Mavi Vatan - Blue Homeland Doctrine E-Book

Derya Yalimcan

• Herausgeber: BoD - Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 423

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

This Book examines the legal foundations and geopolitical implications of Turkeys Blue Homeland doctrine (Mavi Vatan) from a Turkish perspective, addressing a critical gap in the predominantly Western-centric academic discourse, which disproportionately adopts the Greek viewpoint. Turkey asserts maritime sovereignty in the Aegean Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Black Sea, invoking historical claims, international legal frameworks, and regional disputes. This study evaluates Turkeys legal position in opposition to prevailing interpretations of international maritime law, with particular emphasis on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), customary international law, and relevant treaty obligations. Through a comparative legal analysis of conflicting territorial claims, it defends the doctrinal legitimacy of Turkeys maritime claims while critically challenging the prevailing academic orthodoxy, which privileges Greek legal arguments to the detriment of an objective and balanced legal assessment.

Leseprobe

Contents

1. Introduction

The Strategic Importance of Turkey’s Maritime Policy

Objectives and Scope of the Book

2. Historical Context & Evolution of Turkish Maritime Doctrine

Turkey vs. Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt: The Blue Homeland Doctrine

Turkey vs. Greece

Turkey vs. Republic of Cyprus

Turkey vs. Egypt

2. Libya: A Divided Nation with Competing Maritime Claims

Turkey-Libya Maritime Deal (2019)

Libya-Egypt Tensions

3. Israel vs. Lebanon (and Gaza): Gas and Geopolitics

Israel vs. Lebanon

Israel

4. Egypt’s Balancing Act

The Eastern Mediterranean’s Future

Military and Naval Postures in the Eastern Mediterranean

1. Turkey’s Military and Naval Posture

Naval Assets

Military Bases

Strategic Posture

Greece’s Military and Naval Posture

Naval Assets

Military Bases

Strategic Posture

3. Egypt’s Military and Naval Posture

Naval Assets

Military Bases

Strategic Posture

Israel’s Military and Naval Posture

Naval Assets

Military Bases

Strategic Posture

5

.

Libya’s Divided Military Forces

Tripoli (GNU) – Turkish-Backed

Tobruk (LNA) – Egyptian and Russian-Backed

Strategic Posture

Potential Flashpoints & Future Scenarios

Introduction

The Concept of Territorial Waters

The Continental Shelf: Legal Framework and Disputes

Key Legal Debates

Case Studies of Territorial and Continental Shelf Disputes

Conclusion: The Future of Maritime Legal Debates

Turkey-Greece Conflicts Regarding Territorial Waters & Continental Shelf

Introduction

Historical Context of the Turkey-Greece Maritime Dispute

Legal Framework: UNCLOS and Customary International Law

The 6 vs. 12 Nautical Mile Dispute

The Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs)

Geopolitical Implications and Regional Security

Possible Legal and Diplomatic Resolutions

Demilitarization of the Aegean and Dodecanese Islands

Historical Context

Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

Treaty of Paris (1947)

Greek Military Presence on the Islands

Military Modernization and Capabilities

Geopolitical Implications

IV. Applying Conflict Resolution Concepts to Turkish– Greek and Cyprus Issues

Historical Context and the Nature of the Dispute

Diplomatic Challenges and Conflict Resolution Approaches

V. Applying Conflict Resolution Concepts to Relations with Egypt and Israel

The Eastern Mediterranean Context

Diplomatic Challenges with Egypt and Israel

VI. Applying Conflict Resolution Concepts to Turkish–USA Relations

The Nature of Contemporary Turkish–USA Tensions

Diplomatic and Conflict Resolution Challenges

Pathways for Conflict Resolution

VII. Conclusion

6. Turkey’s Role in the Black Sea & Strategic Control of Sea Straits

The Bosporus and Dardanelles: Geopolitical and Economic Importance Globally, for Turkey, and Their Contemporary Relevance for Russia

I. Introduction

II. Historical Background

A. Early Strategic Importance

B. The 20th Century and the Montreux Convention

III. Geostrategic Importance of the Straits

A. Global Maritime Chokepoints

B. Balancing Regional Interests

C. The Legacy of the Tsarist Doctrine of Warm Water Ports

IV. Economic Importance

A. Lifeline for Global Trade and Energy Transit

B. Revenue Generation for Turkey

C. Enhancing Turkey’s Role as an Energy Hub

V. Political and Military Dimensions

A. Sovereignty and the Montreux Convention

B. Soviet Pressure and Its Impact on Turkey’s Foreign Policy

C. Modern Military Significance

VI. Contemporary Russian Interests and the Warm Water Doctrine

A. The Straits in Russia’s Current Strategic Calculus

B. The Enduring Legacy of the Warm Water Doctrine

C. Contemporary Policy and Future Implications

VII. Conclusion

Turkey’s Black Sea Strategy

Deterrence and Defense

Integration with NATO

Maritime Domain Awareness

Naval Presence and Modernization

Regional and Global Implications

Part II. Blueprint of the Turkish Naval Forces in the Black Sea

1. Strategic Objectives

2. Organizational Structure

3. Naval Assets and Fleet Composition

4. Base Infrastructure and Logistics

5. Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)

6. Training, Joint Operations, and Modernization

7. Operational and Strategic Integration

Part III. Expanded Analysis and Discussion

The Interplay Between Strategy and Operational Capability

Geopolitical Context and Regional Dynamics

Economic Dimensions and the Importance of Maritime Trade

Technological Modernization and Indigenous Capabilities

NATO Integration and Collective Defense

Part IV. Synthesis and Future Outlook

Strategic Coherence and Operational Effectiveness

Adaptability in a Dynamic Environment

The Role of Indigenous Innovation

Strengthening Regional Partnerships

Long-Term Implications for Regional Stability

Geopolitical and Strategic Significance of Turkey for Russia & Its Impact on NATO

Strategic Location & Regional Influence

Potential NATO Neutrality in a Conflict Scenario

Economic & Energy Dependency on Russia

Military & Intelligence Risks for NATO

Internal NATO Divisions & Strategic Weakness

Energy Cooperation Agreements

Blue Stream Pipeline (1997)

Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant Agreement (2010)

TurkStream Pipeline Agreement (2016)

Planned Turkey-Russia Gas Hub Project (2022-2025)

Planned Sinop Nuclear Power Plant (2023-Present)

Military Cooperation Agreements

S-400 Missile Defense System Purchase (2017)

Defense Industry Collaboration (2021-Present)

Economic Cooperation and Trade Relations

Trade and Economic Cooperation Treaty (1992)

Technology Transfer, Space Cooperation, and Investment Agreements

S-400 Missile Defense System & Technology Transfer Discussions (2017-Present)

Bilateral Space Industry Agreement (2021)

Russia-Turkey Investment Fund (2019-Present): €900 million in investment

2. Historical Background

2.1. The Ottoman Era and the Straits Question

2.2. Treaty of Lausanne (1923)

2.3. Negotiations & Signing of the Montreux Convention (1936)

3. Key Provisions of the Montreux Convention

3.1. Merchant Vessels

3.2. Military Vessels

3.3. Turkey’s Authority in Wartime

4. Geopolitical Implications

4.1. The Cold War & NATO-Soviet Rivalry

4.2. Contemporary Issues: Russia-Ukraine War (2022– Present)

4.3. Turkey’s Balancing Act

5. Legal and Economic Aspects

5.1. International Maritime Law

5.2. Economic Importance

6. Calls for Revision & Future Outlook

6.1. Turkey’s Kanal Istanbul Project

6.2. Potential Amendments or Challenges

Historical Background of Turkish-Libyan Relations

Turkish-Libyan Relations Under Gaddafi (1969–2011)

The 2011 Libyan Civil War and Turkey’s Role

The Turkish-Libyan Maritime Boundary Agreement (2019)

8. Hydrocarbon Exploration & Energy Security in the Eastern Mediterranean

Hydrocarbon Discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean

Turkey’s Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production

Geopolitical Implications and Energy Security

Drilling Activities in the Eastern Mediterranean: Vessels, Ownership, and Country Affiliation

Conclusion

Turkey’s Offshore Drilling & the Role of Turkish Energy Companies

Turkey’s Offshore Drilling Strategy

2. Turkish Energy Companies & Offshore Exploration

Future Prospects

Energy Diplomacy and Regional Cooperation Challenges

1. Regional Energy Alliances and Turkey’s Position

2. Key Challenges in Regional Cooperation

9. Turkish Naval Capabilities & Technological Advancements

Key Aspects of Modernization

1. Domestic Defense Industry and Naval Shipbuilding

2. Unmanned and Autonomous Naval Systems

Missile and Air Defense Systems

Naval Aviation and Drone Warfare

5. Expanding Geostrategic Influence

Challenges and Future Prospects

The Shift Towards an Indigenous Naval Force

Major Naval Vessels Under Development

Strengthening Underwater Warfare Capabilities

Enhancing Littoral Warfare and Patrol Capabilities

Addressing Regional Naval Alliances and Threats

Balancing Blue-Water Expansion with Littoral Security

Turkey’s Expanding Military Bases & Training Presence (Since 2010)

Military Bases Established Since 2010

Military Training & Security Cooperation Agreements in Africa

Turkey’s Relations with NATO & the European Union

Introduction

Strategic Importance of Turkey’s Maritime Position

NATO Operations and Turkish Naval Contributions

Turkey’s Maritime Commitments in the Eastern Mediterranean

Challenges and NATO’s Stance on Turkish Maritime Policy

Conclusion

Introduction

Historical Context of EU-Turkey Relations

Legal Frameworks Governing Maritime Disputes

Geopolitical Developments and the Role of the EU

Economic and Strategic Implications

Future Prospects and Recommendations

Introduction

NATO’s Role in the Eastern Mediterranean

The Turkey-Greece Nexus and NATO’s Dilemma

NATO and the US Presence in the Eastern Mediterranean

NATO’s Future in the Eastern Mediterranean

European Responses and Diplomatic Tensions

The EU-Turkey Relationship: Strained Beyond Repair?

NATO and the

Blue Homeland

Doctrine

Turkey’s Counter-Diplomatic Strategy

Conclusion: Towards Confrontation or Compromise?

Introduction

Strategic Interests in the Eastern Mediterranean

U.S. Military Presence and Its Implications

Maritime Disputes & Diplomatic Efforts

Turkey’s Countermeasures & Strategic Responses

Future Trajectories & Policy Recommendations

NATO and Alliance Considerations

Eastern Mediterranean Energy Disputes

Tensions with Greece and Cyprus

Black Sea Security and Montreux Convention

Introduction

Historical Context and Evolution

Operational Capabilities and Deployment

5. Personnel Strength and Engagements

6. Key Regional Engagements and Alliances

Challenges and Geopolitical Tensions

8. Future Outlook

9. Conclusion

12. The Blue Homeland Doctrine and Its Strategic Impact on American Strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean

Naval and Military Presence

Energy Security and Economic Interests

Geopolitical Rivalries and NATO Cohesion

Potential Conflicts and Escalation Risks

The Role of U.S. Policy in Shaping the Future

Impact on U.S. Regional Interests

Effect on U.S. Alliance Commitments

Energy Security Considerations

Geopolitical Maneuvering (Russia and China)

Naval Modernization and Strategic Autonomy

Recent Developments and U.S. Policy Responses

International Responses to Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine

Russia’s Response

China’s Response

European Union’s Response

U.S. Policy Options: Soft Power, Hard Power, and Smart Power

Soft Power and Diplomatic Strategies

Hard Power and Military Options

Economic Tools and Levers

A Smart Power Approach: Integrating Diplomatic, Military, and Economic Tools

Policy Recommendations for the U.S. Response

1. Diplomatic Initiatives and Soft Power Outreach

2. Military Posture and Hard Power Measures

3. Economic and Financial Actions

4. Smart Power Synthesis: A Comprehensive U.S. Strategy

13. The Legal Framework of Maritime Disputes

UNCLOS and the

Mavi Vatan

Doctrine: A Legal, Geopolitical, and U.S. Perspective on Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Disputes.

1. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Its Key Provisions

1.1. Territorial Waters (12 Nautical Miles)

1.2. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ – 200 Nautical Miles)

1.3. Continental Shelf and Maritime Boundary Delimitation

1.4. The Role of Islands in EEZ Claims

1.5. Countries That Have Not Ratified UNCLOS

1.6. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

5. The U.S. Perspective on Eastern Mediterranean Disputes

5.1. U.S. Alignment with UNCLOS Principles

5.2. Strategic Relations with Turkey

5.3. Energy and Security Concerns

15. The Future of the Blue Homeland Doctrine

Predicting Turkey’s Maritime Strategy in the Next Decade: Trends, Challenges, and Geopolitical Implications

Turkey’s Strategic Goals in Maritime Expansion

Securing Maritime Sovereignty Under the

Mavi Vatan

Doctrine

1.2. Strengthening Its Naval Power to Enforce Maritime Claims

Securing Energy Independence Through Offshore Drilling

Expanding Influence in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

Strengthening the Turkish Naval Fleet

Expansion of Turkey’s Blue-Water Navy Capabilities

Intensified Tensions with Greece and Cyprus

Strained Relations with NATO and the EU

The U.S. Response to Turkey’s Maritime Strategy

Strengthening Ties with Non-Western Powers

Potential Future Scenarios for Turkey’s Maritime Strategy

Scenario 1: Increased Confrontation with Greece and NATO (High Probability)

Scenario 2: Regional Diplomacy and Limited Concessions (Moderate Probability)

Scenario 3: Full-Scale Naval Conflict (Low Probability but High Impact)

The Impact of Emerging Technologies on Turkish Naval Doctrine and Technology Transfers

The Role of Emerging Technologies in Turkey’s Naval Strategy

1.1. Shift Toward Technological Superiority in Maritime Warfare

Indigenous Defense Industry and Foreign Technology Partnerships

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Naval Warfare

Cyber and Electronic Warfare (EW) Capabilities

Hypersonic Missile Development

Geopolitical Consequences of Technology Transfers to Turkey

3.1. Tensions with NATO and the EU

Intensified Naval Rivalry with Greece and Cyprus

Strengthening of Turkey’s Ties with Russia, China, and Pakistan

Future Scenarios for Turkey’s Technological Naval Expansion

Scenario 1: NATO-Turkey Technological Divide (High Probability)

Scenario 2: Turkish-Greek Naval Standoff (Moderate Probability)

Scenario 3: Strategic Realignment with Russia and China (Low Probability but High Impact)

Evolving Geopolitical Alliances and Maritime Security: The Changing Landscape of Naval Power and Turkey-Oman Relations

The Shift in Maritime Alliances: A Global Overview

The Decline of Unilateral Naval Dominance and the Rise of Regional Coalitions

The post-Cold War unipolar U.S. naval dominance is giving way to a multipolar naval security environment.

The Emergence of New Maritime Security Blocs

Maritime Security Challenges and Strategic Flashpoints, The Eastern Mediterranean: Turkey vs. Greece and the EU

The South China Sea: China vs. U.S. and Allied Navies

Strengthening Turkey-Oman Military Cooperation

Balancing Relations with Gulf Powers

Emerging Technologies and Turkey-Oman Naval Collaboration

4.1. AI and Cyber Warfare in Naval Security

Future Scenarios for Turkey-Oman Maritime Relations

Scenario 1: A Long-Term Strategic Naval Partnership (High Probability)

Scenario 2: A Limited Strategic Partnership with Commercial Emphasis (Moderate Probability)

Scenario 3: A Strategic Realignment Away from Turkey (Low Probability)

3. Conclusion: U.S. Naval Strategy and the Future of Turkey’s Maritime Role

Future Scenarios:

Final Assessment:

Key Findings

Impact on U.S. Strategy in the Eastern Mediterranean

Implications for NATO and Regional Alliances

Challenges from Turkey’s Maritime Assertiveness

Points of Conflict or Cooperation with U.S. Interests

Future Extrapolation

Evolution of U.S. Military Posture

Potential Realignment of Alliances and Agreements

Strategic Recommendations for the U.S.

14. The Future of the Blue Homeland Doctrine

14.1. Legal and Diplomatic Trajectory

14.2. Legal Foundations of Maritime Sovereignty

14.3. Judicial Precedents and Arbitration Challenges

14.4. The Impact of Maritime Law on Turkey’s Naval Strategy

14.5. Legal Strategies for Future Conflict Resolution

15. The Eroding Concept of Jurisprudence and Reconstructionism of International law

15.1. The Principles of International Law in a Multipolar World

15.2 Reassessing Foundational Theories of International Law

Conclusion: A New Legal Framework for a Multipolar World

Final Conclusion

Bibliography:

Turkish Sources (in English)

This Book examines the legal foundations and geopolitical implications of Turkey’s Mavi Vatan (“Blue Homeland”) doctrine from a Turkish perspective, addressing a critical gap in the predominantly Western-centric academic discourse, which disproportionately adopts the Greek viewpoint. Turkey asserts maritime sovereignty in the Aegean Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Black Sea, invoking historical claims, international legal frameworks, and regional disputes. This study evaluates Turkey’s legal position in opposition to prevailing interpretations of international maritime law, with particular emphasis on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), customary international law, and relevant treaty obligations. Through a comparative legal analysis of conflicting territorial claims, it defends the doctrinal legitimacy of Turkey’s maritime claims while critically challenging the prevailing academic orthodoxy, which privileges Greek legal arguments to the detriment of an objective and balanced legal assessment.

1. Introduction

The Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland) Doctrine is Türkiye’s strategic maritime doctrine, asserting its sovereign rights and jurisdiction over extensive maritime zones in the Aegean, Mediterranean, and Black Seas. Originally conceptualized in the early 21st century, the doctrine emerged as a response to regional maritime disputes, particularly those concerning hydrocarbon resources. Coined by Admiral Cem Gürdeniz in 2006, Mavi Vatan represents a shift in Turkish maritime policy toward a more determined stance, seeking to maximize its maritime territorial claims through legal, diplomatic, and military means. At its core, the doctrine intertwines national security, resource sovereignty, and geopolitical influence, positioning Türkiye as a decisive actor in the Eastern Mediterranean. Through Mavi Vatan, Türkiye challenges perceived encroachments by neighboring states and external actors, advocating for a maritime order grounded in what it views as equitable and historically justified principles rather than strict adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it has not ratified. As a result, Mavi Vatan has become a defining element of Türkiye’s regional strategy, fueling diplomatic tensions while reinforcing its naval modernization and energy security ambitions.

The Strategic Importance of Turkey’s Maritime Policy

Türkiye’s Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland) Doctrine is a cornerstone of its maritime strategy, defining its vision for territorial sovereignty, energy security, and regional influence. With a coastline stretching 8,333 kilometers (5,178 miles) along the Black Sea, Marmara Sea, Aegean Sea, and Eastern Mediterranean, Türkiye’s maritime geography is central to its national security and economic stability. This extensive coastline makes Türkiye a pivotal maritime actor, reinforcing its need to assert sovereignty over its surrounding waters. The Mavi Vatan doctrine represents a decisive shift in Turkish policy, prioritizing maritime expansion to secure vital sea lanes, resources, and geopolitical leverage.

A key element of Mavi Vatan is its impact on Türkiye’s maritime jurisdiction. Currently, under international interpretations of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), Türkiye's recognized maritime area is approximately 200,000 square kilometers. However, if the doctrine were fully implemented, Türkiye’s maritime domain would expand to an estimated 462,000 square kilometers, more than doubling its jurisdiction over strategic waters. This expansion would grant Türkiye greater control over vital sea routes and hydrocarbon reserves, directly challenging the maritime claims of Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. The Eastern Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Sea regions are crucial in this expansion, as Türkiye contests the EEZ boundaries set under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it has not ratified. Türkiye instead advocates for a customary international law approach, emphasizing equitable principles over rigid distance-based calculations.

Energy security is another fundamental driver of Türkiye’s Mavi Vatan strategy. The Eastern Mediterranean is rich in hydrocarbons, with vast reserves of oil and natural gas that are critical to reducing Türkiye’s reliance on foreign energy imports. By enforcing its maritime claims, Türkiye seeks to secure direct access to these resources, challenging regional maritime coalitions like the East Mediterranean Gas Forum (EMGF), which Türkiye views as an attempt to isolate it from energy developments. The doctrine also aligns with Türkiye’s ambitions to become a regional energy hub, leveraging its geopolitical position between Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Militarily, Mavi Vatan has driven a major expansion of Türkiye’s naval capabilities. Asserting control over such a vast maritime area necessitates a modern and powerful fleet. Türkiye has prioritized the development of indigenous warships, submarines, and drone-based maritime surveillance, increasing its naval footprint in contested waters. Frequent naval exercises and energy exploration missions reinforce Türkiye’s ability to enforce its maritime claims, despite opposition from Greece, the Republic of Cyprus, and the European Union. The strategic placement of Turkish naval assets across the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean, and Black Sea ensures deterrence against potential adversaries while strengthening Türkiye’s ability to project power beyond its immediate maritime borders.

From a geopolitical perspective, Türkiye’s maritime strategy under Mavi Vatan seeks to redefine the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean. By challenging established EEZ boundaries, Türkiye is not only asserting its national sovereignty but also positioning itself as a central player in maritime geopolitics. Control over strategic chokepoints such as the Bosporus, Dardanelles, further enhances Türkiye’s influence in global trade and energy transit. Through bilateral agreements, such as the 2019 maritime delimitation deal with Libya, Türkiye has sought to strengthen its legal and diplomatic standing, countering the alignment of Greece, Egypt, and the Republic of Cyprus.

Legally, Türkiye’s rejection of UNCLOS-based EEZ delimitations reflects a broader legal and strategic doctrine that prioritizes national security and regional stability over rigid treaty-based norms. Türkiye argues that Greek islands near its coastline should not generate disproportionate EEZs that severely limit Türkiye’s access to the Aegean and Mediterranean. This legal stance has resulted in diplomatic and military tensions, particularly with Greece, which insists on applying UNCLOS principles to justify its own claims.

Domestically, Mavi Vatan has become a symbol of national sovereignty and strength, rallying political factions around the protection of maritime rights. The doctrine plays a key role in Türkiye’s nationalist discourse, reinforcing the perception that Türkiye must actively defend its maritime sovereignty against external pressures. By integrating Mavi Vatan into its broader foreign and defense policies, Türkiye is not only strengthening its position in regional disputes but also reshaping its long-term strategic posture in the Mediterranean and beyond.

In conclusion, the Mavi Vatan doctrine is far more than a maritime claim—it is a transformative geopolitical strategy that underpins Türkiye’s energy security, military expansion, and diplomatic maneuvering. By seeking to double its maritime jurisdiction, Türkiye is actively reshaping its role in the Eastern Mediterranean, challenging international maritime law, and asserting its strategic independence. Whether this doctrine will lead to long-term regional stability or heightened tensions remains to be seen, but its influence on Türkiye’s maritime future is undeniable.

Objectives and Scope of the Book

The book delves into the Mavi Vatan Doctrine, offering readers a comprehensive understanding of Turkey's maritime strategy. It highlights the doctrine's roots, its evolution, and its significance in shaping Turkey's geopolitical stance. The book also explores its broader implications on regional security, international relations, and maritime law. It aims to equip readers with a nuanced perspective on how this doctrine influences regional dynamics and its potential future impact.

2. Historical Context & Evolution of Turkish Maritime Doctrine

The Ottoman Naval Legacy and Maritime Influence

Incorporating the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, this chapter explores how its dissolution led to the formation of around 40 modern countries, including Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Qatar, and parts of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine. The combined coastline of these countries, reflecting the Ottoman Empire's extensive maritime influence, was around 40,000 kilometers at its peak. This period, known as Pax Ottomanica, emphasized the empire's ability to maintain peace and stability through naval dominance

Early Republican Maritime Policy

The early Republican maritime policy in Turkey was focused on modernizing and strengthening the navy to secure national sovereignty and protect maritime borders. Following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk prioritized building a self-sufficient naval force. This involved constructing a modest fleet, including several destroyers and submarines, and acquiring foreign-built ships. The number of maritime soldiers increased over time, reflecting the navy's growing importance. By 2008, the Turkish Navy had about 48,600 active personnel, indicating steady growth. This foundational period laid the groundwork for Turkey's modern naval capabilities.

Key Milestones Leading to the Blue Homeland Doctrine

The 1974 Cyprus conflict marked a pivotal moment for Turkey's naval strategy, laying the groundwork for what would eventually become the Blue Homeland Doctrine. This conflict highlighted the importance of a robust naval presence to protect national interests. The lessons learned during this period influenced the development of a comprehensive maritime strategy.

The Blue Homeland concept, formally introduced in 2006 by Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, was a direct continuation of this strategic shift. This doctrine emphasizes Turkey's rights and interests in surrounding seas, marking a proactive approach to maritime security. The formal endorsement of the doctrine by President Erdoğan in 2019 further solidified Turkey's commitment to asserting its maritime claims. This proactive stance on maritime issues is rooted in the strategic lessons and experiences gained during the Cyprus conflict.

Today, Turkey is significantly enhancing its maritime power. The construction of domestically designed warships, such as submarines, and the TCG Anadolu, an amphibious assault ship and the world's first UAV carrier, and the lead ship of the TF-2000 air-defense destroyer series, underscores this commitment. Additionally, an investment of €350 million to expand the Aksaz Naval Base will enable it to accommodate larger vessels. These advancements reflect Turkey's dedication to strengthening its naval capabilities and securing its maritime interests.

Legal Foundations and International Maritime Law Turkey's arguments regarding the Blue Homeland Doctrine are based on several legal foundations:

UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea): Turkey interprets certain provisions of UNCLOS to assert its rights to a continental shelf and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) beyond its coastline.

Equity Principle: Turkey advocates for equitable distribution of maritime zones, arguing that the presence of numerous Greek islands near its coast should not disproportionately limit its EEZs.

Historical Rights and Precedents: Turkey references historical usage and precedents to support its claims in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Customary International Law: Turkey sometimes relies on customary international law to justify its maritime claims, especially in areas not explicitly covered by UNCLOS.

These foundations are central to Turkey's maritime strategy and its interpretation of international maritime law.

The Strategic Framework of the Blue Homeland Doctrine

Maritime Sovereignty & Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ)

Maritime Sovereignty and Exclusive Economic Zones, the proximity of certain Greek islands to the Turkish coast is a significant factor in the maritime disputes between the two nations. This geographic proximity complicates the delineation of territorial waters and EEZs, as both nations have overlapping claims.

Additionally, the island of Cyprus holds a unique position in this context. The ongoing dispute over Cyprus, particularly concerning the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, complicates the delineation of EEZs in the region. Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus' unilateral declarations of EEZs, leading to conflicts over resource exploration and rights in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In the broader international context, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) plays a critical role. As of October 2024, 170 parties have ratified UNCLOS, including 169 states and the European Union, while 25 UN member states have not ratified the convention. These include countries like Turkey, Venezuela, Israel, and the United States, which has signed but not ratified UNCLOS. This underscores the complexities and diverse interpretations of maritime law and sovereignty.

Strategic Depth & Defense Posture in the Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Sea

Sultan Abdulhamid II's doctrine, often referred to as the "Abdulhamid Doctrine," emphasized maintaining the Ottoman Empire's sovereignty through strategic neutrality and cautious diplomacy. One aspect of this doctrine was asserting Turkish dominance over strategic regions, such as the Bosporus, Gallipoli, and Cyprus.

While the Cyprus Convention of 1878 transferred administrative control of Cyprus to Britain, the Ottoman Empire retained certain rights. The Gallipoli Campaign during World War I further highlighted the strategic importance of these areas, where the Ottoman Empire successfully defended the Dardanelles Strait against Allied forces.

Overall, the Abdulhamid Doctrine focused on preserving the empire's territorial integrity and managing complex relationships with European powers.

The Abdulhamid Doctrine's provides historical context to current maritime disputes. This historical doctrine highlights the significance of maintaining sovereignty over key maritime zones, which continues to influence Turkey's approach to its territorial waters and exclusive economic zones today.

The Role of the Turkish Navy and Maritime Security

The Turkish Navy plays a critical role in maintaining the country's maritime security and safeguarding its territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Ranked as the 10th largest navy in the world, the Navy is a formidable force equipped with a modern fleet, including advanced frigates, corvettes, submarines, amphibious assault ships, and naval aviation.

The Navy's fleet includes the new Reis-class submarines, such as the TCG Piri Reis, which features air-independent propulsion for enhanced stealth capabilities. The Navy is also developing the MİLDEN submarine, Turkey's first indigenous design, expected to be over 80 meters long with advanced capabilities.

Additionally, the Turkish Navy plays a vital role in supporting Turkey's energy ambitions. It safeguards the operations of six vessels dedicated to oil exploration and drilling in contested waters, ensuring the country's energy security and asserting its maritime rights. The Navy's strategic importance is further underscored by its role in ensuring the security of crucial maritime routes and protecting national interest.

Maritime Geopolitics & Energy Security Considerations

The British Empire's historical dominance in maritime geopolitics stemmed from its vast naval power, which allowed it to control crucial sea routes and establish a global trade network. This naval supremacy enabled Britain to protect its colonies, secure resources, and project power across the world, making it the dominant global force for centuries.

Following World War II, the United States emerged as the new maritime superpower. Its focus on building a powerful navy and establishing strategic alliances allowed it to dominate global sea lanes, ensuring the free flow of trade and exerting influence worldwide.

The Geopolitical Landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean

Overview of the Eastern Mediterranean Power Dynamics

The Turkish Navy, ranked as the 10th largest navy in the world, plays a pivotal role in the region's maritime dynamics. Its fleet includes advanced frigates, corvettes, submarines, amphibious assault ships, and naval aviation, ensuring robust maritime security and operational versatility. The Turkish Navy is currently constructing several advanced warships, including the MUGEM-class aircraft carrier, the TF-2000-class air-defense destroyer, the MILDEN-class submarine, and the fifth Istif-class frigate.

Greece's foreign maritime interests are central to the Eastern Mediterranean's complex geopolitical landscape. The Hellenic Navy, comprising approximately 180 vessels, includes 13 frigates, 10 submarines, 19 missile boats, and 10 gunboats, reflecting its significant maritime capabilities.

The Cyprus Naval Command, part of the Cypriot National Guard, operates 10 warships, including Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) and Fast Patrol Boats (FPBs), with its main base at Evangelos Florakis in Mari.

The Egyptian Navy, the largest in the Middle East and Africa, operates over 320 vessels. Its fleet includes 8 submarines, 13 frigates, 7 corvettes, 30 fast attack craft, 2 helicopter carriers, 23 patrol vessels, and 17 mine warfare vessels. This diverse fleet enables Egypt to effectively patrol the Mediterranean and Red Seas, ensuring the security of the Suez Canal and its maritime interests.

The Israeli Navy, as of 2024, includes approximately 7 corvettes, 8 missile boats, 5 submarines, and 45 patrol boats, designed to protect Israel's maritime borders and interests.

Naval bases and harbors play a crucial role in supporting the operational capabilities of a navy. These facilities serve as strategic hubs for maintenance, logistics, and naval operations.

Greece, for instance, has over 1,300 commercial ports, including major ones like Piraeus, Thessaloniki, and Patras. The Hellenic Navy operates several naval bases, including those in Chios, Crete, Lemnos, Lesbos, Northern Greece, Rhodes, Salamis, and Samothrace. These bases are crucial for the operational capabilities of the Hellenic Navy, providing strategic support for maintenance, logistics, and operations.

The Turkish Navy, with its extensive fleet, relies on several key naval bases, including Aksaz Naval Base and Gölcük Naval Base, which serve as the headquarters of the Turkish Naval Forces. The Iskenderun Harbor is particularly significant due to its strategic location near the Middle East and North Africa, serving both commercial and military functions. It is a vital maritime gateway and home to an important naval base supporting Turkish naval operations.

Egypt's naval architecture includes key bases along the Mediterranean and Red Seas, supporting its large fleet. These bases are critical for maintaining the operational readiness and strategic reach of the Egyptian Navy.

Israel's naval bases, such as those in Haifa and Ashdod, provide crucial support for its fleet, ensuring the protection of maritime borders and interests.

In the wake of Syria's political upheaval, the tides have shifted dramatically for Russia's naval aspirations in the Mediterranean. The new Syrian administration has annulled the 49-year lease agreement that once granted Russia a steadfast foothold at the port of Tartus. This decisive move has compelled Russian warships to vacate the harbor, casting uncertainty over Moscow's maritime influence in the region.

For decades, Tartus stood as a sentinel of Russian naval prowess, a strategic bastion ensuring access to warm waters and serving as a linchpin for operations extending from the Black Sea to the far reaches of Africa. The port was more than a mere docking point; it was a symbol of Russia's enduring presence and geopolitical reach.

However, the recent political metamorphosis in Syria has recast this narrative. The abrogation of the lease signifies not just a logistical setback but a profound geopolitical tremor, reverberating through the corridors of power in Moscow. The once-familiar waters of Tartus now reflect an uncertain future, as Russian vessels navigate the complexities of diminished.

In response, Russia is charting new courses, exploring alternative harbors to anchor its fleet and fortify its strategic interests. The horizon remains clouded with ambiguity, as the currents of change continue to reshape alliances and territorial claims. The dissolution of the Tartus agreement stands as a testament to the ever-evolving nature of geopolitical landscapes, where permanence is but an illusion, and the only constant is change itself.

Expanded Analysis: Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Disputes

Turkey vs. Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt: The Blue Homeland Doctrine

Turkey’s Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland) doctrine underpins its maritime claims, which challenge Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt. Turkey argues that islands should not have extensive EEZs, directly clashing with Greek and Cypriot claims.

Turkey vs. Greece

Turkey argues that islands such as Kastellorizo (Meis), located just 2 km off its coast, should not significantly impact EEZ calculations.

Greece, under UNCLOS, insists that islands do have EEZ rights, making Turkey’s continental shelf claims invalid.

Tensions peaked in 2020 when Turkey sent the Oruc Reis seismic vessel into contested waters, leading to a naval standoff.

Turkey vs. Republic of Cyprus

Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus and thus disregards its EEZ agreements with Greece, Israel, and Egypt.

Turkey insists that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) should have equal rights to Cypriot gas fields.

Turkish drilling ships such as the Fatih and Yavuz have conducted exploratory drilling in Cypriot-claimed waters.

Turkey vs. Egypt

In response to the Greek-Egyptian EEZ agreement (2020), Turkey signed a maritime deal with Libya’s Tripoli-based government, claiming a vast corridor stretching between Libya and Turkey.

Egypt rejected this, calling it illegal, and signed a competing EEZ agreement with Greece.

2. Libya: A Divided Nation with Competing Maritime Claims

Libya is divided between two rival governments:

Tripoli (GNA/GNU), backed by Turkey.

Tobruk/Benghazi (LNA), backed by Egypt, France, and Russia.

Turkey-Libya Maritime Deal (2019)

Turkey and the Tripoli-based GNA signed a controversial maritime boundary agreement, ignoring the EEZ claims of Greece and Egypt.

This deal essentially blocks Greece’s access to the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Corridor.

The rival Tobruk-based government (LNA) rejects the deal and has made counterclaims.

Libya-Egypt Tensions

Egypt, aligned with the LNA, opposes Turkish involvement in Libya.

Egypt has declared its support for Greek EEZ claims and signed a counter-agreement with Athens.

3. Israel vs. Lebanon (and Gaza): Gas and Geopolitics

Israel’s offshore gas discoveries—such as Leviathan and Tamar—have reshaped its economic and strategic position.

Israel vs. Lebanon

Lebanon contests Israel’s EEZ claims, particularly near the Karish and Qana gas fields.

A U.S.-brokered maritime agreement (2022) gave Lebanon rights to Qana, while Israel retained Karish.

Israel

Gaza’s coastal waters contain significant gas reserves,

Recent reports suggest that Egypt and Qatar are mediating discussions for offshore gas development in Gaza.

4. Egypt’s Balancing Act

Egypt is both a regional power and a major gas hub.

Cairo has aligned with Greece and Cyprus to counter Turkish claims.

Egypt signed a long-term gas export agreement with Israel, using its LNG facilities to export Eastern Mediterranean gas to Europe.

The Eastern Mediterranean’s Future

The region is in a state of perpetual tension, driven by energy disputes, historical rivalries, and shifting alliances.

Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine continues to challenge Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt.

Libya remains divided, making its maritime future uncertain.

Israel and Lebanon have reached a fragile agreement.

Egypt remains the most stable actor, leveraging its position as a gas hub and mediator.

Military and Naval Postures in the Eastern Mediterranean

The disputed maritime boundaries and energy conflicts have triggered a militarization of the region, with NATO, Russia, and regional powers deploying naval assets and forming alliances. Below is an analysis of the military presence, naval deployments, and potential flashpoints.

1. Turkey’s Military and Naval Posture

Turkey has significantly expanded its naval and air force capabilities under its Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland) doctrine, aiming to project power in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Naval Assets

Turkish Navy (Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri) operates four frigates, six corvettes, and attack submarines in the region.

Turkey has deployed Bayraktar TB2 drones for surveillance over disputed waters.

Turkish drilling vessels (Fatih, Yavuz, Kanuni, and Abdülhamid Han) are often escorted by warships.

The TCG Anadolu, Turkey’s first amphibious assault ship, is expected to play a role in regional power projection.

Military Bases

Aksaz Naval Base (Marmaris): Turkey’s primary naval base near contested Greek waters.

Cyprus/Northern Cyprus: Turkish forces are stationed in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

Libya: Turkey maintains military advisers and drones supporting the Tripoli government (GNU).

Strategic Posture

Turkey seeks to counterbalance Greek naval dominance by increasing warship production.

Deploys drilling ships under military escort into contested areas.

Challenges Greek and Cypriot energy projects, preventing exploration in disputed EEZs.

Greece’s Military and Naval Posture

Greece has been strengthening its navy and air force in response to Turkish claims, signing defense agreements with France, the U.S., and Egypt.

Naval Assets

Hellenic Navy (Πολεμικό Ναυτικό) operates over 13 frigates, 11 submarines, and fast attack craft.

Signed a defense deal with France to acquire three Belharra-class frigates and Rafale jets.

Conducts joint naval drills with Egypt, France, and the UAE.

Military Bases

Souda Bay (Crete): The largest Greek naval base, hosting U.S. and NATO forces.

Rhodes & Kastellorizo: Key Greek islands near Turkish waters, heavily militarized.

Alexandroupolis: A U.S.-Greek strategic logistics hub near Turkey.

Strategic Posture

Greece has strengthened its military alliances, especially with France and the U.S..

Uses military exercises to deter Turkish incursions into Greek-claimed waters.

Expanding air force capabilities, deploying French Rafale jets to counter Turkish air superiority.

3. Egypt’s Military and Naval Posture

Naval Assets

Egyptian Navy operates Mistral-class helicopter carriers, FREMM frigates, and submarines.

Largest navy in the Arab world, focused on securing Suez Canal and offshore gas fields.

Conducts joint drills with Greece, Cyprus, and France.

Military Bases

Alexandria Naval Base: Egypt’s largest naval facility.

Berenice Naval Base: A newly built Red Sea base with air and naval capabilities.

Strategic Posture

Egypt rejects Turkish-Libyan maritime agreements.

Protects Zohr gas field in its EEZ with military patrols.

Strengthens defense ties with Greece and Cyprus to counter Turkish expansion.

Israel’s Military and Naval Posture

Israel’s naval and air forces protect its offshore Leviathan and Tamar gas fields, which are vital for its economy.

Naval Assets

Sa’ar 6-class corvettes: Equipped with Barak-8 anti-air missiles to protect gas platforms.

Dolphin-class submarines: Capable of deep-water operations in the Mediterranean.

Iron Dome for gas fields: Israel has deployed an Iron Dome variant at sea to protect offshore rigs.

Military Bases

Haifa Naval Base: Israel’s Mediterranean fleet headquarters.

Palmachim Airbase: Launch site for drone and air surveillance operations.

Strategic Posture

Strengthens energy and defense ties with Greece and Egypt.

Expands naval capabilities to secure its gas fields.

Conducts joint naval drills with the U.S. and France.

5. Libya’s Divided Military Forces

Libya’s military is divided between two governments, each with foreign military backing.

Tripoli (GNU) – Turkish-Backed

Receives Turkish drones, naval assistance, and military advisors.

Agreed to Turkish-Libyan maritime deal, challenging Greek EEZ claims.

Tobruk (LNA) – Egyptian and Russian-Backed

Supported by Egypt, UAE, and Russia.

Opposes Turkish military presence in Libya.

Strategic Posture

Libya’s internal instability prevents it from effectively managing maritime disputes.

Turkey uses its alliance with Tripoli to justify military expansion in the Mediterranean.

Potential Flashpoints & Future Scenarios

1. Greece-Turkey Naval Clash:

Ongoing disputes over Kastellorizo and the Greek islands could escalate into direct military confrontation.

2. Turkey vs. Egypt in Libya:

Libya’s continued instability keeps Egypt and Turkey one step away from direct confrontation.

3. Turkey vs. Cyprus (TRNC Escalation):

Turkey could increase military deployments in Northern Cyprus, prompting a Greek-Cypriot military response.

Turkey’s Maritime Diplomacy

Turkey's diplomatic efforts under the Blue Homeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine involve various strategic agreements and overseas bases, reflecting its commitment to expanding influence and securing interests through military and economic cooperation.

Key Agreements and Bases:

Libya: The 2019 maritime boundary agreement, the 2020 military support agreement, the 2020 Memorandum of Understanding on economic and security cooperation, and the 2022 Hydrocarbon Exploration Agreement.

Somalia: Agreements include military training cooperation (2010), defense industry cooperation (2015), Camp TURKSOM (2017), and a 2024 defense and economic cooperation agreement.

Qatar: Agreements include a 2015 military cooperation pact, Qatar's $15 billion investment (2018), and multiple economic and cultural agreements (2020, 2021, 2024).

Sudan: Agreements include a 2014 Bilateral Investment Treaty, a 2017 High-Level Strategic Cooperation Mechanism, and 2018 agreements in energy and agriculture.

Albania: The 2010 Free Trade Agreement, 2017 Air Albania joint venture, 2020 agreements on mutual recognition of licenses, university exchanges, and crime and terrorism cooperation, and the 2021 Strategic Partnership.

Oman: The 2024 LNG partnership for liquefied natural gas exports, and ten agreements in 2024 covering investment, trade, culture, and health.

Republic of Northern Cyprus: The 2011 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) border agreement, the 2014 Turkey–Northern Cyprus water pipeline, the 2017 Association Council for cooperation in various sectors, and Northern Cyprus becoming an observer member of the Organization of Turkic States in 2022.

Pakistan: Key defense cooperation includes the 2009 establishment of the High-Level Cooperation Council, joint military exercises (e.g., Anatolian Eagle, Indus Viper), joint defense production initiatives, Turkey's involvement in upgrading Pakistan's F-16 jets, and electronic warfare training.

Moldova: A 2016 Free Trade Agreement, a 2018 Military Personnel Training Agreement, and a 2024 natural gas export deal to enhance energy security.

Over the past 15 years, several African nations have acquired Turkish military equipment. Ethiopia has purchased Bayraktar TB2 drones. Nigeria has acquired T129 ATAK helicopters. Morocco has received Bayraktar TB2 drones. Additionally, countries like Niger, Djibouti, and Burkina Faso have ordered Turkish-manufactured armored military vehicles.

Overseas Naval Bases:

Bogazi Naval Base in Northern Cyprus.

Pasha Liman Base near Vlorë, Albania.

Naval Base in Doha, Qatar.

Camp TURKSOM in Mogadishu, Somalia.

Over the past 15 years, Turkey and Russia have woven a tapestry of agreements in military and energy sectors. In 2010, they signed a cooperation agreement for the Akkuyu nuclear power plant, a venture where Russia's Rosatom is the builder and operator. In 2017, Turkey agreed to purchase Russia's S-400 missile-defense system, marking a significant shift in its defense strategy. Energy ties deepened with the 2016 intergovernmental agreement on the TurkStream gas pipeline, which began delivering gas to Bulgaria in 2020. These agreements reflect a complex and evolving partnership between the two nations.

Turkey has forged military agreements with several non-NATO nations. In 2010, it signed a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, committing mutual support in case of military aggression. In 2014, Turkey and Qatar established a military cooperation agreement, allowing for joint training and defense industry collaboration. In 2021, the Shusha Declaration was signed between Turkey and Azerbaijan, further strengthening their military ties. Additionally, in August 2024, Turkey and Iraq signed an accord focusing on military, security, and counter-terrorism cooperation. These agreements reflect Turkey's expanding defense partnerships beyond NATO.

Turkey has signed military cooperation agreements with the following 14 African countries: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia and Ugana. These partnerships encompass training, technical support, and defense industry collaboration, reflecting Turkey's expanding influence on the continent.

These efforts underline Turkey's strategic commitment to enhancing its regional influence and securing its interests through a combination of military presence and diplomatic cooperation.

Turkish-Greek Maritime Disputes & the Aegean Conflict

Historical Background of Turkish-Greek Maritime Tensions

The tensions between Turkey and Greece since the founding of the Turkish Republic have been numerous. Key issues include: disputes over the Aegean Sea boundaries, the status of Cyprus, and airspace disagreements. These conflicts have often been fueled by historical grievances and nationalistic sentiments.

Key dates and disputes between Turkey and Greece:

1923: Treaty of Lausanne established the Borders of the Republic of Turkey borders.

The Treaty of Lausanne, signed in 1923, marked a pivotal moment in the aftermath of World War I. It established the borders of modern Turkey, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The treaty was negotiated between Turkey and the Allied Powers, including Britain, France, Italy, and Greece. It recognized the sovereignty of the newly established Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.

The Treaty of Lausanne replaced the earlier Treaty of Sèvres, which had been highly unfavorable to the Ottoman Empire. Lausanne secured significant territorial concessions for Turkey, including the return of Eastern Thrace and Anatolia. It also set the status of the Straits, ensuring free passage but under Turkish sovereignty.

The treaty resolved issues related to minorities, with a population exchange agreed upon between Greece and Turkey, affecting millions. It remains a cornerstone of Turkish foreign policy and regional stability in the Eastern Mediterranean.

1947: The former Turkish Dodecanese Islands ceded to Greece by Italy, raising tensions.

The Dodecanese Islands, a group of twelve larger islands and several smaller ones in the southeastern Aegean Sea, have a rich and complex history. Originally part of the Ottoman Empire, they were occupied by Italy during the Italo-Turkish War in 1912. Despite initial agreements to return them to the Ottoman Empire, Italy maintained control under the Treaty of Ouchy. After World War I, the islands became an Italian possession under the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

During Italian rule, the islands underwent significant infrastructural development but faced cultural suppression. The islands' Greek population endured policies aimed at Italianization. The tide turned after World War II, when the islands were occupied by Allied forces. In 1947, the Treaty of Paris officially ceded the Dodecanese Islands to Greece, marking the end of Italian rule and their integration into modern Greece

1974: Turkish invasion of Cyprus following a Greek-led nationalist coup, leading to the island's division.

The island of Cyprus has long been a site of geopolitical significance, with its control shifting between major powers over centuries. From 1571 until 1878, Cyprus was under Ottoman rule, after which Sultan Abdul Hamid II leased the island to the British Crown. The British formally annexed Cyprus during World War I, consolidating colonial rule. As part of their continued military presence, the United Kingdom retained control over two Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs), Akrotiri and Dhekelia, following Cypriot independence in 1960. These bases, enshrined in the Treaty of Establishment, remain under British sovereignty and play a critical role in the UK’s strategic military positioning in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The British military presence in Cyprus includes approximately 3,500 military personnel and an additional 7,000 civilian staff and dependents. The SBAs function as key operational hubs for British Forces Cyprus, facilitating intelligence, reconnaissance, and logistical support for NATO and other allied operations. The bases are governed under the Treaty of Establishment, which ensures their legal status and outlines the rights and obligations of the UK in maintaining these territories.

Following Cypriot independence, political tensions between Greek and Turkish Cypriots escalated, culminating in the events of 1974. Archbishop Makarios III, the first President of Cyprus, played a central role in the island’s political landscape. In July 1974, a military coup backed by the Greek junta sought to achieve enosis (union with Greece). The coup led to widespread violence, including reports of mass killings of Turkish Cypriots.

In response, Turkey, citing the Treaty of Guarantee, launched a military intervention on July 20, 1974. The Treaty of Guarantee, signed in 1960 between Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Cyprus, stipulates that in the event of a breach of its provisions, the guarantor powers have the right to intervene. The treaty states: "In the event of a breach of the provisions of this Treaty, Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions." Turkey’s intervention resulted in the occupation of Northern Cyprus and the subsequent division of the island - a political reality.

As part of its continued security presence in Northern Cyprus, Turkey maintains an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 troops on the island. The Turkish Armed Forces have established multiple military bases, including the 14th Armored Brigade in Kythrea, the 28th Mechanized Infantry Division in Paşaköy, and the 39th Mechanized Infantry Division in Çamlıbel. The Turkish Navy also operates the Bogazi Naval Base in the Famagusta district, providing maritime security and strategic oversight in the Eastern Mediterranean. These forces are integrated into the Cyprus Turkish Peace Force, which oversees military operations in Northern Cyprus.

Beyond its historical and political dimensions, Cyprus holds strategic importance for Turkey due to its role in securing supply channels in case of an emergency. The island's proximity to the Turkish mainland makes it a critical point for maintaining logistical and operational continuity in military and humanitarian crises. Control over the northern part of the island allows Turkey to safeguard its access to key sea lanes and reinforce its defensive capabilities in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The strategic importance of Cyprus for Turkey is deeply rooted in its defense and foreign policy. Former Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, in his seminal work Stratejik Derinlik, emphasized this point, stating: "Orada tek bir Müslüman Türk olmamış olsa bile Türkiye'nin Kıbrıs meselesi olmak zorundadır." (Even if there had never been a single Muslim Turk there, Turkey must still have a Cyprus issue). This assertion reflects the broader perception within Turkish strategic thought that Cyprus is not merely a question of ethnic or national ties, but an issue of regional security and geopolitical leverage.

The British and Turkish military presences on the island, established under different legal and historical circumstances, continue to shape Cyprus’s geopolitical landscape. While the British bases remain integral to NATO and UK defense strategy, the Turkish military presence underscores Turkey’s security concerns and its commitment to the Turkish Cypriot community. These enduring military installations reflect the island’s contested history and its ongoing strategic importance in regional security frameworks.

1996: Imia-Kardak crisis over uninhabited islets in the Aegean Sea.

The Imia/Kardak crisis of 1996 was a significant standoff between Greece and Turkey over the sovereignty of two uninhabited islets in the Aegean Sea, known as Imia in Greek and Kardak in Turkish. The dispute began when a Turkish ship ran aground near the islets, leading to conflicting territorial claims. The situation escalated with both countries deploying military forces to the area. Ultimately, the crisis was defused through diplomatic intervention by the United States. The sovereignty of the islets remains unresolved and is a continuing point of contention between Greece and Turkey.

2020: Standoff over maritime boundaries and energy exploration rights in the eastern Mediterranean.

The legal aspects of maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean are governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides the basis for establishing exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves. Turkey emphasizes the principle of equity, arguing that its extensive coastline should grant it broader maritime rights. The presence of numerous Greek islands, Turkey argues, should not disproportionately extend maritime zones in a way that disadvantages Turkey. Relevant islands and islets include Kastellorizo (about 2 km from the Turkish coast), Kos (approximately 5 km), Symi (around 7 km), Rhodes (approximately 18 km), Chios (about 7 km), Lesbos (around 10 km), Samos (approximately 1.5 km), Ikaria (about 19 km), Agathonisi (roughly 8 km), and Farmakonisi (about 20 km). These islands' proximity to Turkey is significant in this dispute.

Additionally, the military status of these islands is a key issue. The Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and the Treaty of Paris (1947) both address the demilitarization of certain Aegean islands. The Treaty