His meeting Donald Trump with Vladimir Putin It has shown that balances on the international chessboard can change from one moment to another. Europe, instead of defining, is watching. And we, from our corner, strive to convince us that we are on the “right side of the story”. But what does that mean? And who determines it?
Greece, after the war, shaped a strategic strategy: to act as a bridge between the East and the West. From Helsinki and her role in the Cyprus issue, to her traditional position as a pillar of stability in the Balkans, the narrative was clear: we invest in understanding. The choice to choose a camp in Ukraine’s war overturned this strategy radically. Relations with Russia were dissolved, without a corresponding strategic benefit and with so many nationalisms returning to the Balkans and the wider region.
The lessons we didn’t learn
The story is full of examples where our country was based on the “guaranteed interests” of the Great Powers – and was lost every time.
- Asia Minor Disaster (1922): Greece sacrificed hundreds of thousands of souls and its own survival in a campaign depended on the support of the allies. When they decided that the “eastern issue” had been resolved otherwise, they left us alone. The result? The uprooting of a whole Hellenism.
- Cyprus (1974): The “guarantor forces” watched the Turkish invasion. No one has prevented the occupation that continues to this day. Fifty years later, our “national interests” are still hostage to foreign strategies.
- Imia (1996): A crisis that has shown in the most raw way how Greece can be dragged into national humiliation under the pressure of third parties. The “gratitude” of the Allies was limited to telephone interventions, without any tangible consideration for the country and by legalizing the “gray zones”.
From all these examples, what did we learn? That the interests of the Great Powers are moving sand. That our “doctrine” cannot be a slave attachment to a pole, but flexibility and balance.
What did we earn from the new strategy?
Today, Greece declares the “willing child” of the West. He sent weapons to Ukraine, supported every step of sanctions on Russia, upgraded military cooperation with the US. The return? Some statements about a ‘upgraded role’, while:
- Turkey continues the challenges in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean,
- Cyprus remains frozen, without any pressure toward the anchor,
- The energy of the region is determined without Greece in a leading role.
In other words, we gave a lot, we got little.
The same mistake as Israel?
And while our region is burned by the crisis in the Middle East, Greece again shows an overwhelming willingness to bet without a second thought on Israel’s side with the doctrine, “the enemy’s enemy, friend”. No one says that we should not have strategic relationships. But the question is: do we think of the future? If the balance in the Middle East changes, if the fronts move, where will Greece be found?
Geopolitics is not stability; it is liquidity. And politics is not a “right side of history” – it is a proper reading of the future.
The big question
After all, what drives us? Our national interests, or the need to confirm to our allies that we are a “good kid”? Because whenever we chose a camp, we paid the price.
The question is simple but critical: Do we read the geopolitical developments in the future or with a horizon in the next elections?