Filenews 24 August 2025 - by Kostas Venizelos
Under the heavy shadow of the Ukrainian problem, alliances are being reshaped and it seems that borders are being redrawn. The Trump era is changing the facts and causing ruptures in what is called international law, which is gradually being set aside without keeping the pretexts. Through express procedures and methods outside the international institutionalized framework, the achievement of agreements on fronts of tensions and conflicts is promoted.
The recent agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the upcoming agreement on Kosovo, and other issues, are largely part of American planning. The Ukrainian problem, despite the difficulties and obstacles, is a great rehearsal of the new system of managing international problems.
The new state of affairs is worrying and it is clear that at this stage the best scenario is for the Cyprus problem to pass under President Trump's radar. Until now, however, the... White House radars deal with conflicts, international crises. The aim is not to provoke any tension, possibly deliberately and methodically, so that Trump's intervention in the Cyprus problem and the Greek-Turkish issue is necessary.
The Cyprus problem is clearly not the same problem as the Ukrainian one.
Comparisons, apart from the fact that historically there are differences, at the same time the data differ significantly from the management approaches.
First, the discussions on ending the war in Ukraine take place outside the international framework of the United Nations. The United Nations, since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, has been an observer and has no role. On the contrary, the Cyprus problem is being discussed within the framework of the International Organization. And any initiatives undertaken are part of the UN process (such as EU interventions).
Question: If the process is to proceed and break the protracted impasse on the Cyprus problem, could a logic outside the United Nations be promoted? In such a case, UN decisions will not be taken into account, some basic parameters and any discussion can move uncontrollably in any direction, which will satisfy the occupying side, having the strong support of the American President. Clearly and over time, the "right" of the strong prevails, but it is clear that some safeguards may exist.
Secondly, Ukraine, through Zelensky, demands that there be guarantees from third parties for the independence, territorial integrity of the country, the implementation of any agreement. The Republic of Cyprus calls for their abolition and rejects the continuation or even disguised presence of guarantees with alleged intervention rights, as well as the presence of troops, after reaching an agreement on the Cyprus problem. It proposes a different form of model for security. The "pact of friendship" and cooperation proposed by the former Greek Foreign Minister, Nikos Kotzias, is recalled. Therefore, there is a significant difference in approach.
Last February, American journalist Amanda Taub, after the stormy Trump-Zelensky meeting, wrote in the New York Times that the U.S. demands on Ukraine give the strong impression of "paid protection." As he said, "in recent history there are no examples of America asking its allies for wartime returns, U.S. partners now reasonably assume that Trump is willing to trade long-term strategic gains for long-term gains. That is, a quick profit". This was confirmed at the last gathering at the White House. Trump, discussing peace, sold weapons!
Third, the territorial issue was not discussed at the Washington gathering. As mentioned, this crucial issue was left to be discussed by the Ukrainian President with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, if and when they meet. Both the American side and the Europeans did not want to touch on the issue.
If Kiev agrees to cede territory to Russia, then obviously this will be done with its consent. It will not be done directly, at least, through imposition. It can accept by blackmail, but in the end it will turn out to be a choice. In the case of Cyprus, there is no question of consent to the territorial mutilation of the Republic of Cyprus.
It is obvious that the discussions on the results that have emerged on the battlefield may create a negative precedent, a fact that concerns Nicosia. Turkey has always insisted on discussions on the basis of fait accompli. A pursuit, which to a large extent gained ground in the past and was presented as a supposedly negotiating acquis and for some circles and a "secondary law"!
Turkey's role
Ankara has sought to get involved in the Ukrainian issue from the beginning. First as a mediating country, and it achieved this by hosting meetings of the parties involved. Both the Americans and the Europeans recognized this role in Turkey because it maintained "good relations with both sides," Russia and Ukraine. From the beginning, however, Ankara had made it clear that it was seeking a role in the day after reaching an agreement on the Ukrainian issue. He also convinced Zelensky to ask to participate in the guarantee system. That is, the encroacher, the occupying power, to participate in a system of guarantees for the independence and territorial integrity of a third country!
In this regard, it is recalled that the French President, Emmanuel Macron, while still in Washington, said that an expanded meeting should be convened with the participation of the Europeans and Turkey. It is clear that such positions are also linked to the fact that Ankara is always willing to send troops to Ukraine, as well as to other regions, countries. Its direct involvement will bring it closer to the new European security architecture being shaped by the Union. This will help in the efforts to rapprochement with the United States, in the field of armaments. This will be another attempt to whitewash an occupying raiding, expansionist force.
The EU is a spectator of geopolitical developments
The set, which was set up in Washington with the American President as conductor of the orchestra, confirmed the weaknesses of the European Union. The presence of Europeans at the meeting at the White House was not institutional, although the President of the European Commission was present. The selection of the persons was made on the basis of a possible separate, at national level, role that EU states can play in the Ukrainian issue, while in addition, the presences are also linked to the interpersonal relations of the American President, Donald Trump.
The EU has been and remains a spectator of international developments, even when it is inside the debating room, as happened in Washington last Monday. The participants seemed to hang from Trump's lips and seemed to adopt his decisions at all times. Of course, they could not bind the whole of Europe, especially those who did not participate. But this is not, as it seems, the major thing. The point is that with these data, the role of the EU is limited and permanently degraded, at a time when geopolitical upheavals are taking place.
No signal from Ankara for a change of policy on the Cyprus problem
The so-called elections in the occupied territories, which will be held on October 19, are the key point for the next steps in the Cyprus problem. Although, no upheavals are expected, whatever the outcome, the various players predict a change in the occupied areas. At the same time, it is clear that even small steps are not expected before the sham elections.
It is clear that Ankara is letting the "pre-election" run smoothly and does not seem to support any of the candidates. What is certain is that whether Ersin Tatar or Tufan Erhiurman is chosen, there are no indications on the part of Turkey that it will change its policy on the Cyprus problem. The rhetoric may change, but in essence the policy for a two-state solution will not change. If Ankara had such an intention, it would have shown this from now on and would certainly not have waited for the "elections". Because a "move" from the policy of the two states, even to a variant of this model, will not take place without compensation. Nevertheless, the various third parties, including the United Nations, insist that after the sham elections and in the event that Erhiurman wins, the policy of the two states, which was shaped and promoted by Turkey and is being followed today by Ersin Tatar, will be abandoned. That is the big picture today.
The Cyprus problem will return to the forefront with the scheduled meeting of the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, with President Christodoulides and the occupation leader, Ersin Tatar, in the third ten days of September, in New York. This was agreed during the last informal Five-Party Conference last month. In view of this meeting in New York, the descent to the island of the Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Maria Angel Olgin Queyar, has been announced, which is scheduled for next weekend. During her stay, she will have separate meetings with President Christodoulides (2 September) and with the occupation leader (1 September). Ms. Olgin will proceed to an evaluation of the data formed after the informal Pentagon, in relation to the implementation of what was agreed. That is, low policy MOEs, such as, for example, the cleaning of cemeteries. The discussion on the opening of new barricades will also enter the equation, although at the meeting in New York, there was no agreement.
