By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
Even if we’d watched the Crans-Montana talks unfold live, chances are we’d still have ended up believing what we already believed about who was to blame, what we should have accepted, and what we should have rejected. As this column wrote on 16 November 2021, when similar debates were raging, our minds were already made up.
What exactly was said in those critical Cyprus negotiations? We’ll probably never know. What we do know is what didn’t happen: the Cyprus problem wasn’t solved. Despite the euphoria at the time, despite being told the two sides had come within touching distance of a deal, it fell apart. That’s the only certainty, the only thing we can agree on—some cheering the collapse of whatever proposal was on the table, others condemning it.
Since then, eight years on, there is a constantly looming discussion about who is responsible for sinking the talks. Perhaps this debate didn’t spring from any particular rumour, but from a deep-seated suspicion about the intentions—and the damaged credibility—of the head of our negotiating team, President Nicos Anastasiades.
Many people believe that an elite class, whose interests Anastasiades represented, neither wanted nor wants a solution, because they’re not prepared to risk their position or share their slice of the economic pie.
Starting from that premise, the blame for the shipwreck was pinned squarely on Anastasiades. His response to the accusations? “History will judge me, as it will judge those who distort the truth and historical facts, undermining the prestige of the President of the Republic of Cyprus.”
Eight years on, with the Cyprus issue frozen solid whilst our occupied land—and its population—changes daily, with a two-state solution now centre stage, we circle back. Not to discover what actually happened at the negotiating table—or what happens next—but to unpack how the impression was cultivated that our side carries the blame. Who said what.
In reality, though, even if Christos Stylianides did say what’s being attributed to him, the image that took hold clearly doesn’t come down to him. Immediately after the talks collapsed, the blame—fairly or not—landed on Anastasiades. Why? Because he’d lost the ability to convince anyone of what he was saying: about the haircut, about his mates with golden passports, about the trips to the Seychelles, about his supposed desire for a solution.
This article was first published on 12.11.2025
