The Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus and the Geopolitics of Turkish Irredentism

The Eastern Mediterranean is increasingly becoming a geopolitical battleground, where competing claims over maritime rights, energy resources, and regional influence converge. The Republic of Cyprus (RoC) faces escalating challenges from Turkey’s irredentist and Neo-Ottoman agenda, epitomised by its proclaimed ‘Blue Homeland’ (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. This concept, echoing China’s ‘Blue Soil’ strategy from 2010, underscores Ankara’s ambition to assert and maintain maritime dominance in the region.

Ankara arbitrarily claims vast swathes of the Eastern Mediterranean as Turkish (approximately 462,000 square kilometres of maritime territory) and seeks, among other things, to undermine the legally established maritime agreements of the RoC, flouting the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The distinguished Turkish journalist Cengiz Çandar has aptly described the ‘Blue Homeland’ as a recipe for ‘perpetual conflict’ in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In certain ways, the doctrine also echoes aspects of the Nazi concept of Lebensraum, particularly in its territorial expansionism and its use of historical narratives to justify far-reaching claims. This alignment is further underscored by former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s book Strategic Depth.

Over the years, Cyprus has delineated its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under UNCLOS, signing agreements with Egypt (2003), Lebanon (2007) and Israel (2010). Yet, Turkey refuses to recognise these agreements or UNCLOS itself, engaging instead in arbitrary and destabilising actions. Recent press reports that Ankara plans to negotiate an EEZ agreement with the de facto Syrian regime that grew out of Al-Qa’ida – and whose forces Ankara armed and trained through the well-known ‘Turkish Jihadist Highway’– and not the people of Syria, mirror its arbitrary 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Libya. These Turkish manoeuvres are part of an aggressive strategy to marginalise Cyprus, disrupt regional energy initiatives, and assert dominance over the Eastern Mediterranean.

Turkey’s Maritime Playbook: A Pattern of Expansion

The Turkish MoU with Libya established an arbitrary maritime boundary that disregards the rights of Greek islands such as Rhodes, Crete and Karpathos. While legally invalid, the agreement sought to pre-empt a potential delimitation between Greece and Libya, redefine the maritime geography of the Eastern Mediterranean in Ankara’s favour, and disrupt the natural alignment of EEZs between Cyprus and Greece – alignments essential for regional energy projects.

Ankara now seems intent on replicating this Libya strategy with Syria. By pursuing a potential EEZ agreement with Damascus, Turkey aims to pre-empt a Cyprus–Syria delimitation, thereby undermining the legitimate maritime rights of the Cypriot state. Moreover, Ankara seeks to elevate the status of the Turkish-occupied northern part of Cyprus, the so-called ‘TRNC’ which the European Court of Human Rights has described as its ‘subordinate local administration’. These nebulous tactics are designed to legitimise Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus. One of the goals of the Erdoğan regime is the signing of a maritime agreement with Egypt that would effectively ‘erase’ the Cypriot state as a player in the Eastern Mediterranean. 

Energy Security at Risk and Turkey's Broader Geopolitical Strategy

The hydrocarbon reserves of the Eastern Mediterranean are not only vital for Europe’s energy diversification but also crucial for regional economic stability and cooperation. As Europe seeks to reduce its reliance on Russian gas, these reserves offer a critical alternative that strengthens energy security while fostering partnerships between producing and consuming countries.

Turkey’s unpredictable behaviour and its aggressive policies, often at odds with Western interests, threaten to derail these efforts. By contesting existing maritime agreements, creating faits accomplis, fostering instability, and attempting to deter vital investment in energy infrastructure, Ankara undermines both the energy goals of Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean’s regional economic potential. Its attempts to dominate transit corridors risk positioning Turkey as an energy gatekeeper, granting it disproportionate control over the flow of energy to Europe – a scenario that would compromise regional and global energy security.

The hydrocarbon reserves of the Eastern Mediterranean, therefore, represent more than a path to energy independence. They offer an opportunity to establish a framework of regional cooperation rooted in mutual benefit and adherence to international law, in the same way that coal and steel did for Europe. In stark contrast, the irredentist policies of Ankara point in the opposite direction. Allowing Turkey to become an energy hegemon in the Eastern Mediterranean would be a clear recipe for instability and conflict. It behooves Europe to resist the retrograde ambitions of Ankara. 

Turkey’s expansionist agenda violates established international legal norms, bypasses multilateral frameworks, and relies on bilateral agreements with client states like Libya – and potentially Syria – to establish supremacy in the region. 

Additionally, the occupation of northern Cyprus provides Ankara with further leverage. By exploiting its ‘subordinate local administration’, Turkey is attempting to justify unauthorised drilling activities within the EEZ of the RoC. However, under international law, the RoC encompasses the entire island, including the occupied north (with the exception of the two British bases). Turkey’s actions not only violate the sovereignty of the RoC but are inherently destabilising for the region. 

The Stakes for Europe

Ankara’s expansionist agenda challenges not only the RoC but also the fundamental principles of international law that govern maritime rules. Regional energy initiatives are vital for the economic stability of countries like Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon, as well as for the broader energy diversification and ultimately the security of Europe. By disrupting these efforts, Turkey undermines regional cooperation and weakens the ability of the EU and the US to stabilise the strategic region of the Eastern Mediterranean. 

Beyond the region, Turkey’s behaviour sets a dangerous precedent. If left unchecked, it could embolden other states to disregard international norms, fostering instability in maritime regions across the globe. The consequences extend far beyond the Eastern Mediterranean, threatening the global maritime order that underpins peaceful cooperation and security.

The Strategic Response of Cyprus 

In response to Turkish irredentism, Cyprus is implementing a comprehensive strategy that integrates regional partnerships, international engagement, legal action, and investments in energy and security. Strengthening ties with key partners such as Egypt, Greece, Israel and Lebanon, Cyprus leverages frameworks like the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum (comprising Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan and Palestine) to foster regional solidarity and cooperation on energy development. The Forum welcomes all Mediterranean states willing to accept the relevant established norms.

On the global stage, Cyprus utilises its positions in the EU and the UN to protect and advance its legitimate interests, pushing where appropriate for targeted sanctions against Ankara’s arbitrary policies. Nicosia also engages with the US, the UK, France and other states in highlighting the strategic importance of the Eastern Mediterranean for regional stability and the energy security of Europe.

Cyprus’ Strategic Response in Relation to the UK

In particular, Cypriot-UK relations have been highlighted recently by the visit of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the first in over five decades. Historically, the UK has enjoyed an unprecedented role in Cyprus. The presence of its two military bases – the largest outside the UK – provides London with a strategic foothold in the region that it would not otherwise have had after the withdrawal from east of Suez. This role is contingent upon Cypriot cooperation in a number of areas, which has been freely given. However, Turkish irredentism in the Eastern Mediterranean places the UK’s role in jeopardy as well. 

Discussions during Starmer’s visit to Cyprus covered key areas such as security, energy and regional stability, underscoring the potential for a robust strategic partnership that aligns UK and RoC interests. As Cyprus confronts Turkish attempts to undermine its sovereignty and maritime rights, closer collaboration with the UK offers a potentially effective pathway to amplify its efforts in countering unilateral and destabilising actions in the region.

The timing of the visit is particularly significant. Cyprus is actively leveraging its position as a member of the EU and a reliable, predictable and dependable partner in the Eastern Mediterranean. Enhanced UK engagement can support Cyprus’ broader strategy to uphold international law, resist Turkish expansionism, and ensure stability in the region. With London seeking to maintain influence post-Brexit, the alignment of strategic interests opens opportunities for cooperation on critical issues such as maritime governance, countering Turkish faits accomplis, and safeguarding energy security in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The UK’s role as a Guarantor Power under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee obligates it to protect Cyprus’ independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. While this role has historically been viewed with scepticism, the evolving geopolitical environment offers an opportunity for the UK to reaffirm its commitment to regional stability and international law. By actively supporting Cyprus in countering Turkish irredentism, the UK will not only strengthen its credibility as a key player in the region, but also help uphold the rules-based international order that underpins peace and security in the Eastern Mediterranean. It therefore befits London to ensure that Ankara understands that power politics and blackmail have no place in the region.

The RoC is also reinforcing ties with energy companies operating in its EEZ to ensure continued investment. Simultaneously, Nicosia is accelerating the development of liquefied natural gas facilities, providing alternatives to contested and monopolistic pipeline routes and positioning itself as a reliable and predictable supplier for the energy diversification efforts of Europe.

Cyprus continues to assert its maritime rights under UNCLOS and stands ready to challenge any Turkey–Syria agreement that violates international norms, politically and through legal channels. At the same time, it remains open to diplomacy with Syria, emphasising the long-term benefits of cooperation rooted in the rule of law and in the longstanding and amicable relations between the two states.

Conclusion 

The purported EEZ negotiations between Ankara and Damascus underscore Turkey’s intent to reshape the Eastern Mediterranean in its favour, employing a zero-sum approach. A maritime agreement with Syria will not of course be easy to achieve. The de facto regime in Syria may be a Sunni Islamic one and seemingly a comrade-in-arms with Erdoğan’s administration. But Syria was historically the birthplace of Arab nationalism that found expression and success against the Ottoman Empire. And in this context, a matter that remains unresolved is the 1939 annexation of the Sanjak of Alexandretta, renamed Hatay by Ankara. 

For Cyprus, the issue is not merely about defending its maritime boundaries; it is an existential struggle about the core of its sovereignty and its legitimate standing in the region. But it is also clear that the stakes extend far beyond Cyprus.

If Turkey’s actions succeed, they will embolden other states to flout international treaties and agreements, undermining the global order that safeguards peace and security. The challenge posed by revisionist states is not new. But the critical question remains: how will the international community respond to such arbitrariness and defiance of established norms? Cyprus, for its part, refuses to become the satrapy of any power, standing firm in defence of its sovereignty and the principles of international law. 

© Euripides Evriviades, 2025, published by RUSI with permission of the author

The views expressed in this Commentary are the author’s, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

For terms of use, see Website Ts&Cs of Use.

Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. Full guidelines for contributors can be found here.