MR Taner Baytok's anxiety concerning Turkey's troubled relations with Greece is fuelled by his belief that Greek Cypriots are investing in military equipment to the tune of $1.5 million a day.
This startling claim came, paradoxically, in response to a question about recent deliveries of tanks and other military equipment to the Turkish sector of the island.
"$1.5 million a day for a small island. You can imagine what it means. But I say these efforts are useless; they cannot be militarily stronger than the Turkish side - even if they sign a defence pact with Greece.
It was a surprisingly anxious and defiant note in a lengthy interview characterised by the words "peaceful negotiation" and by the ambassador's genial optimism.
A staunch defender of mainstream Turkish perspectives, he is also a moderniser who welcomes the challenge posed by his country's evolving relations with its neighbours east and west.
Ankara's present political vacuum - a phrase he dislikes - has not disturbed his faith in the democratic and secular future of Turkey.
"These people say things before they have power, but then, like the Euro communist parties during the Cold War, when they are in government they must do what the society wants," he says of the pro Islamic Welfare Party. "They cannot change Turkish democracy.
He is equally sure that the military no longer poses a threat. "The era of military intervention is over. Now we solve our problems through democracy. Many people do not know the role the army has played in creating and protecting Turkish democracy," he says, recalling the military origins of Ataturk's state.
The ambassador rejects any suggestion that the army may be calling the shots in the continuing struggle against the Kurdish separatists and impeding a political solution. "How do you talk to people who put bombs on a bus and kill women and children? The army is only doing what the Prime Minister, Mrs [Tansu] Ciller, and Turkish society want."
A former adviser to Ms Ciller while she was economics minister, Mr Baytok spent many years representing Turkey in Nato. He is the author of a history of British Turkish relations in the period leading to the foundation of the Turkish state in 1923 and his previous ambassadorial postings were to the United Arab Emirates and Denmark.
He feels the main stumbling block to better Turkish Irish relations is that we do not know each other properly. But, as an example of recent improvements in this regard, he cites the growth in Irish tourism to Turkey: last year some 50,000 Irish tourists visited Turkey, making it the third most popular overseas destination for Irish holiday makers.
Also, in his ambassadorial role which he defines as that of match maker, he is currently assisting a number of commercial projects aimed at enhancing trade relations between the two countries.
He is happy with the "balanced approach" to the Cypriot problem adopted by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring, during his January visit to the island. The ambassador anticipates no difficulties between Turkey and Ireland during the Irish presidency of the EU, when the issue of Cypriot membership will come up for consideration.
The Ankara position on Cyprus, he explains, is based on the agreements of the 1950s and 1960s between Britain, Greece and Turkey as guarantors of the island's status. According to these, Cyprus cannot join any international organisation to which Greece and Turkey do not both belong.
Cyprus's EU application, therefore, must be part of a larger package to include: first, the formation of a federation of the two Cypriot states; second, progress by Turkey itself towards full EU membership; and third, the resolution of all disputed territorial issues between Greece and Turkey.
Any other scenario, such as the EU accession of the Greek sector alone, would be contrary to the international agreements and constitute the "legalisation of partition", a position the Irish Government in particular would surely oppose.
On the Aegean question he says: "Turkey is happy with its territory. We don't want more land. Not so the Greeks. They have islands so close to Turkey; that if I stand on the Turkish coast and shout I can be heard on some of them."
He elaborates on this alleged Greek expansionism. "At one stage in this century they tried to capture Ankara. Even still many Greeks make claims to Turkish lands - and even to Istanbul, which they call Constantinople. If we give them Cyprus, should we also give them Istanbul?"
The ambassador vigorously rejects the suggestion that Ankara may be stage managing the Aegean dispute, either to "internationalise" the issue or to distract the military from the domestic political vacuum. "There is no political vacuum. What you see is normal democracy at work," he insists emphatically.
He points to a wall map, indicating Turkey's strategic location in relation to the newly emerged republics of central Asia, as well as Russia and the Middle East. "How can Europe develop relations with this vast region without first accepting Turkey?" he asks rhetorically.
Turkey is more important to the European Union than the EU is to Turkey, he believes. "Without the EU, Turkey can survive, like Norway and Switzerland, and do well, as it has done in the past. But without Turkey, Europe is in trouble."