kathimerini.gr
Cyprus deems "$1.9B energy cable project" economically unviable due to Turkish threats
The Cypriot government considers a "$1.9 billion energy cable project" economically unfeasible, citing geopolitical complexities and Turkish threats to its implementation, despite "$650 million" in EU funding.
- How does the EU's involvement affect the project's feasibility?
- Despite providing "$650 million" in funding, the EU does not guarantee the project's safe completion amidst Turkish threats. The EU's response is to urge both sides to find a solution, leaving Cyprus and Greece to contend with Turkey's opposition and potential use of force.
- What is the primary reason for Cyprus deeming the "$1.9 billion" energy cable project unviable?
- The project's unviability stems from significant geopolitical risks posed by Turkey, which has openly opposed the project and threatened its implementation. This risk, coupled with the lack of a guarantee of safe implementation from the EU, makes the project economically unfeasible for Cyprus.
- What are the broader implications of Cyprus's decision, considering its geopolitical context and alliances?
- Cyprus's decision reflects a broader challenge in the region: the inability to assert sovereign rights against Turkey's aggressive actions. This highlights the limitations faced by both Cyprus and Greece in balancing economic development with geopolitical realities, potentially impacting future regional collaborations, including those with Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue as primarily a geopolitical problem, downplaying the economic aspects. The headline (if any) likely emphasizes the geopolitical tensions, potentially overshadowing the economic unviability argument. The focus on Turkey's objections and the lack of European Union guarantees for project safety shapes the reader's perception towards the project's impossibility rather than its economic feasibility.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, however the phrases like "φερετζές" (a veil or pretext) to describe the economic reasons and "δερβέναγας" (a bully or tyrant) for Turkey, reveal a biased tone and negative framing of Turkey's actions. The author's opinion is strongly implied rather than objectively presented.
Bias by Omission
The article omits potential counterarguments from the proponents of the project. It focuses heavily on the objections and doesn't provide a balanced view of the economic or environmental benefits the project might offer. The absence of these arguments may create a skewed understanding of the situation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between supporting the project and facing Turkey's aggression. It implies that supporting the project automatically puts Cyprus and Greece in a vulnerable position. The narrative simplifies the complex interplay between economic, geopolitical, and security considerations.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the halting of a 1.9 billion euro project aimed at ending Cyprus' energy isolation. The project's failure directly impacts the availability and affordability of clean energy for Cyprus. Geopolitical issues with Turkey, including threats of violence, are cited as the primary reason for the project