new port needed in Cyprus to serve RAF Akrotiri

[Mordac]

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/19/a...-calm-how.html

Just confirms what I thought, the US didn't think much of Makarios, but they didn't think much of Turkey either. However, in the context of the cold war, Turkey suddenly had a much louder voice, and Kissinger just "let them get on with it". I just forgot about the "cold war" bit. I was sort of right, but crucially sort of wrong, but you were actually factually right, and you backed it up with facts, so I'll tip my hat.

[Paddy]

Are you sure you are right? The USA supported the Greek military coup in 1967, which the British (or more accurately Harold Wilson's govt) condemned, as did most European govts. I do not recall the US supporting the Turks when they invaded in 74. They may well have "stood by and done the square root of bugger-all" but that isn't necessarily diplomatic speak for "backed-up".

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/19/a...-calm-how.html

[Mordac]

A new port will be out of the question and the Brits may have to leave Cyprus after Brexit anyway.

The agreement for UK military bases stationed in Cyprus was on the agreement that the UK would defend the island against invasion. When the Turks invaded backed up by the USA, the UK stood by and watched. Ever since then the Cypriot government has been asking the Brits to leave. The Cypress government backed off when they wanted EU membership as they were afraid of a UK veto. Post Brexit will no doubt renew calls for the UK to leave Cyprus.

Are you sure you are right? The USA supported the Greek military coup in 1967, which the British (or more accurately Harold Wilson's govt) condemned, as did most European govts. I do not recall the US supporting the Turks when they invaded in 74. They may well have "stood by and done the square root of bugger-all" but that isn't necessarily diplomatic speak for "backed-up".

[AtW]

Which is totally worthless after Russia's blatant violation by occupying Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. All part of their startegy to destabilise the EU and NATO. As it was Ukraine's intention to form a closer relationship with the EU and join NATO.

To be fair it was worthless document from start (turned out it wasn't even fully ratified, pretty crazy that Ukraine complied with the deal before it was even fully ratified by everybody): "memorandum" just contains individual countries (UK, USA, Russia) promise not to attack Ukraine, which to be fair UK and USA complied with (and Russia broken it), but no guarantees were given in the event if any of the parties break the deal or some 3rd party (say China) attacks Ukraine, so even the document was worthless, BUT - it was totally and deliberately misrepresented by all parties as "security guarantee".

Don't know much about deal with Cyprus, perhaps it was similarly done? Either way the end result (certainly now after Ukraine) is that UK/USAs security guarantees worth tulip.

[Eirikur]

Reminds me Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances...

Which is totally worthless after Russia's blatant violation by occupying Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. All part of their startegy to destabilise the EU and NATO. As it was Ukraine's intention to form a closer relationship with the EU and join NATO.

[AtW]

How gutless of the UK armed forces to run away and hide instead of honoring the treaty.

Reminds me Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances...

[AtW]

Cyprus is already occupied by the Russian mafia, since 90s at least...

[Paddy]

how very EU of it! Sitting on your hands is a requirement.

How gutless of the UK armed forces to run away and hide instead of honoring the treaty.

[vetran]

A new port will be out of the question and the Brits may have to leave Cyprus after Brexit anyway.

The agreement for UK military bases stationed in Cyprus was on the agreement that the UK would defend the island against invasion. When the Turks invaded backed up by the USA, the UK stood by and watched. Ever since then the Cypriot government has been asking the Brits to leave. The Cypress government backed off when they wanted EU membership as they were afraid of a UK veto. Post Brexit will no doubt renew calls for the UK to leave Cyprus.

how very EU of it! Sitting on your hands is a requirement.

[PurpleGorilla]

That’s sovereign UK overseas territory you’re talking about there Paddy...

[Paddy]

A new port will be out of the question and the Brits may have to leave Cyprus after Brexit anyway.

The agreement for UK military bases stationed in Cyprus was on the agreement that the UK would defend the island against invasion. When the Turks invaded backed up by the USA, the UK stood by and watched. Ever since then the Cypriot government has been asking the Brits to leave. The Cypress government backed off when they wanted EU membership as they were afraid of a UK veto. Post Brexit will no doubt renew calls for the UK to leave Cyprus.

[Eirikur]

Britain would have to spend tens of millions of pounds building a port to service its military base in Cyprus after a no-deal Brexit, officials have concluded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...tiri-mpbs95jrt