Category: Europe

  • Sarbanes Letter to President Biden

    Sarbanes Letter to President Biden

    Sarbanes, Hellenic Caucus Leaders Urge President Biden to Formally Invite the President of Cyprus to the White House to Mark 50th Anniversary of Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

    January 18, 2024

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD) joined Congressional Hellenic Caucus co-chairs Chris Pappas (D-NH) and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and vice co-chairs Dina Titus (D-NV) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) in sending a letter to President Biden requesting he observe the 50th anniversary of Turkey’s invasion and ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus by formally inviting Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides to the White House and taking other measures to strengthen the strategic partnership between the United States and Cyprus.

    Read the full letter linked here and below:

    Dear President Biden:

    This year we mark the 50th observance of Turkey’s brutal invasion and ongoing occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. From your earliest days in the Senate, few elected officials have matched your understanding of this unforgiving tragedy, and even fewer have equaled your level of unwavering support for reunification of the island as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.   

    As members of the Congressional Hellenic Caucus, we urge your administration to mark this sober year of remembrance with meaningful actions that will materially elevate the United States’ relationship with one of our most reliable strategic partners. We agree with your recent statement that American leadership is what holds the world together, that American alliances are what keep us, America, safe. Affirming our bond with key partners — in this case, the Republic of Cyprus — is critical to projecting American values and bolstering international collaboration on the world’s most pressing challenges.

    On July 20, 1974, Turkish forces descended upon Cypriot towns and villages, sending their rightful inhabitants fleeing for their lives. Since that time, Cypriots have endured a massive Turkish occupation in an ongoing affront to their sovereignty and democratic liberties. Your observation that we know that our allies and, maybe most importantly, our adversaries and competitors, are watching could not be more applicable than to Turkey’s actions in Cyprus.

    In 2014, you became the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Cyprus since then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1962. During that visit, you recognized Cyprus’ important role as an ally, observing: “Cyprus can be a growing force for peace, prosperity and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean and that would benefit the world.” Almost a decade later, Cyprus has consistently proven to be the stabilizing and peaceful force in the region you rightly predicted, having aligned its policies with U.S. interests and collaborated with the larger Eastern Mediterranean region. Cyprus has worked to combat Russian money laundering, captured tons of Iranian explosives and shown itself to be a compassionate and reliable partner by treating wounded U.S. Marines prevented from receiving care at the U.S. Incirlik Base in Turkey. Most recently, in response to Hamas’ brutal attack on Israeli civilians, Cyprus rescued thousands of innocent Americans and others fleeing from Israel and is currently leading efforts to establish a humanitarian aid corridor to Gaza. Beyond this demonstrated vital partnership, our nations have found key areas of collaboration through the 3+1 Eastern Mediterranean Cooperation Framework, including its development of CYCLOPS, a facility that hosts joint training on maritime and border security, counterterrorism and cybersecurity between the U.S., Cyprus and other regional allies. 

    It is with this convincing record of collaboration in mind that we propose your consideration of several key actions that will signal America’s appreciation of Cyprus’ vital role and also act to further strengthen the U.S.-Cypriot strategic partnership. This partnership has already catalyzed greater cooperation, innovation and security amongst our friends and allies in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

    First, we urge you to formally welcome Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides to the White House. A formal state visit will shine a powerful light on the peace building that remains to be done in Cyprus and will demonstrate America’s broad interest in peaceful conflict resolution across the globe. It will be an important statement to allies under threat of authoritarian control that the United States is a resolute world leader committed to the preservation and promotion of democratic liberties. You have done more than any American President in recent memory to raise the alarm about the threats to democracy at home and abroad. Demonstrating solidarity with the Republic of Cyprus, a key partner in that continuing struggle, will reaffirm your unwavering commitment to strengthening democratic principles at this critical moment.   

    Second, we ask that you leverage the power of the 3+1 Framework to further the shared strategic interests of the United States and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean region by expeditiously convening a 3+1 Foreign Ministerial meeting. During a time of rising global tensions, it is more important than ever to promote regional stability and enhance collaboration among key partner nations on mutual economic and political goals by facilitating these regional talks. 

    Third, we applaud initial steps to add Cyprus to the Visa Waiver Program alongside many of its European Union neighbors. This Program serves to strengthen people-to-people ties between nations and the inclusion of Cyprus is the right policy. We urge a smooth and efficient admission of Cyprus into the Program once the necessary security steps are completed by your administration. 

    Finally, we wish to thank you for fully lifting the arms embargo on Cyprus through 2024. This decision is a testament to the reforms Cyprus has implemented consistent with the Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019, to thwart Russian influence and money laundering. While we believe this is an important first step in recognition of Cyprus’ ongoing commitment to these reforms, we urge you to extend this lifting of the arms embargo beyond a one-year time frame which will allow for advanced planning and ensure interoperability with allies. 

    Your long-standing record of support for the U.S.- Cyprus relationship is deeply appreciated by all who have worked over these last five decades to achieve justice for the Cypriot people. We know that you feel the gravity of this moment as acutely as we do and ask you to mark this sober occasion with concrete, meaningful actions that can advance a just solution in Cyprus.  

    Sincerely,

    Chris Pappas, Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

    Gus Bilirakis, Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

    Dina Titus, Vice Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

    Nicole Malliotakis, Vice Co-Chair, Hellenic Caucus

    John P. Sarbanes, Member, Hellenic Caucus 

  • Russia could attack the West ???

    Russia could attack the West ???

    That’s what it’s all about:

    According to the Bild newspaper, the German Bundeswehr is studying scenarios in which Russia could attack the West bevor the summer. The situation could escalate in the coming winter, the document continues.

    In the summer of 2025, NATO could finally deploy 300,000 troops to Ukraine’s eastern flank. While Ukraine is aiming for a summit at the highest level on its peace plan, Russian President Vladimir Putin probably has other intentions: According to a training plan of the German Defense Ministry, the Kremlin chief could prepare a hybrid attack on NATO as early as next winter. This is reported by the “Bild” newspaper.

    In the secret report, the German Defense Ministry outlines in detail a possible “path to conflict” between Russia and the Western defense alliance. Month after month, both Russian and Western actions are described. Among other things, the Bundeswehr expects the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers and an imminent outbreak of war in the summer of 2025, according to the “Bild”. Large-scale Russian manoeuvres from September Russia wants to call up another 200,000 men into the army soon to launch a new offensive against Ukraine in the spring.

    In the summer months, Russia would then begin increasingly open attacks on the West – including through severe cyberattacks. The large-scale “Zapad 2024” manoeuvre with 50,000 troops is scheduled to start in western Russia and Belarus in September.

    At the end of the year, there would be a Russian invasion of areas of eastern Ukraine, whereupon NATO is to deploy around 300,000 soldiers to Ukraine’s eastern flank on the so-called “Day X” in the summer of 2025. Different scenarios considered The Ministry of Defense declined to comment on the information.

    Only this much: “Basically, I can tell you that the consideration of different scenarios – even if they are extremely unlikely – is part of everyday military business, especially in training,” a spokesman for the ministry told Bild. Just last week, Swedish security experts warned of the danger of war with Russia. “Many have said it before me, but let me say it by virtue of my office: there could be a war in Sweden,” said Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Sweden’s Minister of Civil Protection.

    Everyone must prepare for the worst-case scenario, such as a war with Russia, before it is too late, Bohlin said.

  • Did Britain ever rule over Turkey?

    Did Britain ever rule over Turkey?

    Did Britain ever rule over Turkey? If not, why did Great Britain not take over Anatolia during World War I considering that Germany was allied with the Ottomans at that time?

    No, Britain did not rule over Turkey. During World War I, although Germany was allied with the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), Great Britain did not take over Anatolia for a variety of reasons.

    mustafa kemal ataturk

    Firstly, it is important to understand the geopolitical landscape of the time. The Ottoman Empire, once a powerful force in the region, was in decline in the early 20th century. However, it still held strategic importance due to its control of key trade routes, particularly the Suez Canal, which connected the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and provided a vital shortcut to India, Britain’s prized colony.

    Britain, being aware of the Ottoman Empire’s strategic significance, pursued a policy of maintaining the status quo rather than outright annexation. This approach aimed to preserve stability in the region and protect British interests without jeopardizing delicate alliances and triggering further conflicts.

    Additionally, Britain had other priorities during World War I. The war effort required substantial resources, both human and material, which were primarily allocated to fighting on the Western Front against Germany and Austria-Hungary. British forces were heavily engaged in Europe and the Middle East, including campaigns in Gallipoli and Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq).

    Moreover, the prospect of taking over Anatolia would have presented significant challenges for Britain. It would have required a massive military campaign and an occupation force to maintain control over the vast territory. With limited resources and stretched supply lines, such an endeavor would have been logistically challenging and potentially prolonged the war effort.

    Another crucial factor to consider was the potential backlash from other major powers. Imperial Russia, a key ally of Britain at the time, had territorial ambitions in Anatolia and sought to expand its influence in the region. Any attempt by Britain to seize control of Anatolia would have likely provoked a confrontation with Russia, leading to further complications and potential conflicts.

    Furthermore, the post-war settlement played a role in Britain’s decision-making process. The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, aimed to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and divide its territories among various powers. However, this treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognized the independence of the Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This effectively marked the end of Britain’s ambitions to rule over Anatolia.

    Patrick S

  • Britain in Palestine

    Britain in Palestine

    Britain in Palestine 1917-1948

    Britain in Palestine 1917-1948 investigates the contradictory promises and actions which defined British Mandatory rule in Palestine and laid the groundwork for the Nakba (the catastrophe) and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. The roots of the contemporary social, political, economic, and environmental landscape of Palestine and Israel can be traced back to this period, making it essential viewing for understanding Britain’s legacy in the region and the situation on the ground today.

    To access English, Arabic and Hebrew subtitles click on the CC link on the video. For further analysis of the events outlined in the film see the Companion Guide to Britain in Palestine 1917-1948.

    Reviews

    “A very useful explanation of how we got to where we are today. Fascinating photos I had not seen before. A great resource to show in any classroom or forum to people who want to learn more about this region, and specifically, Britain’s involvement. Afif Safieh, Former Palestinian Ambassador

    “…This film brilliantly puts into perspective the role the United Kingdom played in Mandate Palestine from 1917-1948.” Rabbi Howard Finkelstein, Ontario, Canada

    “This is an excellent short 18-min video from @BalfourProject explaining briefly but super-clearly how British colonialism has caused a century of war in Palestine.” Matthew Teller, Journalist and author of Nine Quarters of Jerusalem: A New Biography of the Old City (2022)

    “Britain in Palestine 1917 – 1948 is a clear, precise and factual explanation of the historical origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For anyone who wants to develop a real understanding of the issue but is intimidated by it’s complexity, this film is the place to start.” Judah Passow, Photojournalist

  • Balkan nations

    Balkan nations

    The Balkans is a southeastern European region that includes countries located on the Balkan Peninsula, with diverse landscapes and climates:

    Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey

    The initial Ottoman expansion took place at the expense of Christian lands in western Anatolia and the Balkans, particularly the Byzantine Empire
    The initial Ottoman expansion took place at the expense of Christian lands in western Anatolia and the Balkans, particularly the Byzantine Empire

    Countries in the Balkans often share borders with one another, and historical border disputes have influenced regional dynamics. Many Balkan nations were once part of the Ottoman Empire, which has left a significant historical and cultural impact.

    The breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s resulted in violent conflicts, with lasting implications for the region.

    The Balkans are home to various ethnic groups and religions, with Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Catholicism being the major faiths.

    Some Balkan nations aspire to join the European Union and NATO, which has implications for their political and economic development; while others have already become members.

    balkans

    Let’s compare them by several key attributes relating to their military, size, economy and quality of life.

    We will look at the top 3 and bottom 3 in each case.

    Military power (Global Fire Power index – 2023) 0 = Super military power and higher the number= less military power

    Top 3

    1. Turkey (11th in the world) – 0.2016
    2. Greece (30th in the world) – 0.4621
    3. Romania (47th in the world) – 0.7735

    Bottom 3

    1. Bosnia and Herzegovina (133rd in the world) – 3.0788
    2. Montenegro (128th in the world) – 2.8704
    3. North Macedonia (108th in the world) – 2.1717

    Population

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 84.78 million (2021)
    2. Romania- 19.12 million (2021)
    3. Greece – 10.64 million (2021)

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro – 619, 211 (2021)
    2. North Macedonia- 2.065 million (2021)
    3. Slovenia- 2.108 million (2021)

    Landmass

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 783, 562 km²
    2. Romania – 238, 397 km²
    3. Greece – 131, 957 km²

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro – 13, 812 km²
    2. Slovenia – 20, 273 km²
    3. North Macedonia – 25, 713 km²

    Education (UN education index – measures the expected years of schooling and mean years of schooling of the population – 0 = no Education at all and 1 = maximum Education)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 0.914 (2019)
    2. Greece – 0.855 (2019)
    3. Croatia – 0.805 (2019)

    Bottom 3

    1. North Macedonia 0.704 (2019)
    2. Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.711 (2019)
    3. Turkey 0.731 (2019)

    Democracy Index (The Economists Intelligence Unit – 2022, 10 = super democratic and 0 = dictatorship)

    Top 3

    1. Greece – 7.97, Flawed Democracy (25th in the world)
    2. Slovenia – 7.75, Flawed Democracy (31st in the world)
    3. Bulgaria – 6.53, Flawed Democracy (57th in the world)

    Bottom 3

    1. Turkey – 4.35, Hybrid regime (103rd in the world)
    2. Bosnia and Herzegovina – 5.00, Hybrid regime (97th in the world)
    3. North Macedonia – 6.10, Flawed Democracy (72nd in the world)

    GDP (size of economy)

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – $819 billion (2021)
    2. Romania – $284.1 billion (2021)
    3. Greece – $214.9 billion (2021)

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro – $5.861 billion (2021)
    2. North Macedonia – $13.83 billion (2021)
    3. Albania – $18.26 billion (2021)

    GDP per capita (size of economy relative to population)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – $29, 291.40 (2021)
    2. Greece – $20,192.60 (2021)
    3. Croatia – $17,685.33 (2021)

    Bottom 3

    1. Albania – $6,492.87 (2021)
    2. North Macedonia – $6,694.64 (2021)
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina- $7,143.31 (2021)

    GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Parity – IMF (how much can people buy with money in a country)

    Top 3 (2023)

    1. Slovenia – $52,641
    2. Croatia – $42,531
    3. Romania – $41,634

    Bottom 3 (2023)

    1. Albania – $19,197
    2. Bosnia and Herzegovina – $19,604
    3. North Macedonia – $21,111

    Exports of goods and services (in millions of $, 2022)

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 343,688
    2. Romania – 129,165
    3. Greece – 105,756

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro -3,178
    2. Albania – 7,057
    3. North Macedonia – 10,150

    Percentage of Population Living in Poverty – Poverty Rate, World Bank

    Top 3 (with lowest poverty of population)

    1. Slovenia – 12% (2018)
    2. Albania – 14.3% (2012)
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina – 16.9% (2018)

    Bottom 3 (with highest poverty of population)

    1. Montenegro – 24.5% (2018)
    2. Bulgaria tied with Romania – 23.8% (2018)
    3. Serbia – 23.2% (2018)

    Peacefulness (Global Peace Index 2023, 1 – 5 scale, 1 being a super peaceful utopia and 5 being a warzone)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 1.334 (8th in the world)
    2. Croatia – 1.450 (14th in the world)
    3. Bulgaria – 1.640 (30th in the world)

    Bottom 3

    1. Turkey – 2.389 (121st in the world)
    2. North Macedonia – 2.039 (88th in the world)
    3. Albania – 1.925 (79th in the world)

    Happiness (Happiness Index, 2023, 10 being maximum happiness and 0 being totally depressed)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 6.63 (22nd in the world)
    2. Romania – 6.48 (27th in the world)
    3. Serbia- 6.18 (43rd in the world)

    Bottom 3

    1. Turkey – 4.74 (109th in the world)
    2. Albania – 5.2 (88th in the world)
    3. Bulgaria – 5.37 (84th in the world)

    Suicide Rate (suicides per 100,000, WHO, 2019)

    Top 3 (has the least suicide)

    1. Turkey – 2.3 (10th in the world)
    2. Greece – 3.6 (27th in the world)
    3. Albania – 3.7 (29th in the world)

    Bottom 3 (has the most suicide)

    1. Montenegro – 16.2 (161st in the world)
    2. Slovenia – 14 (150th in the world)
    3. Croatia – 11 (121st in the world)

    Homicide rate (murders per 100,000, UN)

    Top 3 (with least murders)

    1. Slovenia – 0.4 (2021)
    2. Greece – 0.9 (2021)
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina – 1 (2021)

    Bottom 3 (with most murders)

    1. Turkey – 2.5 (2021)
    2. Montenegro – 2.4 (2021)
    3. Albania – 2.3 (2021)

    Healthcare Index (100 being amazing quality & universal healthcare and 0 being 0 healthcare, 2023)

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 71.1
    2. Slovenia – 66.4
    3. Croatia – 64.5

    Bottom 3

    1. Albania – 49.3
    2. Serbia – 52.2
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina -54.8

    Life expectancy

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 82.31 Years
    2. Greece – 82 Years
    3. Croatia – 79.4 Years

    Bottom 3

    1. Bulgaria – 72.84 Years
    2. Romania – 75.14 Years
    3. Serbia – 75.21 Years

    CONCLUSION:

    Turkey has the most economic and military power as a whole, due primarily to it’s size.

  • Why didn’t Russia conquer Constantinople?

    Why didn’t Russia conquer Constantinople?

    Why didn’t Russia try to conquer Constantinople and surrounding territories after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

    During the 1768 — 1774 Russian Ottoman war , Russia was close to conquer the Ottoman Empire

    battleofchesme cesme
    Battle of Chesme
    Ali Bey al Kabir
    Ali Bey al Kabir

    Russia conquered Crimea and kicked the Ottomans out , defeated them in Caucasus , and totally destroyed the Ottoman navy in 1770 during the battle of Chesme

    a revolt occurred in Greece and Russia formed an alliance with the Mamluk of Egypt Ali Bey al Kabir who kicked the Ottomans out of Egypt and marched towards Syria with Russian support

    Russia bombed and occupied Beirut , at that time the Ottoman Empire lost all of it’s Arab provinces as Iraq was ruled by Kulmnd Mamluks and Syria was falling as well , Russia had the Ottomans on their knees , but Britain , Austria and Prussia saved the Ottomans and prevented Russia from conquering Constantinople

    Russia tried again in 1791 and 1878 and was too close but the Western powers feared a very powerful Russia.

    John Jafar on Quora