🤔👉 Your comparison with the English Channel overlooks a fundamental point: different geographical circumstances do not create different rules of international law. Greece recognises the importance of freedom of navigation in the Aegean. But the fact that the Aegean is a semi-enclosed sea does not, by itself, deprive Greece of its rights under international law. UNCLOS Article 3 recognises the right of a coastal state to establish a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles, while the delimitation of overlapping maritime claims must be considered separately. Nor does the presence of Greek military forces on Greek islands automatically constitute a violation of international law. Any alleged breach of treaty obligations must be demonstrated by reference to the relevant treaty provisions and the specific facts—not simply asserted. The same applies to airspace, SAR responsibilities and marine environmental protection: each involves distinct legal questions and cannot reasonably be dismissed as one single case of Greek illegality. I agree that the English Channel and the Aegean have different geographical and navigational characteristics. That is precisely why comparisons must be made carefully, rather than used to deny one country rights recognised under international law. Greece’s position should be assessed on the basis of law, not political rhetoric. The same standard must apply to Turkey, in my opinion🤔