Negotiations turned into law.
According to RT, the concept of "Green Homeland" originated from the Turkish navy and strategic circles, and the initiators of this idea have been identified as retired Admiral Cem Gurdeniz and retired Rear Admiral Cihat Yaycı.
Gurdeniz links the seas, continental shelf, island disputes, and the Eastern Mediterranean region into a single strategic picture.
In a sense, "Green Homeland" is a response to Türkiye's deep-seated anxiety that the country is being pushed further away from its surrounding seas.
This origin also explains why this doctrine cannot be confined solely to the personal foreign policy of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
However, for Greece, this doctrine sounded less defensive.
Greece views the "Green Homeland" movement as an attempt to question the legal order of the Aegean Sea, diminish the maritime rights of Greek islands, and revive issues that Greece believes have been settled by international treaties.
The concern is not only that Türkiye wants more influence at sea, but also that Türkiye is gradually normalizing the idea that certain areas in the Aegean Sea have ambiguous legal status and are therefore vulnerable to pressure.
This is why the controversy surrounding the 152 small islands, atolls, and reefs is so sensitive.
In Turkish strategic and nationalist discourse, these entities are often described as territories whose legal status is not clearly defined in international agreements.
Greece rejected this argument and asserted that its sovereignty over the islands was not a matter for discussion.
If Turkey enacts a law on a "Green Homeland," it wouldn't automatically change international law, but it could change Turkish politics .
This would make future compromises more difficult and allow nationalist forces to accuse any government of abandoning rights enshrined in law.
Strategic depth
This problem is exacerbated by the timing. The global order is undergoing a drastic transformation, in which the conflict surrounding Iran has turned the entire Middle East into a region of perpetual military and economic instability.
That conflict and the subsequent maritime crisis demonstrated that the sea space once again became one of the main arteries of warfare.
This widespread crisis has changed how Türkiye and Greece view the same sea region.
When the region is peaceful, Greece and Türkiye can resolve their disputes through diplomatic means and NATO channels.
But as the Strait of Hormuz demonstrated how quickly shipping lanes could become battlefields, every coastal nation began thinking in strategic depth.
Türkiye looks at this chaos and sees yet another reason to support the "Green Homeland." Greece looks at it and sees even more reason not to allow gray zones to appear in the Aegean Sea.
Aegean Knot
Türkiye believes it has reason to firmly maintain its position.
From Türkiye's perspective, Greece uses its islands, many of which are located very close to the Turkish coast, to claim maritime sovereignty. This would significantly reduce Türkiye's sphere of influence in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Turkish officials and analysts often argue that a long coastline on the mainland cannot be surrounded by small islands located just offshore.
They presented "Green Homeland" not as expansionism, but as resistance to what they perceived as an unjust regional order.
Greece considers that argument to be revisionism. For Greece, the islands are inhabited communities, military positions, historical spaces, and sovereign territories.
If Greece accepts that its maritime status or influence can be negotiated under pressure, many Greeks fear that the entire Aegean Sea order could begin to fall apart.
Each side has constructed its own narrative around this dispute, with each side viewing itself as the defender and the other as the threat.
Turkish officials argue that Greece wants to imprison their country along the Anatolian coast, while Greek officials warn that Türkiye wants to revise borders and treaties through pressure.
The only option
NATO is not easily resolving this issue, even though both Greece and Türkiye are members of the alliance. Membership reduces the risk of a full-scale war, but it does not eliminate the dispute.
Sooner or later, Greece and Türkiye will have to address the maritime issue seriously, simply because it is an unchangeable geographical fact.
The Aegean Sea cannot remain mired in crisis indefinitely. The two countries will have to choose between a difficult diplomatic process and a future where every minor incident risks becoming a flashpoint for conflict.
Currently, the region is undergoing a phase of controlled escalation. Neither side seems to want war, but both are taking actions that reduce flexibility and increase suspicion.
This is the most dangerous kind of calm – where governments can say everything is under control, while the political space for de-escalation shrinks daily until conflict becomes the only possible outcome.
The "Green Homeland" naval doctrine has become a declaration of Türkiye's position in the region and its refusal to accept what it sees as maritime confinement.
Conversely, Greece's resistance to this doctrine was a defense of its national map, historical memory, and national identity built around the islands of the Aegean Sea.
At its core, this conflict revolves around national dignity, and that's what makes it so dangerous.
Source: https://giaoducthoidai.vn/bien-lua-dang-bung-chay-giua-long-nato-post778690.html
Comment (0)