Greece's new defense doctrine is shaking Ankara
Aegean, Thrace and Alexandroupolis in the crosshairs of Turkish rhetoric – How Athens responds
New deterrence doctrine – Old Turkish recipe
The new Greek defense doctrine of deterrence in the Aegean, as presented by Minister of National Defense Nikos Dendias in Brussels, acted as a "red flag" for Ankara.
The Turkish press and Turkish government officials reacted fiercely, speaking of:
"Athens' aggressive rhetoric"
"attempt to encircle Turkey"
"militarization of islands"
and, in some extreme voices, for the Aegean, Thrace and Alexandroupoli as areas "that do not belong exclusively to Greece".
This reaction is not accidental. The Dendias doctrine comes to put into context what Greece has been supporting for decades:
that deterrence is not an attack, but the clear message that it will not be accepted as a fait accompli in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean.
What does the Dendias doctrine provide in practice?
The new doctrine emphasizes:
Strengthening deterrence in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean, with specific means (air forces, surveillance, upgrading infrastructure on key islands).
To better interconnect the Greek Armed Forces with the EU and NATO structures, so that Greek positions are integrated into a broader framework of allied security.
In the clear image that Greece does not seek escalation, but will not allow border changes or "gray zones" through faits accomplis.
For Athens, this is a modern deterrence doctrine:
It is not based only on numerical strength, but also on international legitimacy, alliances and the country's role as a stabilizing factor.
Why does it bother Ankara so much?
For the Turkish side, the Greek strategy is presented as:
"attempt to internationalize the problems" at its expense,
"EU and NATO involvement in bilateral disputes",
and, mainly, as a move to lock down maritime zones, EEZs and continental shelves, limiting Turkish plans.
This is why Turkish public discourse, especially in statements by officials and pro-government media – often escapes the context of legal reality and speaks of:
- Aegean as a "sea that must be shared"
- Thrace as a region of "special interest for Turkey" due to Muslim minority
- Alexandroupolis as a "military threat" due to the reinforced American/NATO presence
So, when a Greek doctrine is presented that clearly says "there are borders, there are sovereign rights, there are rules," Ankara sees it as an aggressive move, because it cuts space from its own revisionist agenda.
Aegean, Thrace, Alexandroupolis: Three goals of rhetoric
- Aegean – “Gray zones” and militarization
Turkey is still talking about:
- "militarization of the islands"
- "gray zones" on islets and rocky islets
- "Injustice" of the Treaty of Lausanne and subsequent regulations
The Dendias doctrine essentially says:
the islands have sovereignty and rights in maritime zones,
and the presence of defensive means in them is legal and necessary when there is a constant threat of casus belli (threat of war) from the opposing side.
- Thrace – Minority and propaganda
In Thrace, the Turkish narrative instrumentalizes the Muslim minority, which Ankara presents as "Turkish", despite the fact that the Greek and international legal reality is clear:
This is a religious minority, with Pomaks, Roma and Turkish speakers.
The deterrence doctrine concerns not only the military dimension, but also the political and institutional shielding of Thrace as a region:
- democracy,
- European law,
- and substantial equality of all citizens, against external interventions.
- Alexandroupolis – Strategic port and energy hub
Alexandroupolis is perhaps the point that most irritates Ankara at the moment.
The reason;
- It is a strategic hub for the transport of NATO forces and equipment to the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
- It is an energy gateway, with a floating LNG station and connections to the mainland.
- It limits the importance of the Turkish Straits as the "only" route.
That is why Turkish officials speak of a "threat from Alexandroupolis" and imply that the region is "turning against Turkey."
The Greek doctrine, on the contrary, sees Alexandroupolis as a guarantee of security, with a clear western orientation.
Rhetoric vs reality
Ankara systematically attempts to present:
- Greece as "under siege"
- and herself as a "victim of Western plans"
This image, however, clashes with some simple realities:
- The borders in the Aegean, Thrace and the Eastern Mediterranean result from international treaties that Turkey itself has signed.
- Greece does not threaten Turkey's territorial integrity. On the contrary, Turkey maintains a casus belli for the expansion of Greek territorial waters.
- The presence of allied forces on Greek territory, such as in Alexandroupolis, is based on bilateral agreements and within the framework of NATO.
The new defense doctrine does not "invent" anything new; it systematizes what Greece has already been implementing for years:
to rely on international law, alliances and determination to defend its rights.
Stabilizing factor or spark of escalation?
The big question is whether the Dendias doctrine will work:
- as a stabilizing factor, which sets clear lines and prevents adventures,
ή - as a pretext for further escalation, with Ankara escalating rhetoric and provocations.
The answer will be given not on the panels of Turkish channels, but:
- in diplomatic contacts,
- in the movements of the fleet and air force,
- and the stance that European and NATO capitals will take towards any new action.
For now, Greece is sending a clear message:
She claims nothing from anyone, but she gives nothing of what belongs to her.
From the journalistic team of Greek Radio FL
photo mfk, https://pixabay.com
