๐ ๐๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐๐๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ด๐ป ๐๐ณ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฌ๐๐ต ๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐น ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฑ๐ผ-๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐๐ฝ๐ฟ๐๐
Today marks 40 years since the illegal and unilateral declaration of the pseudo-state, which has been condemned by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541/1983 and 550/1984.
On this sad anniversary, Greece underscores the necessity of all states fully complying with the Resolutions of the Security Council in accordance with international legitimacy. These Resolutions call upon all countries to refrain from recognizing or in any way assisting the illegal entity in the occupied part of Cyprus.
Greece will never accept the fait accompli of the Turkish invasion and occupation. In full coordination with the Republic of Cyprus, Greece works systematically to create the conditions that will lead to a just, viable, functional, and mutually acceptable solution within the framework of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
#GreeceMFA
This is all the more baffling, as we're talking about a first-world country (or two) consisting of two nationalities and ethnicites that also hail from ALLIED first-world countries. That this issue cannot be resolved diplomatically or rather that one involved party would rather risk war then actually resolve this, is a testament to how stupid and unproductive nationalist ideas are.
In this sense - if it hasn't already been clear for some years - fuck Erdogan and fuck those that are ignorantly following his misogynistic, anti-semistic, islamistic and nationalistic pseudo-rethorical bazar-trading style of leading a country. We should not even talk about Turkey as potential EU-canditate. They don't possess any of the qualities we like to see in a potential member. Most of all their actual interest in pursuing a common goal of enriching and bettering Europe.
The second half of your post precisely shows how the Cyprus Problem is just demoted to a rhetorical device for people who want a weapon to fight a different battle.
Someone who is actually interested in Cyprus would know that Erdogan is a latecomer to the whole story and that Turkey's interests in Cyprus have been the same even in the hight of pro-western, -secular, -NATO sentiment. To frame it as an Erdogan problem betrays that someone only started "caring" about Cyprus in the last decade.
Is that so, I'd argue the reason for that lies in the fact that I am not old enough too have seen a Turkey without Erdogan. And while I apparently should read up in the Cyprus problem, I cannot know about every territorial dispute everywhere
Precisely: you do not need to have an opinion on every territorial dispute everywhere. In this case, if your goal is to mount a (well-warranted) criticism of Erdogan's rule in Turkey, you can focus on those aspects of Erdogan's rule in Turkey that you are actually familiar with, and leave Cyprus out of it.
If you are going to have an opinion on Cyprus though, yes, indeed, you should inform yourself about the historical background as a prerequisite for construction your opinion. Our history, politics, and war legacy deserve to be taken more seriously than just be used as rhetorical crutches for an argument that isn't about us.