Connect with us

Hellenic Insider



Alexander the Great – “FYROM’s” failed attempt to steal a Greek hero

The historical record is not on the side of Greece’s northern neighbor in its attempts to appropriate ancient Macedonian history as its own.




Alexander the Great is not only the most famous figure in Greek history, but he is undoubtedly one of the most influential people who ever lived. His magnificent achievements have left behind a legacy so inspiring that even men such as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte have sought to emulate the Macedonian king.

Of course, Alexander’s image has not only inspired imitation from some of history’s greatest figures, it has also been powerful enough to provoke the Bulgarians who lived in Ottoman Macedonia to build their entire nation upon the myth that they are his descendants. In this article we will therefore be reviewing the legacy of Alexander the Great and confirming a historical certainty: Alexander is a hero of the Greek nation and has been throughout the millennia, he has no historical relevance to the people of “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,” and he was only recently incorporated into their ethnic identity.

Alexander’s Pan-Hellenic Conquests

The greatest obstacle to “FYROM” establishing a historical connection with Alexander the Great is that his campaign against the Persians was not a personal one. Instead, it was waged on behalf of Greece itself. When Alexander left Europe and entered into Asia Minor in 334 BC, he had two official reasons for launching a campaign against the Persians. His primary intention was to punish the Persians for their invasion of Greece in 480 BC, though he also had the side objective of freeing the Greeks of Asia Minor from Persian rule. Alexander’s campaign was therefore presented as one for the benefit of all the Greeks and not solely for the glory of Macedon, for this reason it has traditionally been called a “Pan-Hellenic Crusade.”

There are a number of plausible factors that may have prompted Alexander to present his campaign in this manner and we can only speculate as to what was the deciding motivation. One possible reason is that Alexander’s tutor, Aristotle, was a Pan-Hellenist himself and believed that Greeks should stop fighting amongst themselves and instead unite in order to rule over the “inferior barbarians.” To quote Plutarch, Aristotle advised Alexander to “have regard for the Greeks as friends and kindred” but to treat non-Greeks “as though they were plants and animals.”

This quote exposes the laughable historical revisionism of “FYROM” which claims both “Aristotel” and “Aleksandar” as “ethnic Macedonians.” If these two were non-Greeks then Aristotle would effectively be informing Alexander that the two of them and their Macedonian countrymen were sub-human. Did Alexander share the Pan-Hellenic spirit of his mentor or were his reasons more personal?

Hercules in a lionskin. Alexander’s coinage shows the Macedonian king’s imitation of his ancestor.

Alexander’s desire to emulate the glory of his Greek ancestors Achilles and Hercules is well documented and he may have wanted to follow in their footsteps by serving as a champion of all the Greeks. Whatever his motivations, Alexander adopted his father’s plan to invade the Persians and framed it as a campaign that was for the benefit of all of Greece, not just his native Macedonia.
This is evident as Alexander treated every victory as a triumph for all of the Hellenes. For example, after Alexander’s first victory over the Persians, Plutarch writes that “he was anxious to give other Greek states a share in the victory.” He therefore sent 300 Persian shields back to Athens with the inscription that the spoils had been won by “Alexander and the Greeks..from the barbarians who dwell in Asia.”

Alexander the Great in lionskin. Alexander’s coinage shows the Macedonian king’s imitation of his ancestor.

The wording holds significance as “other Greek states” would imply that Macedon itself was a Greek state and not a separate nation as is claimed in “FYROM.” This is also supported by the fact that Alexander called his army “the Greeks” and used the term “barbarian” (a non-Greek) which would be a strange label for him to employ if he was not a Hellene himself. Later, Alexander fulfilled his intention of freeing the Greeks of Asia Minor, to quote Diodorus, “He was particularly generous to the Greek cities, granting them exemption from taxation, adding the assurance that the freedom of the Greeks was the object for which he had taken upon himself the war against the Persians.” Alexander therefore established himself as a benefactor to all of the Hellenes and his commitment to avenging the Persians on behalf of Greece was not breakable.

The Persian King Darius eventually made a generous proposal of peace to Alexander, offering him his daughter’s hand in marriage and half of his empire to rule as his own, Alexander refused and his response speaks volumes about his commitment to the Pan-Hellenic crusade. He informed Darius that “Your ancestors came to Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did us great harm, though we had done them no prior injury. I have been appointed leader of the Greeks, and wanting to punish the Persians I have come to Asia.” Alexander would not even consider Darius’ offer for peace as this would allow the Persians to escape from Greek vengeance that he had sworn to enact. The wording “Macedonia and the rest of Greece” clearly demonstrates that Alexander considered Macedonia to be part of Greece. Nobody would ever use the term “FYROM and the rest of Greece” as these are two separate nations. Alexander also called himself the “leader of the Greeks” and he would obviously need to be one of the Greeks himself if he was their representative.

Alexander was therefore certain that his campaign was a Greek one, and it is also worth noting that his Macedonian troops held the same belief. Before the Battle of Issus, Arrian reveals that Alexander rallied his Macedonians and their Greek allies by proclaiming that “There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay — and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it.” If the Macedonians were not Greek as “FYROM” revisionism claims, then calling on the Macedonians to fight for a foreign nation would be an appalling way of inspiring them before a decisive battle. Alexander is one of the greatest military leaders who has ever lived, so we can assume that he knew exactly how to motive his troops. He was clearly aware that the Macedonians were proud to be fighting on behalf of their fellow Greeks and even believed that this would give them an advantage over the Greek mercenaries in the Persian army who were fighting for pay as opposed to their homeland.

The Persians also recognized that they were being invaded by Greece. Before The Battle of Guagamela, Darius commented on the irony that “a short time ago we were actually invading the Greeks; now in our home we are trying to repel an invasion.” To quote Robin Lane Fox, the Persians called the Macedonians “Yona Takabara, the Greeks who wear shields on their heads,” this was a reference to the Macedonian kausia. The Persians had previously conquered the Macedonians and evidently knew of their nationality. Unfortunately for Skopje, modern Persians are also aware that their ancestors were conquered by Greece and not “FYROMians.”

Ian Worthington states that “The Zoroastrians in Iran are the descendants of the Persian’s from Alexander’s time…Michael Wood traveled to Yazd in the Great Salt Desert to meet them. When he asked about Alexander, one told him: “He may be the Great to the Greeks and to you Europeans, nut we call him a devil…he forcibly made our children marry Greeks to make them lost their identity.”

Alexander confronts Darius.

Alexander eventually sat on the Persian throne and in a passage from Plutarch, we learn that non-Macedonian Greeks also recognized him as the champion of all of the Hellenes. Demaratus, who was a Corinthian, “began to weep…and exclaimed that any Greek who had died before that day had missed one of the greatest pleasures in life by not seeing Alexander seated on the throne of Darius.” Alexander proceeded to fulfill his promise of avenging the Persians, he burned their capital of Persepolis to the ground as informed his Macedonian generals that “no city was more hateful to the Greeks than Persepolis, to appease the spirits of their forefathers they should wipe it out.” This demonstrates that, contrary to “FYROM” revisionism, Alexander considered his forefathers to be Greeks.

Overall, Alexander stands out as a Pan-Hellenist, more passionate and patriotic about Greece than many of his contemporaries. He conquered Asia in the name of all of Greece at a time when other Greek rulers showed little regard for affairs outside of their kingdom or poleis. For example, rather than fight for Greece alongside Alexander, the Spartan King Agis III refused to offer any support and rebelled against the Macedonians almost as soon as Alexander left for Asia. Alexander consequently endures as a resonant example of the unification of the Greek people and their achievements when united, it is absurd to say the least that a man whose achievements were made in the name of Greece could possibly be claimed by the non-Greek population of “FYROM.”

Alexander’s Legacy

In the centuries following his death, Alexander’s legacy began to emerge and this was obviously an inheritance that belonged to Greece. For example, the Roman historian Pliny the Elder wrote “in the reign of Alexander the Great, at a time when Greece was at the height of her glory, and the most powerful country in the world.” If the Macedonians were not Greek, then this quote would make no sense; Greece would have actually been one of the weakest nations in the world as it had been subdued by foreign Macedon. Pliny the Elder evidently considered Greece as the most powerful country in the world as Alexander the Great was a Greek and his empire was a Greek Empire.

The Bible even refers to Alexander’s Empire by this name, as Maccabees states that “Alexander enlarged the Greek Empire by defeating Darius and seizing his throne.” It is no surprise that Jewish scholars would have recognized Alexander as a Greek. After all, the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament predicted that a Greek king would destroy the Persian Empire. According to the Romano-Jewish scholar Flavius Josephus, “[a]nd when the book of Daniel was shewed him (Alexander), wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended.” Here is irrefutable evidence not only that the Jews knew that the Macedonians were Greek but also that Alexander himself identified as a Greek.

“FYROMians” are clearly unable to reconcile their identity with Alexander as they would never see a prophecy about a Greek and believe that it related to one of them. We also find references in antiquity of the Greeks recognizing Alexander’s Empire as their own, Polubius wrote that Alexander “subjected Asia to the Greeks.”

Alexander’s position as a Greek hero continued all the way from antiquity into the early modern period. He was undeniably part of Greek identity during Ottoman rule, more so than any other figure from antiquity. To quote Hugh Bowden, my former professor at King’s College London, “O Megalexanderos continued to be known in Greece through centuries when knowledge of classical history and mythology was lost.”

Saint Sisois at the grave of Alexander.

Visual evidence of Alexander’s position as a Greek hero in Ottoman Greece is an icon from 1566 at the Varlaam monastery in Meteora. This depicts Saint Sisois at the grave of Alexander and reads “[τ]he great ascetic Sisois before the grave of the Greek king Alexander”. Even more interesting is a 1568 painting of Alexander at Mount Athos, which reads “βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων Αλέξανδρος” (Alexander King of the Greeks). “FYROM” irredentism claims that neither Alexander nor Mount Athos are Greek and instead historically belong to their nation, but this would clearly prove otherwise.

Icon depicting Alexander the Great, located at Mount Athos.

Alexander also appears as a Greek hero in numerous literary references. He notably appears in Francois Baron de Tott’s memoirs from 1785 reveal that he traveled with “Twenty-Two Macedonian” soldiers who “met in a tavern, where they sang the Victories of Alexander.” Unsurprisingly, this quote is promoted by “FYROM” revisionist who anachronistically assume that all historical references to “Macedonians” are a reference to their people. Such quotations conveniently ignore the fact that de Tott later refers to these Macedonians as “the Greeks.”

Alexander the Great depicted on the revolutionary pamphlets of Rigas Feraios.

Moving into the Greek Revolutionary period, Rigas Feraios’ revolutionary pamphlets from 1779 depicted Alexander the Great. These pamphlets were designed to inspire Greek patriotism for the revolution and there was obviously no better representation of Hellenism and its achievements than the Macedonian king. Alexander continued to be a source of inspiration for the Greeks well into the revolutionary period, an 1850 drawing by Athansios Iatridis depicts Alexander, Homer, Achilles, Constantine and Pyrrhus of Epirus with the words “Ζήτω η ελληνική αυτοκρατορία” (Hail to the Greek Empire).

1850 drawing by Athansios Iatridis depicting Alexander, Homer, Achilles, Constantine and Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Alexander’s descendants, the Greek Macedonians, were understandably reminded of the achievements of their famous ancestor when called upon to fight for Greek independence. A speech from “Odysseus, Commander of the Macedonians” appears in the British “Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser” on September 21, 1821. Titled as a “Greek Proclamation,” it calls on the “Macedonians! Greeks!…Children of Alexander…Greeks of every country, the eyes of the world are upon you.”

IMRO revolutionary pamphlet stating that membership is open to “any Bulgarian.”

Understandably, Alexander the Great did not play any role in the Slavic revolution for independence in Macedonia. This would be expected as the “FYROMians” were still identifying as ethnic Bulgarians at the time of their revolution. Far from depicting Alexander the Great, an IMRO revolutionary pamphlet reads that the association is open to “any Bulgarian, regardless of sex.” According to Klaus Roth, during their famous Illiden Rising “Bulgarian flags flew from house tops and the Bulgarian song “Makedonija, stara Bulgaria (Macedonia, old Bulgaria) was sung.” This is a far cry from today’s “FYROM” revisionism which would have us believe that they flew the Vergina Sun and sang to Aleksandar Makedonski.

Nikola Karev who is one of their most famous revolutionaries did briefly mention Alexander though this was merely to inform the Greek newspaper “The Acropolis” that “History says that he (Alexander) was Greek.” Ljubco Georgievski, who is the former Prime Minister of “FYROM,” summarized Alexander’s absence in the mind of their revolutionaries when he stated that “if we read the Macedonian (“FYROMian”) authors from the end of the 19th century until the start of the 20th century, the thesis of Alexander the Great is a thesis of the Greek propaganda in Macedonia…Doce Gelchev and Dame Gruev gave death sentences to those who “claimed that the blood of Alexander runs in us.”

Alexander in Ottoman Macedonia

Ljubco Georgievski, former prime minister of “FYROM” and a critic of “FYROM’s” appropriation of Alexander the Great.

Georgievski calls Alexander a piece of Greek propaganda, as he was used by the Macedonian Greeks as a reason for why Macedonia should be partitioned to Greece. Greece gained its independence in the 19th century, though Macedonia remained under Ottoman rule until 1913. Many nationalities lived in Ottoman Macedonia and on October 10, 1901, the “Morning Post” provided an exhaustive list of the Macedonian races. These were “Arnauts, Turks, Servians, Bulgarians, Armenians, Greeks, Spanish Jews, Wallachians and so forth.” No “ethnic Macedonians” existed and “FYROM” revisionists obviously have an impossible task in explaining how travelers to Ottoman Macedonia noted Armenians and Wallachians but somehow did not even bother to mention the supposed descendants of Alexander the Great.

The truth is that there were no “ethnic Macedonian,”, the Greeks were recognized as the original inhabitants of Macedonia and the descendants of Alexander whereas the “FYROMians” identified as Bulgarians. For example, the “Daily Telegraph” wrote on January 30, 1899 that “the term Macedonia is merely a conventional geographical name…there are no Macedonians properly so-called…By far the most numerous body of Christians are the Bulgarians. At least, they call themselves by this name….A third and most influential element of the population are the Greeks, who have managed to keep themselves afloat despite all the difficulties and dangers ever since the days of Phillip of Macedon.”

There was a recognition that the Ottoman Empire was on the verge collapse and therefore the Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians of Macedonia were all campaigning for the region to become part of their respective fatherlands. The justifications given by the Greeks and Bulgarians are very revealing as the Greeks stated that Macedonia should belong to Greece because the original Macedonians, including Alexander, were Greek. The Bulgarians did not invoke Alexander at all and instead relied on different arguments, clearly confirming that Alexander is a Greek hero and has no place in FYROMian history.

Evidence to this point would be “The Daily Telegraph” wrote on January 3, 1896 that “The Serbs maintain that all Macedonian Slavs are Serbs and are dying to be annexed to the little kingdom of King Alexander: the Bulgarians aver that they are one and all good Bulgars and will never be happy till they are annexed to the Principality. The Greeks invoke the memory of Phillip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, and declare that common justice demands the restitution of Macedonia to Greece.”

The “Pall Mall Gazzette” on January 26, 1907 makes similar justifications when discussing who is the “master of Macedonia.” The Bulgarian justification is that “his Bulgarian forefathers have been slaves there for centuries” and the Greek justification is that “Alexander the Great was a Macedonian.”

One final example comes from a Texas-based newspaper, “The Wichita Daily Times” on October 25, 1912. This states that “The Macedonians are not a distinct nationality…The Bulgarians and Macedonians of Bulgarian stock are practically slaves and speak a sort of Russian…[t]he Greek Macedonians are troubled by having too much history. They will tell you that Macedonia ought to belong to Greece because Alexander the Great was a Macedonian. But the Bulgarians answer that all this is ancient history and that the graveyards do not vote”. Evidently, Greek Macedonians were identifying with Alexander whilst the ancestors of today’s “FYROMians” were calling him “ancient history” identifying as “Bulgarians” and being observed to speak a “sort of Russian.”

Miladinov collection of folklore clearing reading “Bulgarski” at the top.

“FYROMian” Folklore

Further evidence that Alexander has no place in FYROM’s history is a collection of their 19th century folklore. This was assembled by Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov in 1861, men who are today labelled as “ethnic Macedonians.” Whilst it references various Serbian and Bulgarian rulers, it makes no mention whatsoever of Alexander the Great. It also contains a list of the 200 most popular male names and “Aleksandar” is not one of them. We should not be surprised at complete absence of Alexander as the Miladinov brothers, like all of their contemporary compatriots, identified as Bulgarians. The original name of their collection was “Bulgarski Narodni Pensi” (Bulgarian Folk Songs) though as part of the re-branding of their nation, name was altered when their work was re-published in Skopje in 1983.

To quote Chris Kostov, it was renamed as “The Collection of the Miladinov Brothers. The references to Macedonia in the original foreword as Western Bulgaria by Dimitar Miladinov were removed and other references to Bulgaria and Bulgarian language were replaced with Macedonia and Macedonian language.” In fact, Konstantin Miladinov explained that he called his country “West Bulgaria” and not “Macedonia” as being Macedonian was associated with being Greek: “I called Macedonia West Bulgaria because in Vienna the Greeks treat us like sheep. They consider Macedonia Greek land and cannot understand that Macedonia is not Greek.”

It is remarkable that Alexander identified as a Greek and the Miladinovs as Bulgarian yet somehow in “FYROM” all three of them are reconciled as “ethnic Macedonians”. Educated FYROMians obviously recognize the absurdity of the narrative being driven in their nation and to their credit, they speak out against it. For example, the Mayor of Skopje Petre Shilegov states that “Alexander the Great was never a part of our proper history. He was incorporated in our history in the past 10 years,” while former PM Kiro Gligorov states that “We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians…We have no connection to Alexander the Great and his Macedonia.” Most recently, Professor Toni Deskoski accused revisionists of a “crazy attempt” to transform “the memory of a Slavic nation…into ancient Macedonia which was Greek.” If Alexander the Great was truly part of their inheritance then the older generation in “FYROM” who escaped the brainwashing would not be speaking out, no British person would ever claim that William Shakespeare or Henry VIII were not part of their history.

Greek Macedonian Folklore

Whilst Alexander is completely absent in “FYROMian” folklore, his position as a Greek hero is reinforced by a collection of Greek Macedonian folklore which dedicates an entire chapter to talks of Alexander and his father Phillip. This collection is simply known as “Macedonian Folklore” and was written by G.F Abbott in 1903. Abbott reveals that Alexander and Phillip are so ingrained in Greek Macedonian culture that random historical structures are assumed to belong to the Macedonian kings.

For example, Abbott writes that “On the way from Drama to Cavalla, and a little back from the road, stand the massive relics of an ancient gate, facing the ruins of Phillippi. This pile is known to the people by the name of “Alexander the Great’s Palace” (To Palati tou Megalou Alexandrou)” and that on“the Salonica-Serres railway line, there are some remnants of an old citadel, or fortress (Kastro), overlooking the ravine between the flanks of which the town is wedged. These ruins are assigned to King Phillip”. Abbot concludes that “under the popular designation of “Chap-book of Alexander the Great (Fyllada tou Megalou Alexandrou” Alexander “has long been, and still is, a favorite reading among the lower classes all over the Greek world.”

It is worth noting that Abbott states that a group besides the Greeks are also interested in the history of Alexander, these are not the Bulgarian ancestors of today’s “FYROMians” but rather the Turks. He states that “Both Turks and Greeks, and even the poorest peasants, are full of the history of Alexander.”

A Failed Attempt at Historical Theft

When the Bulgarians did eventually start claiming Alexander the Great and calling themselves Macedonians, the absurdity of these claims were noted. For example, on April 13, 1901, the “Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser” stated that “the Macedonian patriotic movement. It is really not Macedonian at all…[t]he men engaged in it are Bulgarians…[t]he Macedonians of ancient times were Greeks…the Greeks will have plenty of time in the meanwhile to recover the patrimony of Alexander the Great.”

Another example would be “The Huddersfield Daily Examiner,” which stated on October 5, 1915 that “[t]he Bulgarians have what may be called a Macedonian theory of their origin” and are claiming “the honor of being the descendants of Alexander the Great. To say there is no historical evidence of any such descent is to put it mildly, but it is deep-rooted in Bulgarian belief…Another legend has it that the great conqueror commanded his men in a dialect which was not Greek and was therefore undoubtedly Bulgarian.”

Colin Farrell as Alexander the Great, in the 2004 movie “Alexander.”

Fortunately for Greece and more importantly for historical justice, people were not fooled in the early 20th century and they still are not today. “FYROMians” may call themselves Macedonians, fly the Vergina Sun and build expensive statues, but international perception has not changed. Alexander remains a Greek hero. 376 international scholars from the world’s top universities have signed a letter to Barack Obama denouncing “FYROM” and stating that Alexander the Great, and the perception of Alexander as a Greek also continues to manifest at a mainstream level. Wikipedia lists Alexander as a “king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon,” the 2004 film “Alexander” clearly portrays the Macedonians as Greeks, and the Iron Maiden song “Alexander the Great” has the lyrics “near to the East, in a part of ancient Greece, in an ancient land, called Macedonia.”

Recent news articles about the name dispute between Greece and “FYROM” also side with Greece in relation to Alexander. Fox News has an article stating that “Macedonia removes ancient Greek king’s statue from airport”, the “Chicago Tribune” states that Greek Macedonia is the “home of Alexander the Great, one of the most famous ancient Greek rulers”, the BBC states that “[a]irports, motorways and sports stadiums were renamed in honour of Alexander the Great and his father Phillip – Greek heroes recast as Macedonian,” and “The Guardian” reads that “[t]he protests organised by the “We are Macedonia” movement gathered under a statue of the Hellenic ruler Alexander the Great in Skopje’s main square.”

These examples demonstrate that whilst “FYROM” may have taken the Macedonian name, they have absolutely no claim to Alexander, he is internationally recognized as belonging to Greece.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Paranoid Turkey Claims “Greece, Israel, & Egypt Are Part Of Khashoggi’s Murder Plot”

A new Turkish narrative has been launched claiming that Greece, Israel and Egypt are part of the murder plot of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi.



Via Zerohedge

As we noted previouslythe conflict over gas in the eastern Mediterranean is intensifying.

The dispute concerns gas blocks, with Turkey furious about the energy cooperation of these Greece, Cyprus, and Egypt in the East Mediterranean Sea. While Turkish warships have been active, it appears Turkey is taking a new approach to this hybrid war.

As reports,a new Turkish narrative, based on paranoia and conspiracy theories, has been launched claiming that Greece, Israel and Egypt are part of the murder plot of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggipresumably in an effort to garner global opinion against their energy-hording neighbors.

This unbelievable allegation has been claimed by Erdogan’s close aide Yigit Bulut, who is famous for his delirium and ravings, during an appearance on state television of Turkey.

“Greece, Israel and Egypt are part of murder plot involving slain Saudi Arabia journalist Khashoggi in Istanbul,” Yigit Bulut said in TRT Television, where he is a frequent guest.

Enlisting the ‘good old traditional perception’ that Turkey is surrounded by enemies, KeepTalkingGreece notesthat Bulut said:

“a belt extending from Europe to Israel has always harbored hostility towards Turkey they never wanted Turks in this region. Europe even made Turks to fight unnecessary wars against Russia.”

It is worth noting that Russia and Turkey have come closer recently due to Syria, a cooperation sealed with armament sales to Ankara triggering the anger of US and the NATO of which Turkey is a member.

Bulut vowed that Turkey will continue oil and gas exploration in the East Mediterranean off-shore Cyprus.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Turkey vows to make ‘sea bandits’ drilling gas off Cyprus pay, like ‘terrorists in Syria’ did

Ankara claims jurisdiction for offshore research in the East Mediterranean, an area thought to be rich with natural resources.

The Duran



Via RT

Ankara will not allow any “sea bandits” to roam free and tap the disputed natural gas reserves off Cyprus, Turkey’s president has vowed, while commissioning a new warship to challenge competitors militarily, should the need arise.

“We will not accept attempts to seize natural resources in the Eastern Mediterranean through the exclusion of Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC),” Erdogan said Sunday, according to Daily Sabah. While claiming that Turkey has no ambitions to annex any “territories,” Ankara promised to protect “the rights of our country and of our brothers.”

“Those who thought that they could take steps in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Aegean despite [this] have begun to understand the magnitude of their mistake. We will not allow bandits in the seas to roam free just like we made the terrorists in Syria pay,” Erdogan said at a ceremony transferring the TCG Burgazada corvette to the Turkish Navy.

The exploration of hydrocarbon resources off the coast of the Republic of Cyprus has become a sensitive issue for the international community, ever since the first gas deposit discoveries were made off the coast in 2011. While the Republic of Cyprus belongs to the EU community and is recognized by the UN, TRNC, the northern third of the island, has been occupied by Turkey since 1974. As a result, Ankara continues to claim jurisdiction for offshore research in the East Mediterranean, an area thought to be rich with natural resources.

The region has recently witnessed an escalation in tensions, after the Turkish Navy intercepted a Greek frigate which tried to interfere with a Turkish research vessel’s seabed exploration on October 18. The incident prompted a diplomatic row with Greece, which traditionally supports the ethnically Greek government of the Republic of Cyprus. While Greece denied interfering with the Turkish research vessel, Ankara has cautioned its neighbor and longtime opponent not to stir trouble in the region.

To ease tensions, Cyprus’ President Nicos Anastasiades has offered Turkey on Friday to cooperate on exploiting the East Mediterranean’s potential oil and gas wealth, stressing that the ethnically split island nation should be reunified. All previous international efforts to unite the island have failed. To avoid any further intercommunal tensions and hostilities the United Nations continues to maintain a buffer zone there.

“We will continue with our goal of exercising the sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus, as an independent state – member of the European Union, proceeding seamlessly with our energy planning for the benefit of all the legitimate inhabitants of the country, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots,” the president noted.

US-based ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum have already been licensed by the Cypriot government to undertake seabed exploration of Block 10. Last month, Nicosia also invited France’s Total, Italy’s ENI and ExxonMobil to explore Block 7. ExxonMobil’s Stena IceMax drillship is scheduled to arrive in Cyprus on November 12. Turkey, meanwhile, started conducting its first deep-sea drilling off Antalya’s shores on its Mediterranean coast this week.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


After Embarrassing Defeat, NATO, EU and the West Try to Alter Reality in Macedonia

Amidst all the faux cheer and public displays of confidence of the pro-NATO/EU crowd, a palpable sense of unease hangs in the air.



Authored by Aleksandar Pavic via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

Although the September 30, 2018 name-change referendum in Macedonia, which was supposed to set that ex-Yugoslav federal republic on a path to (certain) NATO and (blithely promised but much less certain) EU membership, failed miserably, with only 36.91% of the voters turning out, well short of the 50% + 1 necessary for it to be valid – one would never know it from the reactions of its Western proponents and impatient beneficiaries. Indeed, a new term may be needed to adequately describe the reactions of the key pillars representing the reliquiae reliquiarum of the Western-led post-Cold War unipolar moment. Fake news simply doesn’t do them justice. Fake reality anyone?

The US State Department was firmly in denial, releasing the following statement“The United States welcomes the results of the Republic of Macedonia’s September 30 referendum, in which citizens expressed their support for NATO and European Union (EU) membership by accepting the Prespa Agreement between Macedonia and Greece. The United States strongly supports the Agreement’s full implementation, which will allow Macedonia to take its rightful place in NATO and the EU, contributing to regional stability, security, and prosperity. As Macedonia’s parliament now begins deliberation on constitutional changes, we urge leaders to rise above partisan politics and seize this historic opportunity to secure a brighter future for the country as a full participant in Western institutions.”

EU Commissioner for European Neighborhood and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn wasn’t to be outdone in his contempt for the 63% of the Macedonian “deplorables” who stayed home in order to voice their disagreement with renouncing their perceived national identity and country name (it was to become “Northern Macedonia”) in exchange for the double joy of a) becoming NATO’s cannon-fodder in its increasingly hazardous game of chicken with Russia and b) the EU’s newest debt-serfs: “Referendum in Macedonia: I congratulate those citizens who voted in today’s consultative referendum and made use of their democratic freedoms. With the very significant “yes” vote, there is broad support to the #Prespa Agreement + to the country’s #Euroatlantic path. I now expect all political leaders to respect this decision and take it forward with utmost responsibility and unity across party lines, in the interest of the country.” He was seconded the following day, in a joint statement, by Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the EU Commission.

Understandably, as the most direct public stakeholder, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was particularly (hyper)active. As the disappointing results began to roll in, Stoltenberg went into immediate damage control, tweeting“I welcome the yes vote in Macedonia referendum. I urge all political leaders & parties to engage constructively & responsibly to seize this historic opportunity. #NATO’s door is open, but all national procedures have to be completed.” He reinforced his delusional missive the next day, releasing a similar statement co-signed by EU President Donald Tusk. And the day after, during a news conference, Stoltenberg even offered lightning-quick NATO accession to the unwilling Macedonians – January 2019, to be exact – if they would just be so kind as to urgently implement the very agreement that they had just so emphatically rejected. When NATO says it promotes democratic values – it means it!

But that wasn’t the end of the “democracy mongering” surrounding what may well prove to be NATO’s, the EU’s and the rest of the end-of-history West’s Balkan Waterloo. For example, the EU Parliament’s Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, although “regretting that the turnout was less than 50%,” nevertheless hailed the referendum’s results and “call(ed) on the opposition to respect the expressed will of the majority [sic] of voters.” The Group’s leader, Udo Bullmann, while also maintaining that, somehow, a voter turnout of under 37% still represented a “majority,” additionally used the occasion to chastise Macedonia’s President for having the nerve to call for a boycott of the referendum (he committed the crimethink of referring to it as “historical suicide” during his UN General Assembly address), as well as to decry – what else? – “reports about Russian interference in the electoral process.” It goes without saying that Bullmann offered absolutely zero proof for his assertion. On the other hand, according to numerous media reports, as September 30 approached, while no high Russian official was to be seen anywhere in the vicinity, a veritable procession of Western political bigwigs made the pilgrimage to Skopje in order to reveal to the natives their “true” best interests: Sebastian Kurz“Mad Dog” Mattis, the indefatigable StoltenbergFederica MogheriniJohannes HahnAngela Merkel. No meddling there, obviously…

Speaking of Angela Merkel, she also joined her fellow Western democrats’ show of unanimous disdain for the Macedonian voters’ majority opinion, urging the country to “push ahead” with the implementation of the majority-rejected accord, citing voters’ “overwhelming support” [sic], and arguing through the mouth of her spokesman that the required 50% + 1 turnout was actually “very high,” as voter registers purportedly included many people who had long since left the country.

Coincidentally (?), the same argument was used by Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias, who opined that the “yes” votes cast in the referendum do, in fact, “represent the majority despite the low turnout because Macedonia does not have the 1.8 million voters entered into its electoral rolls but just 1.2 million since 300,000 people have left the country since the voter lists were last updated 20 years ago.” The fallacy of his reality-challenged claim is easily exposed if we just take a glance at the results of Macedonia’s last parliamentary elections (December 2016), in which voter turnout was just under 1.2 million (1,191,832 to be exact) or, officially, 66.79%. If we were to believe Kotzias and Merkel (who lodged no objections at the time), that would have meant that the turnout for the 2016 elections had been 99% – a figure that would make any totalitarian dictator blush with envy. On the other hand, since those elections did produce the “desired result,” enabling the current heavily pro-NATO/EU government led by Zoran Zaev to be formed, that automatically made them “valid” in the eyes of the high priests of democracy in Brussels, Berlin, London and Washington.

Needless to say, Zaev joined his Western patrons’ charade, hailing the referendum as a “democratic success,” and announcing that he would seek the Macedonian Parliament’s support to amend the constitution and get the agreement with Greece ratified (according to the so-called Prespa Agreement, the Macedonian Parliament must adopt the necessary constitutional amendments by the end of 2018) so that the Greek Parliament can do the same, which would seal the deal. However, Zaev and his Albanian political partners are currently well short of the necessary two-thirds majority (reportedly, they can count on 71 deputies, or 9 short of the needed 80), and will have to call early elections if they don’t soon succeed in securing it.

Yet, let it not go unsaid that Zaev was singing a rather different tune prior to the referendum, assuring that “citizens will make the decision,” and that Parliament would vote on the necessary constitutional changes only if the referendum is successful. But that was then, when confidence was still high that the usual combination of Western pressure, money and overwhelming domination of the media spectrum would get the job done. And then reality struck on September 30…

Still, amidst all the faux cheer and public displays of confidence of the pro-NATO/EU crowd, a palpable sense of unease hangs in the air. As a Deutsche Welle opinion piece put it, the “low voter turnout for Macedonia’s referendum is a bad starting point for the country’s future development.” And, according to DW in Serbian, a Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commentary warned that “politicians who otherwise ceaselessly talk of democracy as a ‘special value’ should not call on the parliament in Skopje to accept the voting results.” In other words, Macedonia’s people (read – a large majority of the majority Slavic population) have “voted with their feet” and rejected the agreement, and no new parliamentary election, no matter the results, can change that unpleasant-but-immutable fact. That alone will delegitimize any Western-led effort to “manufacture consent” by ramming the agreement through the present or future Parliament – although, as we know, NATO doesn’t put too much stock in referenda anyway, while the EU is not averse to making citizens vote as many times as needed to obtain the “right” result.

But the West has lost more than just legitimacy in Macedonia – it has damaged its reputation, perhaps irretrievably. In the words of former presidential advisor Cvetin Chilimanov, “The West has humiliated us… Macedonians have rejected this media, psychological, political and propaganda aggression against the people, and that’s the tragedy of these days, that a large percentage of a people that had been genuinely oriented towards the West has changed its mind and stopped looking at the West as something democratic, something progressive and successful… That is the reason for the boycott. Pressure was applied against Macedonia, a country that had always been open to ties with the West, but which did not want to make this disgusting compromise and humiliate itself before the neighboring countries, before Western countries. We did not understand why that humiliation was needed so that we might become a member of Europe. What’s worst, perhaps that is now the thinking of a silent majority of the people, that they won’t forget this insult and this attack on Macedonia.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter