In today's extremely volatile international scene, geopolitical upheavals and large-scale conflicts are testing the balance of power in Europe and the world. To better understand the developments, the strategic dimension of the war in Ukraine, NATO-Russia relations, and Greece's security in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean regions, we spoke with Lieutenant General (retd) Ioannis Baltzoi.
Mr. Baltzoi, President of the Hellenic Institute for Strategic Studies (ELISME), has extensive experience in military and diplomatic missions, both domestically and internationally. He served in high-level positions in Thrace, the Aegean and abroad, including as EU Observer during the Bosnian War, ECMM Operations Officer in Bosnia and Croatia, Aide to the President of the Republic, Kostis Stephanopoulos, and Defense Attaché to Israel during the 2nd Palestinian Intifada. He is a graduate of the Hellenic Air Force Academy, the Hellenic War College, the National Defense Academy, and the US Tactical Intelligence Schools, while he holds a Master's Degree (M.Sc) in Geopolitical Analysis from the National University of Athens.
In the discussion with Corina Triantafyllou and Atticatimes, he focuses on critical issues: the war in Ukraine and its prospects, the escalation or possible compromise in NATO-Russia relations, the Turkish strategy towards Greece, the contemporary security challenges in the region and the necessity of strengthening our country's deterrence capacity. He presents analytical and evidence-based assessments of what the geopolitical turmoil means for Greece and Europe, as well as the strategic choices that must be made for the survival and security of the Greek state.
How do you assess the development of the war in Ukraine? Is there a realistic ending scenario or are we heading for a Korean-style “frozen war”, and what does this mean for Greece and European security?
Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine, despite initial predictions, has continued for about four years. Initially, Trump's initial 28-point plan created hopes that it would move forward, as happened with the war in Gaza. However, in this case, in the war in Ukraine there are conflicting interests on both sides of the Atlantic, which do not allow this, using the useful and manipulable President Zelensky to continue the war. In Europe, the so-called "War Party" even by Trump, consisting of Germany, the UK, France, Poland, the Baltic countries, etc., wants the war to continue for the following reasons: To rally and intimidate their people, to allocate huge funds for defense without internal reactions, to continue the narrative of Russia's attack on Europe, which ensures the political survival of their leaders and the restoration of their destroyed economy with the reactivation of the defense industries (due to the "imminent war"), especially of the dominant European states. In the US, there are two strong tendencies, one opposing the other. One tendency supports the need for an American-Russian agreement and peace, with the need to reach a comprehensive agreement in the form of spheres of influence between the US and Russia, led by Vice President Vance. The other trend expressed by both the neoconservative deep state and the Western European globalists was openly expressed by Foreign Minister Rubio, who argues that admitting defeat in Ukraine would mean admitting defeat for the entire West, and therefore the United States, which must be avoided. Thus, developments show an ominous prospect of the war, with its continuation until Russia occupies the rest of Donetsk and, even worse, advances to Odessa. The solution, the Russians claim, will be given on the ground by military means and not by diplomatic ones.
If Donald Trump redefines US support for Ukraine, how do you think the NATO-Russia balance will change?
Will it increase the risk of a wider European war or lead to a forced compromise?
The NATO-Russia balance is already at its worst. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte informed the Alliance's foreign ministers of the decision to dissolve the NATO-Russia Council, as announced by Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski, at a press conference. If President Trump changes his decision (he has now stopped all support for Ukraine) and continues the policy of his predecessor, then the developments will be unpleasant. It is estimated that this policy will lead us to further escalation and there is the risk of a nuclear war, since in its Strategic Doctrine Russia foresees the use of nuclear weapons if its territory is threatened. It is estimated that Trump will not change his decisions, since many issues have been discussed and decided in Alaska, such as cooperation in many areas, after the end of the war, such as the joint exploitation of the natural resources of the Arctic and the use of the Arctic Northern Sea Route with the necessary assistance of Russian icebreakers, which only Russia has to such an extent and capabilities (nuclear icebreakers). Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, Russia has won the war and the West has lost. And Europe, unfortunately, again, is in embarrassment and disrespect, absent from international events.
Moscow appears to be pursuing a long-term strategy of attrition of the West.
What do you think is the real "strategic end state" that Russia is seeking?
Is it content with territorial gains or is it seeking broader geopolitical upheaval?
The war of attrition is the result that the West sought with the war in Ukraine. US strategists sought this war, which began with the events on Maidan Square in Kiev in 2014 and the presence of Ms. Victoria Nuland, US Deputy Secretary of State, among the protesters, with the aim of weakening Russia, so that they could then deal with the great and real adversary and danger posed by the tremendous economic and military development of China, which will seek to include Taiwan in Chinese territory. This plan did not succeed, due to Russia's ability to transform its economy into a war economy (a legacy of the Soviet era) and despite the unique support of the West for Ukraine, unprecedented in world history, the West was unable to help Ukraine. Thus, the West "ran out" of military assistance possibilities to Ukraine, having used up all its reserves. On the contrary, Russia was able to support its troops militarily with weapons, ammunition and, most importantly, with human resources, while Ukraine is at a disadvantage, especially in personnel. It seems that Russia wants to reach Odessa, the Russian city Putin says, and to reconstitute in the area east of the Dnieper, the Nova Rusiyia (New Russia) of Catherine the Great, a major geopolitical development.
Turkey has been pursuing an increasingly revisionist, aggressive policy towards Greece in recent years — from casus belli to daily overflights and challenges to our sovereign rights. How much longer can we talk about “diplomacy” when Ankara systematically invests in military pressure? Is it possible that the Greek appeasement strategy is not working and it is time for a tactic with more deterrent power?
The policy of appeasement of our homeland for decades has failed, as it has historically proven to be a failure. The continued appeasement is perceived as weakness by Turkey, which during the era of the "Erdogan regime" has changed, due to its neo-Ottoman visions, into a dangerous, revisionist, aggressive force, which not only plots but actually does so, of our national and sovereign rights. With a tactic of military and diplomatic coercion and interpreting International Law "other Turks", violating and raping it, it constantly tries to force Greece into retreats and concessions. To deal with Turkey, strong deterrence is required, consisting of: Political Will, Military Power and clear and reliable Red Lines. And for deterrence to be realized, according to Clausewitz, the "Strange Trinity" must operate: Government, Army, People united. Yes, the time has finally come.
In an international landscape dominated by proxy wars, hybrid threats, artificial intelligence and drones, what do you consider to be the top challenges for Greek defense in the next decade?
And what are the mistakes we should strategically avoid?
The answer has many components. I would say in summary that the top challenges are related to our mentality to face the aforementioned modern threats. I mean that with the demographic issue and the immigration issue, Greece has no prospect of survival. Studies show that the Greek nation is gradually fading away in a few decades. If the birth rate does not exceed 2,1 children for each couple, then we are doomed to aging, enslavement and extinction. On the other hand, new groups of immigrants incompatible with our culture and religion will dominate the space and at some point will take absolute control. Also, with regard to our Armed Forces, at some point we will have to look seriously and responsibly at the issue of military service, as well as the issue of our officers who resign or do not choose a military career. If we do not become Israel, in matters of defense and security, then the developments will be tragic. The term of service should be at least 18 months, for men and women to serve (women less than men) and to enlist from the age of 18. We already have over 45.000 deserters, who come, if they come, at an advanced age and serve, if they serve in auxiliary specialties, for 2-3 months. As for immigration, ELISME has prepared a study on dealing with immigration and has delivered it to the Ministry of Defense. And let me mention two examples of what some countries have now begun to implement. Japan in many areas refuses to bury Muslims, but to burn them, since 99% of Japanese are cremated, which Muslims refuse and leave. And secondly, a recent court decision in Germany banned the use of Muslim clothing by female judges, such as the Hijab, Chador, Abaya, etc. I believe that all of the above, if not implemented, are strategic mistakes. As far as military equipment is concerned, a serious effort is being made to keep up with new developments and I believe that we are responding to a large extent, which is constantly increasing.
source:
