Countries may have their own political, strategic and security interests. But since the basis of recognizing the Greek Cypriot government is to comply with international norms and rules of law, it is necessary to look at the issue from the perspective of international law. In the process of decolonization after World War II, the great powers could have preferred Cyprus to become an independent state on the basis of the principle of self-determination. Then the Turkish Cypriots would simply have been a minority within an independent state. But the great powers did not make such a choice. First and foremost, Greece and the Greek Cypriot community sought the annexation of the island to Greece instead of independence and resorted to terrorism to achieve this goal. Britain turned Turkey (and Greece) into parties to the problem in line with its own interests. The problem was turned into a NATO issue. Under the guidance of the United States, the independent Republic of Cyprus was established through international agreements. In these agreements and the constitution of the state, the Turkish side was made equal partners with the Greek Cypriots. The new state became a member of the UN and all states recognized it. However, at the end of 1963 and the beginning of 1964, the Greek Cypriot side put into practice a detailed plan (Akritas plan) prepared in advance and threw the Turkish side out of the state administration and all institutions of the state through violence. The Greek Cypriot government that took over in Cyprus in this way was an illegitimate government according to the treaties establishing the state and the state's own constitution. The current Greek Cypriot government is still illegitimate and null and void according to international law. The UN Security Council should not have recognized this illegitimate government, but in March 1964, the UN Security Council took it as an official interlocutor without making any judgment. Since then, all states have taken the Greek Cypriot administration as their official interlocutor and have not questioned the illegality of its emergence. The UN Security Council, which ignored the illegality in 1964, declared the TRNC illegal when it was established in 1983 and called on all states not to recognize it. The EU, which does not recognize Israel as an occupier and ignores the question of the legitimacy of the Greek Cypriot government, also sees Turkey as an occupier in Cyprus. Turkey's military intervention on the island in 1974 was a response to the Greek junta's attempt to annex Cyprus through a military coup, and was carried out within the framework of international agreements. Since then, the Turkish side has been making sincere efforts to solve the problem. Most recently, in 2004, the Annan Plan, prepared by the UN Secretary General and supported by the US and the EU, was overwhelmingly rejected by the Greeks and overwhelmingly accepted by the Turks. What the UN and the international community has done in Cyprus is a massacre of law. Unfortunately, realistically, Christian solidarity has had a significant impact on this. If the Turkic states with which we have close relations do not understand these stark realities, who will? Cooperation and integration efforts in various fields can only be realized if there is a minimum level of mutual trust. Recent developments have seriously undermined this minimum level of trust. If there is no reaction from Turkey, if the Turkish opposition is not voicing any opinion on the issue, if the Turkish media is not addressing this as an issue, I think this is because of the serious disappointment felt in the face of the shaking of the mutual trust environment. The Cyprus issue is the red line of the Republic of Turkey and the entire Turkish people. It will always remain so. This is not a line that can disappear with the change of governments. One should think about how one of the Turkic states will react if its red line is violated. If there is no mutual respect for just causes, the common future will become problematic. Of course, at this point, Turkish authorities need to review the strategies and actions taken in relations with Turkic states. There may be mistakes made. There may be a situation where the structures and mechanisms created are not operated effectively. The functioning of these structures, mechanisms and relations may not be closely monitored. On the other hand, the Turkic states are expected to respect Turkey's priorities and to convey their concerns, if any, to the Turkish side.