The Greek press predicts 'who supports who' in a potential conflict with Türkiye! - Milliyet

Milliyet AppUygulamayı AçWebWeb'de Devam Et ENThe Greek press predicts 'who supports who' in a potential conflict with Türkiye!NewsThe Greek Press Predicts 'Who Supports Who' İn A Potential Conflict With Türkiye!The Greek press predicts 'who supports who' in a potential conflict with Türkiye!27.08.2026 - 10:35 | Last Updated: 27.08.2026 - 10:35

MİLLİYET.COM.TR /The latest developments betweenTürkiyeand Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean have once again been discussed in the Athens press.

In a noteworthy analysis published on LamiaFM, a wide range of topics were addressed—from how Israel, the U.S., Russia, NATO, and the European Union might position themselves in the event of a potential military conflict between the two countries, to France’s defense commitment to Athens, and the 12-nautical-mile dispute.

The analysis argued that, from Greece’s perspective, the main issue is not merely winning a potential war, but simultaneously maintaining both the military capacity to deter the likelihood of conflict and a strong diplomatic stance.

While it was assessed that, due to Türkiye’s regional military influence, extensive operational capacity, and position within NATO, a potential conflict would not be limited to just the two countries, the strategy proposed for Athens also drew attention.

According to LamiaFM’s scenario, in a potential conflict, international actors’ priority would be their own national interests.

The analysis noted that Israel, which has strategic ties with Greece, could provide Athens with intelligence sharing and technological support, as well as exert pressure on Türkiye; however, it is not expected to engage in direct military intervention in the Aegean.

‘PRESSURE FROM THE U.S. FOR A CEASEFIRE’

It was statedthat the U.S. is expected to assume the role of a “firefighter” in the first hours of the conflict. It was suggested that Washington would focus particularly on preserving the integrity of NATO’s southeastern flank within the first 24–48 hours and would exert intense diplomatic pressure on the parties to agree to a ceasefire.

The analysis stated, “Any conflict that may arise between Türkiye and Greece would be extremely sensitive for NATO. This is because a direct confrontation between the two countries would mean a serious military and political crisis on the Alliance’s southeastern flank.”

A different picture was painted for Russia. It was argued that Moscow would remain neutral but would seek to benefit strategically from a conflict within NATO and would not provide direct support to Greece.

One of the most striking assessments in the analysis concerned NATO. LamiaFM argued that NATO would be “paralyzed” in the face of an armed conflict between two of its members, asserting that the Alliance’s Article 5 mechanism would be practically ineffective in such a scenario. It was noted that NATO would first call on the parties to engage in negotiations and a ceasefire.

The analysis stated, “The fundamental impasse here is made even more evident by Türkiye’s strategic position within NATO. Türkiye’s influence on the Alliance’s southeastern flank and its military capabilities in the region could turn a potential Turkish-Greek conflict into an extremely costly crisis —not only from Athens’ perspective but also in terms of NATO’s own internal balance,” the analysis stated.

The analysis identified the defense agreement signed with France as Greece’s biggest trump card against Ankara.

According to LamiaFM, Article 2 of the agreement provides for mutual assistance in the event of an armed attack against Greece’s mainland, islands, or territorial waters, and commits Paris to providing military support when necessary.

However, the analysis also made a critical distinction: This guarantee is limited to national territory. It was argued that a dispute in the exclusive economic zone or continental shelf—beyond territorial waters—would not automatically trigger French military intervention.

“This distinction is particularly important because the disputes between Türkiye and Greece are shaped not only by land or island security but also by maritime zones of jurisdiction,” the analysis noted.

The possibility of Greece extending its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles was also given significant attention in the analysis.

While LamiaFM argued that Athens has the right to expand to 12 nautical miles under international maritime law, it contended that such a step carries a serious risk of conflict due to the “casus belli” Turkey has declared in the past.

According to the analysis, a comprehensive 12-mile expansion could provide Greece with significant advantages in terms of expanding its sphere of sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction. However, it was claimed that this could lead to scenarios such as a military response from Türkiye or even the imposition of a naval blockade.

Consequently, the analysis addressed the 12-mile issue not merely as a legal matter but as an extremely high-risk threshold that could prompt a military and political response from Türkiye.

The maritime jurisdiction areas of Greece and Egypt, as well as the Crete-Cyprus undersea power cable project, were also addressed as separate topics in the analysis.

LamiaFM argued that the agreements with Egypt and the Crete-Cyprus connection are important for securing the region’s energy infrastructure. In contrast, it was suggested that the activities of Türkiye’s research vessels in the region could create a new source of tension and that Cairo might exert diplomatic pressure to prevent an escalation of maritime tensions.

The potential occupation of Greek islands in the event of a conflict was also discussed. According to the analysis, a large-scale occupation operation targeting major inhabited islands would be extremely difficult from an operational standpoint.

The analysis states, “The real risk lies in creating a ‘fait accompli’ by seizing uninhabited small islets or rocky outcrops. This would force Athens to the negotiating table. It was claimed that “Türkiye’s military capacity is a source of concern in and of itself for Greece. Rather than a large-scale invasion scenario, even a limited military move could quickly escalate into a political crisis.”

At the conclusion of the analysis, a clear strategic recommendation regarding Türkiye was presented to Greece. According to LamiaFM, Athens’ shift toward a harsh and vocal rhetoric could weaken its diplomatic advantage stemming from a defensive position grounded in international law .

Instead, it was argued that a “quiet power” strategy should be adopted. This strategy is based on high operational deterrence on the ground and an uncompromising stance in the diplomatic arena. The analysis particularly emphasized that Greece needs to strengthen its deterrence with military assets such as Rafale fighter jets and Belharra frigates.

However, according to analysts, the key point is this: Athens’ deterrence calculus is based on an equation that must take into account Türkiye’s military strength and the regional consequences of a potential conflict. The expectation that the U.S. will intervene in the early hours, the possibility of NATO becoming gridlocked, and the limits of France’s defense commitments are all presented as components of this delicate equation.