In recent years, Greece’s foreign policy has been marked by inconsistency, reversals, and a lack of strategic direction. Greece’s backtracking, strategic drift, and contradictions are weakening its ability to protect national interests and Hellenism abroad.
Successive governments have backtracked on core issues, including the Prespa Agreement, which continues to be violated without a firm Greek response.
Maritime concessions to Italy were made without reciprocal gains, while Turkey’s provocations in the Aegean and Cyprus go largely unchallenged despite repeated diplomatic gestures from Athens.
The Greek state has also failed to defend Hellenic communities in Albania, Ukraine, Syria, and Egypt, where minority rights and Orthodox heritage are under threat. Strategic opportunities in Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean have been squandered, leaving Greece sidelined in a region where its historical and cultural influence should be central.
Rather than proactively shaping its regional environment, Greece has become reactive, overly reliant on EU mechanisms, and hesitant to define or defend national red lines.
A serious foreign policy realignment is needed—one that prioritises consistency, asserts Greece’s role as a regional power, and defends Hellenism wherever it is under threat. Without this shift, Greece risks further geopolitical decline and loss of influence in areas of historical and strategic importance.
How successive Greek governments have undermined Hellenism
From Firm Positions to Ambiguous Concessions
Successive Greek governments, both conservative and centre-left, have gradually shifted from previously firm national positions to a more conciliatory and reactive approach. The Prespa Agreement is a case in point: while initially opposed by large segments of the population and the then-opposition New Democracy party, once in power, the same party committed to its full implementation. Meanwhile, violations of the agreement—such as the use of “Macedonian” in international forums—have been met with little more than vague diplomatic appeals.
Likewise, in maritime affairs, the government’s agreement with Italy on EEZ delimitation marked a significant climbdown on fishing rights within six nautical miles—an area traditionally considered a red line. Rather than insisting on full reciprocity or raising the stakes diplomatically, Athens framed the agreement as a “model” for future negotiations, signalling a willingness to compromise without strategic return.
Cyprus and the Silence of the State
Greece’s long-standing role as a guarantor of the Republic of Cyprus has also been diluted. Turkey’s continued militarisation of the occupied north, capped by the construction of a “presidential palace” and Erdogan’s provocative visit, was met with near-total silence from Athens. Successive Greek governments have preferred to outsource Cyprus-related diplomacy to Brussels, weakening Hellenic coordination and diminishing the sense of shared national responsibility.
Northern Epirus and Albania: From Vigilance to Ambiguity
The backsliding is even more visible in Northern Epirus. Once a cause for bipartisan concern, the rights of the Greek minority in Albania have now largely disappeared from the national agenda. The case of Fredi Beleri, a democratically elected ethnic Greek mayor held in pre-trial detention, has elicited only weak statements from Athens, despite the fact that the violation of minority rights and property seizures continues unabated.
Turkey: Normalisation Without Guarantees
Perhaps most striking is the trend towards “normalisation” with Turkey, as seen in the Athens Declaration and repeated high-level meetings. While diplomatic channels must remain open, the absence of any tangible commitments from Ankara, combined with Greece’s unwillingness to challenge Turkish violations publicly—has created a perception of appeasement. The so-called “quiet diplomacy” has not curbed Turkish aggression in the Aegean or ended illegal overflights of Greek islands.
The Forgotten Diaspora and Orthodox Communities
Further afield, the Greek state’s detachment from Hellenic communities abroad has reached worrying levels. The Mariupol Greeks, victims of war and displacement, have received only symbolic gestures from Athens. Greek Orthodox communities in Syria and Egypt face threats to their survival—whether through jihadist violence or state encroachment—yet Greek diplomacy has remained almost entirely passive.
From Strategic Opportunity to Lost Influence
Greece’s hesitancy is particularly glaring in Libya and the Eastern Mediterranean. Despite natural opportunities to expand its influence, build alliances, and counter Turkish manoeuvres—especially following the Turkish-Libyan maritime MoU—Athens has failed to establish a lasting presence or coherent strategy. The limited outreach to General Haftar or the absence of follow-up on the Egypt-Greece EEZ agreement underscore this point.
Time for Strategic Realignment
What emerges from all this is a portrait of a foreign policy apparatus paralysed by caution and bereft of long-term vision. Whether due to fear of “provoking” neighbours, overreliance on the EU, or an unwillingness to define national red lines, Greece has systematically ceded ground—both diplomatically and symbolically.
To restore its position, Greece must reclaim its historic role as a regional actor—not through performative nationalism or reactive diplomacy, but through a consistent, value-driven strategy. This includes standing firm on minority rights, enforcing international agreements, investing in strategic alliances (particularly with Cyprus, Israel, Egypt, and India), and reasserting its voice in the Orthodox world.
The time for ambiguity has passed. If Greece continues to retreat, others will shape the region’s future—and Hellenism will pay the price.
