Blog

We are living through a period that is rightly characterized as historic. The terrifying changes in power relations and the increase in global antagonisms will determine the course of humanity for the next many decades. The complexity of modern planetary politics, combined with the unprecedented interdependence of all regions of the planet, leave no room for constants. The great turning points of History, after all, are always accompanied by events that refute certainties and illusions.

Today, the upheavals taking place in the international system make the well-known theories about the linearity of History ('Fukuyama'-type nonsense'), which had prevailed in recent decades in the West, look like a joke.

The war in Ukraine acted as an accelerator of a process of redistribution of power, which had begun at least a decade ago. In this context, it was evident from the beginning that part of the West was trying to weaken Russia, through a war of attrition that would exhaust it. At the same time, the latter, with the start of the military operation, tried on the one hand to prevent its encirclement and on the other hand to increase its geopolitical footprint.

The Ukrainian front, however, is not the only one where modern challenges are exhausted. In the new world that is being created, new emerging powers are redefining their position and trying to radically change the rules of the international 'game'.

The pioneer in this effort is China. A unique case in the world, a hybrid state entity, which exploits its strategic advantages and the international situation, seeking a planetary role. And indeed, not only as a leading player in trade, where it strengthens its position with overambitious projects such as the "Silk Road", but even with its strong international military presence. A typical example is its participation in more than 20 peacekeeping missions through the UN in recent years, with more than 40.000 military personnel available.

Its enormous mineral wealth, combined with the exploitation of wealth-producing sources in other parts of the world, such as Africa, Central Asia and South America, allow it relative autonomy or even relationships of dependence with Western countries, in sectors where it has the upper hand.

China's attempt to openly challenge American primacy is creating an explosive climate. The Anglo-Saxon world is, of course, taking its measures (see AUKUS), but the competition is so great that it will create new crises.

Indicative of the concern and the magnitude of the competition between the West and the Asian dragon is the statement of former US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger at a McCain Institute forum in 2021, where he specifically stated that “tensions between the US and China threaten the entire planet and could lead to an unprecedented conflict between the two military and technological giants.” It is noteworthy that China’s current advantages were not even possessed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War!

Simply put, China's global role is constantly evolving and is now seen by the US as the greatest threat. The prospect of a future where this new global power could eclipse US dominance could potentially bring extreme reactions.

The situation brings to mind the so-called "Thucydides trap", a term coined by Graham Allison for the case where a strong dominant power perceives the rise of another as a threat and is inevitably led into conflict with it. In correspondence with the Peloponnesian War, the cause of which was the growing power of Athens, which worried and pushed the Lacedaemonians into war.

These are the facts that seem to be leading the Trump administration to create conditions for understanding with the Russian side. In the historic Trump-Putin meeting, with the unprecedented images, which we have never seen in US-Russian or US-Soviet relations, the great turn of the superpower was clearly visible.

Of course, this is nothing new in the history of international politics. Very recently, in the late 1960s, the US, having perceived the conflicting tendency between the Russians and the Chinese – which has profound geopolitical and historical reasons – approached China, so that only one front would remain open. The initiative and coordination of the effort belonged to President Nixon and the then National Security Advisor Kissinger, who acted under extreme secrecy, bypassing even the State Department due to the short-sighted perceptions prevailing there. The US position was strengthened by achieving a drastic change in the balance of power.

We may be witnessing a reverse "Nixon" move today. A move that President Trump is trying to pass by projecting his good intentions and a rhetoric of a peaceful settlement for the benefit of all, but without leaving any room for questioning the power of the United States, which always gives it an advantage in maneuvering. The intense symbolism of the flight of a bomber (one of the ones that hit Iran) and ultra-modern fighters of the American air force over the head of the Russian President is characteristic.

The general conditions are also leading the US to create new security subsystems, with strong and determined allies at the center, which will relieve it of the need for a presence everywhere. This also concerns Greece, since the conjuncture is suitable for the formation of a new security architecture in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East.

The attempt to connect India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Republic of Cyprus and Greece is part of this plan, in a clearly competitive move in terms of energy plans and the creation of new trade routes, against the "dragon" of Asia.

Israel's cooperation with the powerful Arab countries also falls within the same framework, something that strengthens Israel, but also Western interests, at the expense of the East. Here lies the explanation for the not-so-coincidental event of the Hamas attack in 2023, just a few weeks before the formalization of the Abraham Accords, when the new crisis in Palestine began and the human tragedy that continues to take place in the region to this day.

The field, however, in which events will prove decisive for the region is, in the writer's opinion, the territory of Syria. There, the role of Turkey will also be decided, about which Hakan Fidan has recently shown extreme concern, especially with regard to the movements of the Kurds and their continued reinforcement by the West. There, the presence of Russia in the Mediterranean will also be decided, although it is most likely that this has already been agreed upon in the negotiations of the 'Great Powers'.

In analyzing the events, I think it is unnecessary to refer to the European Union, which, in addition to being the political-geopolitical dwarf it always was, is now also becoming a weak link in the economic field. That is why in the negotiations between its officials and Donald Trump, every possible scenario was a scenario of defeat.

And here, now, we come to the role that is foreseen for Hellenism. In the Eastern Mediterranean, there are two Greek states and the space they occupy must be perceived as a single one. Meanwhile, the broader presence of Hellenism on a social, cultural and religious level, both in the Eastern Mediterranean and in Africa and the Near East, offers enormous potential.

If Greece and Cyprus show the necessary determination and strengthen their alliances, since it is the fist that creates allies and not hesitation, then, and only then, will they be able to provide guarantees in the region. Only then will they become a crucial pillar in the new security architecture and in this way will they nullify Turkey's imperial plans.

The developments once again give Greece the opportunity to upgrade its role. The map in the region is being redrawn and we must be among the winners of the next day. It is no longer a matter of choice but of survival.

And yet, while the neighbor is moving on a collision course, appeasement and communication management are preferred here, which can only make things worse. The new challenges do not seem, unfortunately, capable of convincing the country's political personnel to prioritize security issues. A way has not yet been found to convince the "excellents" of the country that there is something above petty politics and career.

In the Greek political scene, there has been for many years a strange mixture of "left-right" approaches with a specific narrative on foreign policy issues, which raises reasonable questions due to a strange interpretation of the concept of national interest, followed by a strong desire for appeasement. Interspersed, in fact, with pseudoscientific, supposedly realistic, 'pragmatic' positions. Parties, politicians, "intellectuals" and well-known institutions persistently propose such a direction, inventing from time to time various loaded phrases such as, for example, "strategic composure" (a non-scientific term that creates confusion), claiming that in this way they are supposedly defending peace.

The chances, however, of avoiding crisis and war increase when you show determination, not when you retreat. Because with continuous retreat, there comes a moment when the space you leave to the invader narrows yours so much that you no longer have any other choice but to conflict. Only this ultimately comes on more unfavorable terms. The historical examples are endless!

The constant reference to international law shows a deeper lack of understanding of the operating conditions of the international system. International Law alone cannot be imposed against attempts to revise it, as there can be no authority that exercises effective control over its implementation. The regulatory factors of international relations are the interests of states and the correlations of power.

What, therefore, prevails in the end is not International Law, but the law of the strong. For this reason, whoever wants to be with international legitimacy is not enough to declare it, but must also be able to impose it. Through a comprehensive strategy, within the framework of a national vision.

Today, when the fate of the countries of the region is being decided, Hellenism has one and only one choice... to assume its historical role. As befits a country with such a naval tradition and historical presence!