Blog

From Constantinople to the Mediterranean Sea, pirates, crusaders, and fighters demonstrated bravery and daring, and fought either for survival, or to avoid deprivation of freedom and ultimately to dominate.
There were personalities who remained in History, but were forgotten in our modern analyses, such as Barbarossa, the pirate who terrorized Europe, the reckless Emperor Charles V, the Knights of St. John, the last Crusaders, and the intelligent Christian admiral Don Juan of Austria. Conflicts such as the Siege of Malta (1565), the Battle of Cyprus (1570) and the Battle of Nafpaktos (1571), where the destruction of the Turkish fleet was finally achieved, remained in faint letters in history. However, these played a decisive role in subsequent geopolitical developments that even affect our modern life.

Returning to today, we note the continuous renewal, strengthening and modernization of the Turkish arsenal with emphasis on the Navy, but also the development of Turkish aeronautical forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, with the aim of challenging, as they have announced, the right of Hellenism given by the International Law of the Sea with regard to the determination of EEZs. Most seriously of all, we describe the growing threat that opens a new era from Turkish imperialism. The determination of EEZs in the wider maritime area has transformed Turkey into an expansionist, regional power.

Since no real evidence of an alliance of Western powers exists, we are often forced to rely on sterile, distorted, and biased historical analogy to substantiate our argument that the Mediterranean has been, is, and will be a place where conflicts arise. The historical analogies are cautious and we avoid making direct comparisons between the increasing and prolonged presence of the Turkish Navy and the actual strength of Western Naval Powers.

Besides, historical comparisons, when made to draw conclusions, are only appropriate when a) the general lessons (wisdom) are examined and b) when they are carried out in accordance with the proportions (other means, different circumstances, etc.).

In our modern era, since 2010, the geopolitical picture has changed radically with the discovery of oil and gas deposits in the Mediterranean. At that time, a Texas oil company, Noble Energy, discovered a huge natural gas deposit in the open sea in the Eastern Mediterranean, the so-called Leviathan Field, one of the largest discoveries of subsea resources in the world in the natural gas sector for over a decade. The same American Texas company later confirmed the existence of also significant natural resources in the open sea of ​​Cyprus near Leviathan, in the plot called Aphrodite.

Until recently, the political paralysis in the Middle East and the war in Syria prevented coastal states from actively exploring offshore gas and oil potential. But now things are changing, as American, Russian, British, French and Italian companies are flocking to this field to begin drilling operations, with the close protection of their respective national naval units. With the coming change, tensions between Israel and Lebanon, Hellenism and Turkey are escalating, while Russia, the EU with the US and Egypt are boldly participating in these tensions, for their own interests.

What is clear at this point, after about eight years of offshore exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean, is that the region is teeming with hydrocarbons. For coastal states, developing their own natural gas resources would be a literal “gift from God.” All coastal countries face high debts, while the Syrian war, the internal political stalemate in Lebanon, Turkey’s distrust of its allies, and the instability due to the Arab Spring have frozen offshore energy exploration until now.

The months of January and February 2018 can be characterized as months of escalation for Greek-Turkish relations. This escalation would seem even more intense if we did not have the Skopje issue as a top priority. We see Turkey threatening with inelegant actions in the Aegean and at the same time extending the irregular NAVTEX in the area of ​​the Cypriot EEZ, where it should be noted that the Inter-Allied exercise Iniochos 2018 will be held on the same dates. Also, the “adventure” codenamed “Olive Branch” in Afrin does not seem to have a happy outcome and thus Turkey is sending a triple message: First to Greece and Cyprus. The message to Hellenism is clear.

The Greek and Cypriot EEZs will not be allowed by Turkey to "unite" and will correct with their brute force the historical and geographical mistake that has been committed against them, as they claim. Especially since research has shown that there is natural wealth of greater value than what we initially suspected existed.

Secondly, it sends a message to the US and the EU. In the US, it reminds us that Turkey is a separate "player" in the region and that plans regarding some form of Kurdistan and the co-exploitation of hydrocarbons without Turkey's participation in "sharing the pie" are impossible. In the EU, it reminds us that a possible Syrian-Turkish war will bring the issue of refugee flows back to the agenda (Turkey hosts 3,5 million Syrian refugees). It knows very well that Germany's political system was destabilized mainly due to Merkel's weakening due to the refugee issue. Third and most dangerous, Turkey threatens to turn the NATO alliance in its Southeastern wing into a "holocaust" if its interests in Syria are not satisfied. Erdogan is now forced to go with the flow of the MHP as the elections approach (2019). Turkey is at war and needs an external agenda that will fanaticize the Turkish people and rally them to his side.

On the other hand, the West cannot continue to be blackmailed by Turkey. The only positive thing for Greece and Cyprus is that the EU has now realized that Hellenism is the "saddle" that the Turks are beating, wanting to hurt the EU. The alarmism is always negative in international relations as it increases the suspicion of the actors. However, it is even more negative when it touches reality, to the extent of identification. The further escalation of Turkish actions in the Aegean and Cyprus is expected and all scenarios are open. Recently, foreign research has expressed concern about Greek-Turkish relations and their deterioration, citing the Greek-Turkish conflict as the cause of a wider conflict.

What should guide our National Strategy are the lessons of Thucydides. He said: “There will be other ways and means that no one can foresee today, since war is certainly not one of those issues that follows a fixed pattern. On the contrary, it usually follows its own terms, which is why we must all adapt ourselves to the changing environment.” In the new, evolving security environment, we should not expect an understanding of the International Law of the Sea to resolve the differences that arise from the complex interactions of border disputes and the inherent conflicts that are continuous. As Thucydides pointed out 2 millennia ago and as is unfortunately reinforced by the events of the military conflicts that have erupted in the geopolitical space of Eurasia and especially the Mediterranean Sea, which is a vital space for Hellenism, the future is unpredictable and rather violent.

In other words, Hellenism must stand on two axes. The first is the immediate modernization of our aging fleet and the reinforcement of our Navy with new reliable units so that it can maintain its geostrategic lungs (Aegean and Cyprus) and at the same time demonstrate to the West that the era of Suleiman and the historical problems of his later era (Eastern Question, issue of the "Great Sick Man", etc.) may not be the same, but geography and political realism prove to be parameters resistant to time.

Greece must strengthen its deterrent power at the level of crisis management by replacing the appeasement policy, getting rid of the phobic syndrome towards Turkey, rejecting the myths about "Greek-Turkish friendship" and remaining a reliable ally of the West, at a strategic level without expansionist ambitions towards other countries, with respect for the International Law of the Sea, by projecting the country as a force for stability in a very critical region, by establishing the country as an honest mediator and, ultimately, a regional power that will contribute to cooperation and stability.

No one seeks war, but conflict, disputes and crises remain inherent features of international politics. Greece must adapt to the character of its region. Institutions, economic conditions, living standards, society itself change. Geography, never.

*Rear Admiral (retd) Dimitrios N. Tsailas PN
Alexandros Drivas “TORENE-IDIS Coordinator, member of the ELISME Maritime Strategy Group”