Cypriot MEP Fidias Panayiotou has published his full-length podcast interview with Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar, under the provocative title “Leader of a State That No One Recognises.” The Fidias Tatar podcast, which runs for over an hour and a half, has triggered strong reactions from the Cypriot government, political parties, and civil society groups.
The video marks the latest in a series of contentious moves by Fidias, whose decision to meet with Tatar has already been widely condemned. The interview has been criticised not only for its content, but also for its perceived legitimisation of the breakaway administration in the north of Cyprus.
During the Fidias Tatar podcast, the Turkish Cypriot leader restated his longstanding support for a two-state solution, calling it “the only realistic outcome” after decades of failed federal negotiations. He claimed that Turkish Cypriots have a “distinct identity, history, and culture,” which he argued the international community should acknowledge.
Tatar also presented his version of the island’s political conflict, stating that Turkish Cypriots were the victims during the intercommunal violence of past decades. He cited the failure of the Annan Plan in 2004- rejected by a majority of Greek Cypriots- as proof that “there is no real willingness to compromise.”
When asked about his relationship with Turkey and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Tatar rejected suggestions that he is a puppet of Ankara. He insisted that Turkey is “the only ally and guarantor,” without whom Turkish Cypriots would be left “exposed.”
The podcast continues to stir debate about the balance between open dialogue and national responsibility, particularly given Fidias’ role as an elected MEP.
Editorial note: when does compromise become surrender
The Fidias Tatar podcast has reignited long-standing debates in Cyprus, not just about free speech and political legitimacy, but about the deeper meaning of compromise.
Tatar repeatedly speaks of the “need for realism,” pointing to the failure of the Annan Plan as proof that Greek Cypriots rejected peace. But the reality is more complex. The Annan Plan, though hailed internationally, was widely seen in Cyprus as fundamentally unjust. It would have:
- Legalised the 1974 invasion and occupation;
- Allowed tens of thousands of Turkish settlers- brought in illegally- to remain permanently;
- Maintained a Turkish military presence on the island;
- And granted disproportionate political power to a minority, undermining basic democratic principles.
Compromise, in this context, did not mean reconciliation. It meant accepting permanent losses- of land, justice, security, and identity- in exchange for international approval.
Today, references to “Turkish Cypriot identity” often obscure the fact that the north is now dominated by Turkish nationals, not indigenous Turkish Cypriots. Many original families- the true Turkish Cypriots- have emigrated or been marginalised by Ankara’s control, which has transformed the occupied territory’s culture, politics, and demographics.
To accept this as the new normal is not peace- it is defeat by slow absorption. Recognising an illegal occupation, even implicitly, risks erasing not only borders but truth itself.
Cyprus deserves more than a politically convenient settlement. It deserves a future rooted in justice, not in forgetting.
Read also: Annita Demetriou slams Fidias incident as unacceptable
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel.
