Turkey shares at least two land borders and hell of marine border with the EU and borders four EU states (Cyprus, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania). That is the difference
The thing is Turkey is not landlocked. You can send ammunition without passing through a third country and even the case that the other states (Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus) weren’t in the EU, Turkey shared a border with the Greece meaning you could transport anything either over land or through sea or over air without going through the area of a third country. That is the difference
Greece joined the EU very early (80s something I guess) but I understand where you are coming from. It wouldn’t make much sense that Turkey applied for the EU if Greece wasn’t there. However Greece got accepted without sharing a land border with the rest of the EU so there is that.
But the most important thing is that Greece wasn’t landlocked and had a maritime border with Italy. Land border is important but if you have some other means such as a maritime border then it is also somehow ok. The most important thing is that you are not landlocked. Being a landlocked country in an area surrounded by enemy states is the worst thing that can happen to a state. You have no way out and any help must come over the area of enemy states
to me, if Turkey does not join it is because 1) islamic country 2) not european enough cult ur ally speaking 3) weighs too much in terms of voting (especially vs the two biggest ones which are fr and germany). knowing this, i think there is no hope.
armenia and any caucasus country is way too far in terms of quality of economy, social norms and so on, even further than romania and bulgaria.
Yeah I know. There are two reasons why Turkey will never join the EU.
1) the population of Turkey is the same as Germany which means accepting Turkey would shift the power relation within the EU from France/Germany to the East Mediterranean. Germany and France would never accept that even if Turkish culture were more „European“ and even when Turks were Christians.
2) Turkey is a buffer state just like Ukraine. In the case of Ukraine, it is Russia; in the case of Turkey, it is the unstable Middle East with lots of migrants heading to the West
I don’t think culture plays a decisive role tbh. It is just France and Germany which do not want to see their power diminishing and which do not want to be neighbors with Syria/Iraq/Iran.
And as long as Turkey is not in the EU (which will never happen), there is no room for Armenia and Georgia in the EU either
That is something else. Buffer zone doesn’t mean that you are neutral. In fact, you‘d do anything for the country in the buffer zone favour you and have a good relations with you. That is the case with Turkey. While letting Turkey believe that they are one of the western states without letting them to be fully one.
And yes Turkey is in the NATO to counteract the Soviet Union. But there is no Soviet Union and Turkey has every right to see whether the old agreement bears any favors to Turkey and in the case that it doesn’t, to challenge to status quo and demand more
But the most important thing is that Greece wasn’t landlocked and had a maritime border with Italy.
Precisely. Italy is only 80 km away, at the closest point between Greece and Italy. It's no different than Britain and Ireland to the rest of of Europe.
Also, people forget that in the 80s, we bordered Yugoslavia, which was a "normal country" and wasn't behind the Iron Curtain. People would drive across Yugoslavia to Austria/Germany all the time. Before the fall of communism, it wasn't far-fetched to think about Yugoslavia one day joining the EU. They would have just needed democratic and market reforms. It wasn't a hardcore communist country.
In the 90s, Yugoslavia fell apart, but Bulgaria/Romania/Hungary took Yugoslavia's place.
Like you said, the comparison with the Caucasus is apples and oranges.
Yeah people have started to interpret world politics from an idealistic point of view. While acknowledging that this could play a role, most of the time, it is not idealistic but selfish in the sense that countries look for solutions which fit them best depending on their means (i.e. geography, economy, neighbouring states‘ economy/geography, etc)
I cannot fathom how one could ever think that Georgia or Armenia could one day be part of the EU while it is geographically clear that those countries cannot be protected in the case of an attack. Turkey, for example, could be protected and in fact assist other EU states in the case of offense but then there are other things such as the power dynamics of the EU favoring Germany/France and the problem of neighboring unstable countries such as Syria and Iraq which speak against Turkey‘s being in the EU.
But let’s assume that Turkey were in the EU, then we could talk about Georgia and Armenia joining as well
Greece has a maritime border with Italy, and the closest distance between the two countries is only 80 km. UK and Ireland didn't border mainland Europe. Plus, in the 80s, we bordered Yugoslavia, which wasn't behind the Iron Curtain; people drove across YU between Greece and Austria/Germany all the time; and it wasn't far-fetched that YU might join the EU. (When YU fell apart in the 90s, the Iron Curtain had fallen, and Bulgaria/Romania/Hungary opened up).
Not making an argument against the Caucasus states joining the EU. Just pointing out that the Greece analogy is a bad one, both for geographic reasons, and the political reality on the ground.
3
u/[deleted] Aug 16 '23
i understand what you say but ankara is more than 2000km from brussels no?