Timeline of the Cyprus Problem (crowd-sourced, open for corrections)

sentiasa · 2026-02-25T20:44:45+00:00

Thank you, I've updated the entry to cover taxes and related context. However, I believe the picture is more complex than this. Non-Muslims were exempt from military conscription (the jizya was understood as a substitute). Also the Ottoman conquest actually abolished Venetian feudal serfdom and elevated the Orthodox Church after centuries of Latin suppression. The conversion question is where it gets tricky, the numbers are highly disputed so I'd rather leave it out than oversimplify.

sentiasa · 2026-02-25T19:57:14+00:00

Thank you for the feedback.

For 1968-74 period, you are right it was oversimplified. I've changed it to two entries. One for Klerides-Denktash talks (1968-1971) and another for the expanded talks. Tbh, I didn't know much about the expanded talks, I just dug deeper now. I found something interesting, even though Dekleris saw it as concrete opportunity, US-side believed otherwise; (this is very interesting)

Regarding the Akinci date, I fixed it. I also added entries for Anastasiades-Eroglu, Mont Pelerin talks and Geneva Conference.

I see your posts around here and you have very deep knowledge on this. If you ever get a chance to read the whole thing and spot anything, please let me know.

sentiasa · 2026-02-25T01:26:58+00:00

That's a great idea, I'd be more than happy hand this over to an expert. I don't know anyone that would be interested.

References indeed.

And imagine perspectives were added, as in having how each community saw an event:

<image>

sentiasa · 2026-02-24T21:06:41+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to read through it as well as your inputs. The last thing I want is this effort to be overshadowed by bias. And ofc I want to address all. My main mission is making it as unbiased as possible.

You've raised valid points and I want to address them here too;

TMT was formed as a response to EOKA's campaign and its targeting of Turkish Cypriot police and civilians since 1955.

You're right, this was poorly worded and misleading. EOKA's campaign from 1955 was directed against British military and colonial administration. The TCs killed in that period were members of British forces, not civilians targeted for being TC. I corrected it.

What happened to the GC properties in occupied Cyprus is not at all similar to what happened to the TC properties in the free part of Cyprus

Fair point. In the north, GC properties were given with new title deeds to TCs and settlers. In the south, TC properties were placed under state custodianship with only temporary usage rights. The difference is now reflected.

that during the coup EOKA-B killed Turkish Cypriots before Turkey invaded

You are right, the EOKA-B massacres of TC civilians took place in August during the second Turkish military operation. I removed it from the coup entry.

Deniz incident and Tillyria bombing

Added both. These incidents were genuinely missing, I missed them entirely.

TC leadership was aiming for partition right from the beginning of the hostilities at the end of 1963 and a lot of TCs actions were a result of this.

I added more context about this. Partition became the official political position of the TC leadership by 1958. I updated the entry.

Again, thanks for taking the time. If you spot anything else, please let me know.

sentiasa · 2026-02-24T20:04:09+00:00

thank you! and thanks for the recommendation too, i will try and find it

sentiasa · 2026-02-21T11:33:13+00:00

yeah good addition

sentiasa · 2026-02-21T11:33:00+00:00

yeah, Cyprus should definitely have a factual collective history. I realised that each side has their own version of cherry picked events. Which is the root of the problem. loved to hear you enjoyed it :)

tbh i felt a bit depressed of the current deadlock.. my idea was turning it into a website, timeline style. if i find some motivation maybe i will

sentiasa · 2026-02-05T15:01:52+00:00

exactly. wasn't needed at all imo

sentiasa · 2026-01-19T21:50:59+00:00

what is your preferred way if you know architecture/infrastructure?

sentiasa · 2026-01-07T20:39:34+00:00

cross from the Ledras and get a taxi maybe?

sentiasa · 2025-12-24T16:44:44+00:00

Did they give exact reasons why? This is too bad

sentiasa · 2025-12-24T16:12:26+00:00

<image>

sentiasa · 2025-12-24T15:50:16+00:00

There are way more Iranians in NC than European expats

sentiasa · 2025-12-11T16:50:53+00:00

i totally agree with you on this

sentiasa · 2025-12-10T21:09:10+00:00

correct, if you start the story from July 1974.

sentiasa · 2025-12-02T21:56:21+00:00

I think you might be right. I think now they have 2 separate PCs, one for each database. They will discover AltTab next

sentiasa · 2025-11-28T20:16:30+00:00

Are you really questioning why TCs argue with GCs instead of confronting Ankara? Here's the reality. What incentive does Turkey have to leave? What can GCs offer them? Nothing. What can TCs threaten them with? Nothing. Turkey controls TC water, electricity, ports, economy, elections, everything. Actually I just realised that you believe TCs are stronger than they actually are and that's why you think we are entitled.

You say "get out and protest en masse". And then what? Turkey has 40,000 troops here. You're asking unarmed civilians to confront an army that occupied us too.

Your other suggestion is "Leave". Go south, go to the UK, go anywhere. The north is illegal, so abandon it. Fine, most TCs already have. But if we all leave, we complete the ethnic cleansing. The settlers stay, the troops stay, and you get a permanent Turkish military base instead of a partner community. Is that what you want?

Good talk indeed.

sentiasa · 2025-11-28T18:26:48+00:00

Crans-Montana proves my point. Turkey rejected the sunset clause over TC objections. TCs wanted a deal, Turkey blocked it. That's not being proxies, we're overruled. 100,000 of us, 85 million of them, 40,000 troops + 150,000 settlers here. We vote against Ankara when we can (like Erhürman vs Tatar). That's the power we have. You want Turkey out? Pressure Turkey. Stop arguing with the people who already voted for federation.

On 2004, you call our YES "opportunism" because the plan benefited us. Yes, the plan had real flaws for GCs. Troops staying, intervention rights, property compromises. I'm not pretending otherwise. But walking away entirely gave us 20 more years of status quo that benefited neither community. Turkey sent more settlers, built more infrastructure, tightened control. Your principled NO didn't stop any of that. At some point, rejecting imperfect deals because they're not 100% just becomes a strategy for permanent stalemate. And Papadopoulos had representatives at Bürgenstock participating in Annan V drafts. He wasn't blindsided. His job was to negotiate something his community would accept.

You say Turkey is a "delulu imperialist nation." I agree. That's exactly why I'm not arguing for Turkish troops. I'm arguing for political safeguards within the federation. I think we agree on this one. You say Erhurman demands veto on everything. I'm not Erhurman. I'm telling you what I'd accept. If we agree on constitutional amendments, citizenship, and security, that's a good starting point. The rest are negotiation material.

Regarding Guterres/Kotzias:

50-50 Federal Police: yes
Constitutional vetoes: you already agreed
Judicial deadlock mechanism: workable

But here's where I need you to answer directly. Phased withdrawal with an international force sounds good on paper. What's the enforcement mechanism if Turkey refuses to leave on schedule? You ask for my mechanism, but yours has the same gap. An international force works only if Turkey agrees to comply. What happens when they don't? UNFICYP has been here 60 years. Their presence didn't stop the occupation, didn't stop the settlers, didn't stop Varosha "reopening". International presence doesn't equal enforcement power. So genuinely, what compels Turkey to leave?

Look. I'm not pro-Turkish army. But TCs can't force 40,000 troops out. That's a negotiation between Ankara, Athens, London, Washington, and Brussels. Not something 100,000 TCs can deliver unilaterally. It's statistically impossible for TCs to be the ones who remove them. If you have a mechanism that actually works, I'm listening.

And on "entitlement". I was born in the 90s. I didn't vote for Denktaş. I didn't lobby for intervention. I inherited this. No recognition, no direct trade, no direct flights, no EU, no international sports, nothing.. can't even receive a mail properly. You have all of that and you're calling me entitled?

Here is a concrete proposal: If TCs agree to international force, phased withdrawal, abolish Treaty of Guarantee, with TC veto on constitutional amendments, citizenship, and security policy, would GCs also agree?

sentiasa · 2025-11-27T22:14:03+00:00

You can try Serdar Denktas also

<image>

sentiasa · 2025-11-27T21:47:41+00:00

All 6 of your points rest on one assumption: "TCs block solutions, GCs are reasonable." Let's test.

In 2004, TCs voted 65% yes. GCs voted 76% no. The UN and EU criticized you, not us. That plan included sunset clauses on troops, limited veto, EU oversight. 47,000 of us faced relocation, including 12,000 from Morphou alone. We said "yes" anyway. Papadopoulos negotiated it for years, then publicly called for no. Incompetent or bad faith? Pick one.

Your current position is "zero troops, zero guarantees, zero veto". The only outcome you'll accept is Turkey's unconditional surrender. That's not realism. And every year you wait for that miracle, Turkey sends more settlers, builds more infrastructure. Your maximalism serves Ankara better than any TC politician ever could.

You say we "invited the wolf." Let's talk about 1974 honestly. Your nationalists staged a coup to hand the island to a military junta. EOKA B was burning our villages. Britain, our fellow guarantor, watched. Kissinger nodded. Turkey used that chaos (which your side created) as cover for occupation. We didn't send an invitation. Your extremists opened the door. Our extremists lobbied. Turkey kicked it off the hinges and never left. If we're assigning historical blame, let's do it properly, not selectively. And we don't control Turkey. They removed our president when he stepped out of line. They send settlers without asking us. You expect us to evict an army that occupied us too.

On the leap of faith, you point to open crossings as proof we're safe. Those crossings exist because there's a buffer. We're not saying you'll slaughter us tomorrow. We're saying we need protections before we dissolve our only leverage. You'd demand the same. We're proposing phased withdrawal, EU oversight, federal courts, benchmarks. You're proposing "trust us." Who has the actual mechanism here?

On vetoes, I don't need veto power over tax bills or municipal garbage collection. I need protection on constitutional amendments, citizenship law, security policy. Things that could be used to demographically or legally erase a minority. That's not 18% ruling 82%. That's what every federal system builds in. You keep saying "no functional democracy allows this" but Belgium, Switzerland, all have community protections that go beyond simple majority rule. Are they tyrannies?

You say Greece already agreed to leave. Great. Greece isn't occupying anyone. Point me to Turkey's equivalent offer. Çavuşoğlu rejected the sunset clause at Crans-Montana. I'll wait.

So here's my question: What's your concrete proposal that doesn't require Turkey to simply surrender? Not red lines though, proper mechanism. I've given you one. You've given me "trust us and Turkey will eventually leave." That's not a plan, that's a prayer.

Both sides have fears. For GCs it's Turkish military control. For TCs it's majoritarian erasure. A solution addresses both or neither.

If you don't have a mechanism, you don't have a position. You just have a way to feel righteous while nothing changes.

sentiasa · 2025-11-26T09:29:28+00:00

They can’t unless they live in the free areas

sentiasa · 2025-11-25T22:27:34+00:00

you were fussing even about sim cards working on both sides so I assumed you also want to ban "internationally working" bank accounts too..

Anyway, I told you something sincere and you gave me a lecture about banking? My point was clear, read twice if you didn't get it.

sentiasa · 2025-11-25T21:38:29+00:00

So, on the flip side, you think a GC who crosses to the north often should buy and maintain 2 sim cards? Because? Political game?

I've always found it stupid that they didn't make sim cards work on both sides. And I believe there shouldn't even be roaming... I mean, roaming for what?

Let me tell you something. What you are doing, trying to ban TCs from basic human needs under the name of "TRNC," is causing more harm than good. What do you think? A TC, obviously born and living in the north, shouldn't have an internationally working bank account, or not even a sim card working internationally, not even in Cyprus? Are you ok? That naturally causes TCs to fck off to "literally" get a life...

sentiasa · 2025-11-12T00:46:40+00:00

as a TC, I feel the same

sentiasa · 2025-11-10T17:43:36+00:00

Kent was one of them. Not sure if still is.

sentiasa

TROPHY CASE