (United States of America), Paul Ettl (Austria), Cory Neudorf (Canada), Milus Kotisova (Czech Republic), Sabine Heisnerr (Germany), Mike Danson (Scotland), Kimberly Woods (United States of America), and Georg Sorst (Austria) for participation of them in the invitation message with their screen shots (photos).

The timing of our Zoom meetings are all announced as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time).

All the meetings will be recorded and will be shared partially or fully, especially for other UBI Advocates, who were not able to participate.

Our capacity for the Zoom meetings is 500 participants and in case the sessions are full, please see the Facebook page “UBI Advocates and UBI Networks” for additional meetings (in addition to the below listed pre-scheduled ones.)

Hoping to see all UBI Advocates, together with their friends and networks, at the ‘UBI-Talk on our Walk’,

All the Best,

Worldwide Meetings of UBI Advocates and UBI Networks

>>> Details of the Scheduled Zoom Meetings on 19^th of September, 2020, Saturday :

at GMT 12:00

Meeting ID: 881 0151 7059

Passcode: UBI4H

at GMT 14:30

Meeting ID: 824 2830 2351

Passcode: UBI4H

at GMT 19:00

Meeting ID: 836 6318 8855

Passcode: UBI4H
September 18, 2020
Each year, some choose to ‘disappear’ and abandon their lives, jobs, homes and families. In Japan, there are companies that can help those looking to escape into thin air.

his piece is based on this BBC Reel video produced by Andreas Hartman, and is a text reversion of this radio piece for the Rulebreakers series from BBC World Service in collaboration with the Sundance Institute. Adapted by Bryan Lufkin.

All over the world, from the US to Germany to the UK, some people decide to disappear from their own lives without a trace – leaving their homes, jobs and families in the middle of the night to start a second life, often without ever looking back.

In Japan, these people are sometimes referred to as “jouhatsu”. That’s the Japanese word for “evaporation”, but it also refers to people who vanish on purpose into thin air, and continue to conceal their whereabouts – potentially for years, even decades.

“I got fed up with human relationships. I took a small suitcase and disappeared,” says 42-year-old Sugimoto, who’s just going by his family name for this story. “I just kind of escaped.” He says that back in his small hometown, everybody knew him because of his family and their prominent local business, which Sugimoto was expected to carry on. But having that role foisted upon him caused him such distress that he abruptly left town forever and told no one where he was going.

From inescapable debt to loveless marriages, the motivations that push jouhatsu to “evaporate” can vary. Regardless of their reasons, they turn to companies that help them through the process. These operations are called “night moving” services, a nod to the secretive nature of becoming a jouhatsu. They help people who want to disappear discreetly remove themselves from their lives, and can provide lodging for them in secret whereabouts.

“Normally, the reason for moving is something positive, like entering university, getting a new job or a marriage. But there’s also sad moving – for example, like dropping out of university, losing a job or escaping from a stalker,” says Sho Hatori, who founded a night-moving company in the 90s when Japan’s economic bubble burst. At first, he thought financial ruin would be the only thing driving people to flee their troubled lives, but he soon found there were “social reasons”, too. “What we did was support people to start a second life,” he says.

Sociologist Hiroki Nakamori has been researching jouhatsu for more than a decade. He says the term ‘jouhatsu’ first started being used to describe people who decided to go missing back in the 60s. Divorce rates were (and still are) very low in Japan, so some people decided it was easier to just up and leave their spouses instead of going through elaborate, formal divorce proceedings.

“In Japan, it’s just easier to evaporate,” says Nakamori. Privacy is fiercely protected: missing people can freely withdraw money from ATMs without being flagged, and their family members can’t access security videos that might have captured their loved one on the run. “Police will not intervene unless there’s another reason – like a crime or an accident. All the family can do is pay a lot for a private detective. Or just wait. That’s all.”

‘I was shocked’

For the loved ones who get left behind, the abandonment – and resultant search for their jouhatsu – can be unbearable.

“I was shocked,” says a woman who’s remained anonymous, and whose 22-year-old son went missing and hasn’t contacted her since. “He failed after quitting his job twice. He must have felt miserable with his failure.” She drove to where he was living, searched the premises and then waited in her car for days to see if he showed up. He never did.

She says the police haven’t been helpful, and says they told her they could only get involved if it was a suspected suicide. But since there was no note, they won’t help.

“I understand there are stalkers – information can be misused. This is a necessary law, perhaps. But criminals, stalkers and parents who cannot search for their own children? All of them are treated the same way due to the protection. What is this?” she says. “With the current law, without money, all I can do is check if [a] dead body is my son – the only thing left for me.”

The disappeared

For the jouhatsu themselves, feelings of sadness and regret stick with many of them long after they leave their lives behind.

“I constantly have a feeling that I’ve done something wrong,” says Sugimoto, the businessman who left his wife and kids in the small town. “I haven’t seen [my children] in a year. I told them I’m on a business trip.” His only regret, he says, was leaving them.

Sugimoto is currently staying in a home tucked away in a residential district of Tokyo. The night-moving company that’s housing him is run by a woman called Saita, who’s also going by her family name only to preserve anonymity. She was a jouhatsu herself, who went missing 17 years ago. She ‘disappeared’ after being in a physically abusive relationship, and says “in a way, I’m a missing person – even now.”

“I have various types of clients,” she continues. “There are people who run away from serious domestic violence or ego and self-interest. I don’t judge. I never say, ‘Your case is not serious enough’. Everybody has individual struggles.”

For people like Sugimoto, her company helped him address those struggles of his own . But even though he managed to disappear, it doesn’t mean that traces of his old life don’t linger. “Only my first son knows the truth. He’s 13 years old,” he says. “The words I can’t forget are, ‘What Dad decided is Dad’s life, and I can’t change it’. It sounds more mature than me, doesn’t it?”

Japan’s events industry

How has Japan’s business event industry adapted to Covid-19?

September 12, 2020
Great Britain against Russia in the Caucasus

Great Britain against Russia in the Caucasus, Pat Walsch

For most of the 19th Century Great Britain and Tsarist Russia confronted each other in a geopolitical struggle known as the Great Game. During this period Britain supported the Ottoman Empire as a giant buffer state against Russian expansion toward the Mediterranean. But in 1907 the Great Game against Russia was suddenly suspended in the interests of a drastic alteration in Britain’s Balance of Power policy that identified Germany as the main threat to British global predominance. An unlikely alliance was established between the two former deadly enemies which had momentous consequences for Tsarist Russia and the world.

The primary consequence of this revolution in British Foreign Policy was the Great War of 1914, waged by Britain, Russia and France on Germany and the Ottoman Empire. In the course of this catastrophic global war the Tsarist State collapsed, throwing much of Eurasia into flux, and letting loose new forces into the world. The Russian Revolution and Bolshevik coup, along with universalistic slogans encouraging „self-determination“ trumpeted by the Allied Powers, provoked nationalism and new nations, in areas where such notions had been weakly developed previously, like Transcaucasia.

Within this turmoil the new nations of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia emerged out of the Russian Empire and took their first steps toward independence in a situation of great instability and uncertainty. The Armenians, the most nationalistic and militarized people in the region who had collaborated in the attempt to destroy the Ottoman State, were now employed by the badly-stretched Entente to reconstruct a new Allied front in the Caucasus replacing the Russian lines that had melted away. And this was to have tragic consequences for the local Muslim population.

At the end of 1918 Britain finally won its Great War on Germany and the Ottoman Empire, whilst seeing its former enemy, Russia, descend into chaos. Britain had seemingly won not only the Great War but the Great Game against Russia and occupied its territory in the Caucasus, with the power to determine the region’s future for the first time. Or so it seemed.

The collapse of the Russian State resulted in the Caucasus becoming one of the centres of a new conflict as Britain supported regime change in Moscow by promoting and facilitating civil war in Russia. The new Transcaucasian states of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan had been provided with a vacuum in which to be born and develop as nations and the British occupation was availed of for this development. But the freedom of action of these new nations was short lived after Britain, lacking the will to sustain its occupation for various reasons, abruptly began a withdrawal.

This study, for the first time, places the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian question in its full geopolitical context of the Great War, Russian State politics and Revolution, and the changing Foreign Policy of Great Britain. Without this context full understanding of these world-historic events is impossible.

manzara-verlag.de/shop/great-britain-against-russia-in-the-caucasus/

September 11, 2020
The Mysterious Midas City: 2,800-Year-Old City with Monumental Facades and Strange Inscriptions
11 September, 2019 – 01:47 dhwty

The Mysterious Midas City: 2,800-Year-Old City with Monumental Facades and Strange Inscriptions

A being named Midas has been immortalized in Yazılıkaya, Turkey. Many people think the famous inscription dedicated to this person referred to the king remembered for his ‘golden touch’, but that’s just because the deity associated with the Midas Monument is usually known by another name.

Who Was Midas?

Yazılıkaya (known also as Phrygian Yazılıkaya, or Midas Kenti) is a village located in the northwestern Turkish province of Eskişehir. This village is notable for its archaeological remains from the Phrygian period, in particular a rock inscription mentioning a ‘Midas’. Thus, these archaeological remains are sometimes referred to as the Midas Monument or Midas Kenti (which translates as the ‘City of Midas’), and were even once considered to be the tomb of the legendary King Midas.

Inscription in the Phrygian alphabet. This is part of the Midas Tomb in Midas City (Midas Şehri), Turkey. ( CC BY SA 2.5 )

The literal translation of Yazılıkaya is ‘inscribed rock’, which is a reference to its famous rock inscription. According to the archaeological evidence, this site was first settled around the 8th century BC by a group of people known as the Phrygians. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the Phrygians were not the natives of Anatolia, but were Thracian Brygians who had crossed the Hellespont to settle in Anatolia. Herodotus’ claim has been confirmed by historians today who have established that the Phrygian language is related to those from the southern Balkan Peninsula.
- The Mother of all Gods: The Phrygian Cybele
- Everything he Touched Turned to Gold: The Myth and Reality of King Midas
- Make Way for the Powerful Assyrian Kings: The History of the Message-Laden Balawat Gates
Unfinished façade, the city of Midas, Yazılıkaya, Turkey. Source: MEH Bergmann/ CC BY SA 4.0

The Phrygians established their capital at Gordian. Yazılıkaya, on the other hand, became an important religious center. This interpretation of the city is supported by the presence of a large amount of monumental structures. The best-known of these monuments is the so-called Midas Monument, which acquired its name as a result of the presence of the word in an inscription located on the upper left-hand side of the façade. Most people would be familiar with King Midas, the most famous ruler of Phrygia, due to the story known as Midas’ touch. In this well-known myth, the king was given the power to turn anything he touched into gold.

Midas’ daughter turned to gold. ( Public Domain )

As a matter of fact, the Midas on the inscription is the surname of Cybele, a Phrygian goddess regarded to be the Mother of the Gods. In addition, what was originally thought to have been the tomb of the legendary King Midas was actually a sanctuary to this goddess. This monument dates to the 8 ^th century B.C., and is older than the rest of the site. The sanctuary has a niche, into which a statue of Cybele could be placed during the religious ceremonies.

Cybele enthroned, with lion, cornucopia and Mural crown. Roman marble. ( Public Domain )

Another interesting feature of Yazılıkaya is its rock-cut necropolis, which is situated to the south of the Midas monument. In this area, several Phrygian tombs may be found. In addition to this, the ancient site also possessed an acropolis. As the acropolis is on top of a high place, one could have a magnificent panorama of the entire site.

The City of Midas Gains its Popular Name

Around the late 4th century BC, the site was suddenly abandoned. The city of Yazılıkaya was more or less lost to the West until it was re-discovered during the 19th century. In 1800, a Colonel William Martin Leake came across the site by chance during a military mission that took him from Istanbul to Egypt. It was, however, during the latter part of the 19th century that Yazılıkaya became known as the City of Midas. It was William M. Ramsay, a Scottish archaeologist, who first gave this name to the site.
- Vibrations and sounds may have enhanced worship of Great Goddess Cybele
- Band Posters of the Renaissance: How Medieval Music Fans Showed off Their Taste
- The Ancient Kingdom of Tuwana: A Bridge that Aided the Flow of Culture
A rock formation at the top of Midas city ruins, Yazılıkaya village, Han – Eskişehir, Turkey. (Zeynel Cebeci/ CC BY SA 4.0 )

The first systematic archaeological excavations of Yazılıkaya only began in 1936, and were directed by the French Archaeological Institute in Istanbul. This first phase of archaeological work continued until 1939, when the Second World War broke out. Several significant discoveries, including rock reliefs and water cisterns, were made during this time.

Archaeological excavations at Yazılıkaya recommenced after the war ended, in 1948. This period of excavations lasted until 1951 and is notable for its discovery of the necropolis. Archaeological work at Yazılıkaya has also been carried out during the 1970s and 1990s. Most recently, during the 21st century, the plain surrounding the site was surveyed, leading to the discovery of other monuments from the Phrygian period. Apart from that, Yazılıkaya has been turned into a tourist destination today.

A northeastern side view of a rock-cut necropolis with several Phrygian tombs which lies to the south of the Midas Monument in Yazılıkaya (lit. “inscribed rock” in Turkish) village, Eskişehir – Turkey. (Zeynel Cebeci/ CC BY SA 4.0 )

Top image: The Midas Monument, Yazılıkaya. Source: Zeynel Cebeci/ CC BY SA 4.0

By Wu Mingren References
September 10, 2020
Piri Reis Map – How Could a 16th Century Map Show Antarctica Without Ice?

On October 9, 1929, a German theologian named Gustav Adolf Deissmann was cataloguing items in the Topkapi Palace library in Istanbul when he happened across a curious parchment located among some disregarded material. On the gazelle skin parchment was a map, now referred to as the Piri Reis map .

The map was drawn and signed by Turkish cartographer Hagji Ahmed Muhiddin Piri , aka Piri Reis, and is dated to 1513 AD. Reis was an admiral in the Turkish navy, an experienced sailor, and a cartographer, who claimed to have used 20 source maps and charts to construct the map, including 8 Ptolemaic maps, 4 Portuguese maps, an Arabic map, and a map by Christopher Columbus.

Since its discovery, the Piri Reis map has stirred both intrigue and controversy, mostly due to the presence of what appears to be a representation of Antarctica 300 years before it was discovered. Another—if not even more intriguing facet of the appearance of Antarctica—is that it appears to show the land mass before it was covered in ice, over 6000 years ago.

Evidence of Ancient Technology?

The great debate was sparked by Professor Charles Hapgood when he published his theory on the Piri Reis map in his book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings in 1965. He and a team of students at the University of New Hampshire studied the map and found many anomalies, such as the use of mercatorial projection and the inclusion of a pre-ice Antarctica.

The Greeks were able to create cylindrical maps based on their knowledge of a spherical earth, though mercatorial projection was not used by Europeans until later in the 16 ^th century, and were also able to use astronomy and geometry to calculate latitude and longitude, though absolute accuracy was not possible until the invention of the chronometer in 1760. While these two feats—amazing as they are—could be explained by use of Greek source maps and charts from the age of Alexander, nothing could explain the inclusion of Antarctica. As a result, Hapgood proposed that the map was based on materials that pre-date 4000 BC, before any known developed languages or progressive civilizations.

This theory implies that a prehistoric civilization had the technology to navigate major seaways and fairly accurately chart the globe. Hapgood also suggested that the topographic depiction of the interior of the continents required aerial capabilities, implying the prehistoric ‘super’ civilization to be both nautical and aerial masters and leading to the further speculation of either an Atlantean or alien civilization. No evidence has been found to support such theories.

South America vs Antarctica

Skeptics of Hapgood’s theory point out that the map is a representation of the South American coastline, pointing to modern physical features of the coast and interior included on the 16 ^th century map. Otherwise, argue critics, the image would indicate that Antarctica and South America had once been connected at Uruguay, and that Argentina did not yet exist.

While this argument possibly dismisses the presence of Antarctica on the Piri Reis map, other anomalous maps have been found that are identical to the the ice free continent as only 20 ^th century satellite technology has been able to identify.

Other theories of Hapgood’s have already been dismissed, such as his polar shift theory in which he claimed a sudden shift in the inclination of the Earth’s axis of rotation in 9,500 BC could have resulted in the displacement of Antarctica, sending it hundreds of miles south and resulting in the alteration of its climate from semi-temperate to freezing. All evidence suggests that this shift could not, and did not, occur.

Undiscovered Civilization?

The true question is whether or not Antarctica is the identifiable continent on the Piri Reis map, or any of the other anomalous maps. If it is, could the Piri Reis map have been based on the documents of a yet undiscovered, prehistoric civilization, one that could possess technology enabling them to travel and accurately chart the globe? Regardless of the true origin of the sources, one thing is for certain: this map opens up the debate over how we view our own history and what, if any, of those views are accurate. Perhaps someday the truth will be discovered.

September 10, 2020
How Dangerous Is Greece and Turkey’s Mediterranean Standoff?

BY JOSEPH HINCKS
AUGUST 28, 2020 10:38 AM EDT

The Eastern Mediterranean has become an increasingly crowded space, between precarious refugee crossings from Libya to Europe, the flow of arms and mercenaries in the other direction, and Russia’s new naval hub at the Syrian port of Tartus.

So when a Turkish seismic vessel began carrying out surveys in waters where Greece also claims jurisdiction, shadowed by Turkish warships, it added another dangerous element to the mix.

Since it began in mid-August, Turkey’s drilling program, and the gunboat diplomacy that has followed, has contributed to a situation so volatile German foreign minister Heiko Maas on Tuesday warned: “any small spark could lead to catastrophe.” It has prompted Turkey to announce new live-fire military drills to be held off Cyprus’s northern coast next week, with Greece planning rival navy exercises with France, Cyprus, and Italy. The dispute has divided E.U. leaders over how to manage Turkey and drawn in states as far-flung as Egypt and the UAE.

In a week in which Erdogan resolved to make “no concessions on that which is ours” and Greece announced it would extend its maritime territory around some of its islands unrelated to the dispute, the tensions are only escalating. Here’s what to know about the trouble brewing in the Mediterranean:

Why are tensions between Turkey and Greece flaring up right now?

On the surface, it’s a dispute over energy. Turkey and Greece have overlapping claims to areas of gas-rich waters in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece’s position is that each of its islands—and there are thousands of them—is entitled to its own continental shelf with exclusive drilling rights. The E.U. has stood firmly behind Greece and last July sanctioned Turkey for carrying out seismic surveys off the north Cypriot coast. It has repeatedly warned Turkey against carrying out further exploration.

But Turkey says that is an unfair interpretation of international law that unjustly encroaches on its own exclusive economic zone. In recent months, Turkey and Greece have each sought to bolster their territorial claims by drawing up exclusive maritime economic zones with Libya and Egypt, respectively.

Beyond immediate territorial concerns, the dispute draws in historical grievances and contemporary military strategy. They include the conflicted status of Cyprus, the wars in Libya and Syria, and the ongoing power struggles in the region as U.S. influence wanes.

How have Greece–Turkey relations deteriorated in recent years?

Greek–Turkic enmity far predates the establishment of the Turkish Republic. It spans quotidian concerns such as the origins of the dessert baklava to grave disagreements over historical atrocities. But for the past half-decade, the most serious disputes have centered on the status of Cyprus.

Turkey’s 1974 invasion of the island, triggered by a Greek-backed military coup, led to Turkish troops occupying the island’s northern third and an exodus of Greek Cypriots from the area. In 1983 a Turkish-Cypriot politician declared a breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), recognized only by Turkey. The Republic of Cyprus joined the E.U. in 2004 despite its divided status. Tensions between Greece and Turkey have simmered ever since, and in 1996 the two countries came close to war over two uninhabited islets in the Aegean Sea, near Turkey’s western coast.

Cyprus’s unresolved status features in the Eastern Mediterranean dispute because Turkey considers any deals Cyprus signs on energy exploitation illegal unless the TRNC is also involved. Greece, meanwhile, considers Turkish gas exploration near Cyprus illegal.

What other factors are worsening relations?

One is the flow of migrants from the Middle East to Europe. Turkey hosts almost 4 million migrants and refugees as part of a 2016 deal with the E.U. In February, Erdogan briefly made good on a long-held threat to “open the gates” allowing tens of thousands of asylum seekers to cross over into Greece. Athens’ hardline response—including using violence against asylum seekers—drew criticism from human rights groups. Meanwhile, the E.U. accused Turkey of using migrants as a bargaining tool.

Relations further soured in July over the re-conversion of Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia into a mosque. That revived a centuries-long dispute over one of the world’s most contested religious buildings and irked Russia and Greece, the centers of Orthodox Christianity.

On Tuesday, Greece’s foreign minister Nikos Dendias accused Erdogan of advancing a “neo-Ottoman” strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean as part of an “attempt to implement expansionist aims against neighbors and allies.” That’s an allegation frequently leveled at the Turkish leader, whom critics have dubbed a “modern Sultan.”

But Turkey’s muscular approach to the contested waters enjoys bipartisan support. Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) voiced support for the Mediterranean drilling program. Securing lucrative energy resources in a region where Turkey finds itself increasingly isolated also enjoys popular social backing, experts say. “Erdogan’s adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean probably has more support than any of his other regional adventures,” says Emile Hokayem, a Middle East security expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Which other countries are involved?

It’s a long list, complicated by Turkey and European states’ entanglements in the Middle East, North Africa and beyond.

Last November, Turkey signed a maritime accord with Libya’s U.N.-backed government that would permit expanded Turkish drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although it is not recognized by Washington or the E.U., the accord led to Turkey intervening militarily in Libya’s civil conflict against warlord Khalifa Haftar, who is backed by Russia. As in northwest Syria, Russia and Turkey have emerged as power brokers of the battlespace in Libya.

But it’s not only Russia that backs Haftar in Libya. France, the UAE, and Egypt have each provided military or financial assistance to his self-styled Libya National Army; and they’re all engaged in the Mediterranean dispute.

French President Emmanuele Macron—who labeled Turkey’s Libya incursion “criminal”—earlier in August briefly dispatched two Rafale fighter jets and a naval frigate in support of Greece. France, along with Greece and Cyprus, has taken a hardline stance against Turkey, compared to the more conciliatory approach favored by E.U. nations such as Germany, Spain, and Italy.

Meanwhile, Egypt earlier in August signed an accord with Greece on the development of a joint maritime economic zone that Turkey claims is “null and void.” Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi has threatened to intervene militarily in Libya against Turkey. The UEA—which has deployed U.S. manufactured warplanes in Libya— reportedly sent four F16’s to Crete last week to participate in drills with the Greek military. “The adversarial positions of the UAE and Turkey across the Middle East and North Africa are spilling into the East Mediterranean dispute, as can be seen by the UAE dispatch of fighter jets,” says Nigar Goksel Turkey project director at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

What is Russia’s position on the crisis?

Russia has yet to make a public statement on the Greece–Turkey tensions but it is deeply entrenched in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, where Erdogan recently announced Turkey’s biggest ever gas find. The U.S. Navy’s top admiral in Europe warned last year that Moscow is in the process of turning the eastern Mediterranean into one of the world’s most militarized zones, in part as a result of building up a naval hub at the Syrian port of Tartus. Greek media reported this week that the Russian Navy has gathered nine military vessels between Cyprus and Syria, including three submarines.

And what has the U.S. said?

In phone calls on Wednesday, U.S. President Trump expressed concern to his Greek and Turkish counterparts over the rising tensions, urging the two NATO members to commit to dialogue, according to a White House Press Secretary. Still, although the USS Hershel Woody Williams recently arrived on the Greek island of Crete, the White House has largely left Germany to mediate the crisis. “The U.S. is not happy about being dragged into Mediterranean politics. They have enough on their plate trying to deter Russia and China,” says IISS’s Hokayem. “But the reality is that when the U.S. veers away from some of the issues and decides not to be implicated in their management, actually things get worse and the U.S. may be dragged back in.”

Is the tension likely to spill over into violence?

It’s increasingly plausible, if unlikely. War between two NATO members in the Mediterranean would be an unmitigated disaster, and both sides have voiced their desire for negotiations. But as the brinkmanship increases, so does the possibility of accidental escalation. “We invite our counterparts to smarten up and avoid mistakes that will cause their ruin,” Erdogan said on Wednesday. “Those who wish to confront us at the cost of paying a price, are welcome. If not, they should keep out of our way.”

There are few moderating voices. As Turkey’s E.U. membership prospects dwindled, it became increasingly difficult for more dovish politicians in Ankara to highlight incentives to compromise, says ICG’s Goksel. “The E.U. doesn’t have any carrots to offer Turkey that would override nationalist sentiments,” she says, “I think Ankara’s strategic thinkers sincerely want negotiations, but they don’t think they could get them unless they create havoc.”

WRITE TO JOSEPH HINCKS AT JOSEPH.HINCKS@TIME.COM.

August 30, 2020