Before Thursday’s European Council, President Nikos Christodoulides said that Turkey should be left out of summits called by European countries about Ukraine and European defence. According to press reports, he was concerned about the presence of Turkey at last Sunday’s informal conference in London about Ukraine. This raised questions as to whether there was an attempt to take decisions about European security outside the official bodies of the EU.

The president gave two reasons for excluding Turkey from EU gatherings, the first related to Cyprus. “How can Turkey, a country that illegally occupies European territory, have any role in matters of security and guarantees?” he asked. And he could not understand why Turkey was invited to such summits, considering this “is a country that continuously violates European sanctions against the Russian Federation,” exploiting these sanctions “for its own benefit.” Such a country has no place in summits held for the support of Ukraine, he declared.

We do not know whether these views were repeated in the summit or were expressed exclusively for his Cyprus audience, which likes to hear tough talk against Turkey and to be reminded of the EU’s double standards. This has been the discourse of our politicians for decades, a discourse focused entirely on political moralising that shows a complete disconnect from realpolitik – a denial that it exists although, very occasionally, they acknowledge that states take decisions based on their interests rather than on principles. It is an undergraduate political view far removed from what is happening in the world.

One of the champions of the naïve school of international relations morality, Edek had to criticise Thursday’s conclusions of the European Council on European Defence, in particular points 6(g) and 6(h) with regard to security and defence. Paragraph (g) “underlines that the defence of all EU land, air and maritime borders contribute to the security of Europe as a whole, in particular as regards the EU’s eastern border, considering the threats posed by Russia and Belarus” while paragraph (h), “in addition, considering the threats on the rest of the EU borders, stresses the importance of their defence.”

After citing these paragraphs (par (h) was reportedly included at Christodoulides’ behest), Edek, following the president’s lead, asks: “What will the EU do about the borders of the Cyprus Republic that were violated by Turkey through the illegal invasion and continue to be violated? Will the EU allow any discussion about the participation of Turkey in the European defence and security mechanisms when Turkey illegally occupies territory of a member-state and threatens the sovereignty of another member, Greece?”

While Edek has always traded in undergraduate political thinking, what is the excuse of President Christodoulides, who sees himself as a seasoned diplomat with a deep understanding of world affairs, for excluding Turkey from European defence planning? These are challenging times for Europe, which has been told that it can longer depend on the United States for its defence. Last Sunday’s conference in London was indicative of the efforts to design a new defence and security architecture for the continent. It was called by the UK, which is not a member of the EU – it is not even on the continent – because the defence of Europe against Russian expansionism is a common cause.

Turkey was invited because it has the biggest standing army in Europe and a defence industry and could contribute to the continent’s defensive planning, if it considers this in its interests. Ankara might choose not to join this effort as it might consider that it faces no threat from Russia, but as a NATO member it still belongs to the West’s security architecture and could not be left out of discussions in which most NATO members were participating.

It seems incredible that at this most difficult time for the EU, at which it is facing an existential threat that it is unprepared for and needs to act very decisively, President Christodoulides is seeking the exclusion of Turkey from discussions about security and the Ukraine as punishment for its occupation of Cyprus and for its failure to impose sanctions against Turkey. It is not just a display of a complete lack of perspective but also betrays a failure to comprehend what is at stake for Europe.

It was made very clear in last Thursday’s conclusions of the European Council which “stress that Europe must become more sovereign, more responsible for its own defence and better equipped to act and deal autonomously with immediate and future challenges and threats with a 360° approach. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and its repercussions for European and global security in a changing environment constitute an existential challenge for the European Union.”