Hello ladies and gentlemen, Turkey will be troubling us a lot in this show,
we have the pleasure of having a calm guest in Militaire.gr, professor Kostas Lavdas.
Mr Lavdas, thank you for this interview.
As I said, because you are both a calm and realistic person, I would like to get a general opinion from you because too many things have happened the past few days
and maybe the too much information has confused people
so where are we now regarding Turkey? Should we expect something worse?
This is an unusual time we live in, Turkey's revisionist expansionary policy is in full effect
so we can't reach conclusions after considering our past difficult times with Turkey
for two reasons;
the international and regional environment is totally different
I don't know if I'm a calm and realistic person, but because I've always been interested in knowing the full picture
I'm both interested and worried by the fact that there has been a many-factors' development that cause uncertainty
the US tend to walk away from our region
an unpredicted presidency in the US
Britain leaving Europe, which was one of the two biggest forces in the EU,
and the only country besides France that had a permanent position in the Security Council
Russia, although is having economical issues, is still trying to find cracks in the west
to use them in order to reach their goal to break the Euro-Atlantic bond
and if you consider what is happening in the Arab world especially after Arab Spring
and the changes that we are keeping up with
and if you consider the changes inside Turkey
and the turn after 2016
we can safely say that Turkey has been a revisionist force for decades.
However, the new Ottoman movement
shouldn't be taken as a legitimation to some Erdogan's party supporters
it's more than that.
Behind it there is a strategy that supports a part of Turkey's establishment
and Turkey's economy
and reaches the audience of muslim radicalisationed networks
in the whole planet.
When Aghia Sofia was turned into a mosque, we saw airings from Pakistan
to areas in north Africa supporting Turkey
and we shouldn't take it as something not important,
because the muslim networks tend to radicalize and turn into politics tools.
So there is a change in Turkey's revisionist strategy which is even more dangerous.
And since it's about a big portion of Turkey,
from Syria to Libya and from countries like Somalia where Turkey has bases, to Algeria
which Turkey is trying to befriend...
These developments makes it difficult for us to prevent conservatism
tell if our experience with Turkey will be repeated or not.
It is clear that this constant exchange of airings and dialogues
and this aggressiveness
could be repeated but should not distract us from the longterm developments.
And the longterm developements are is that the Turkish words and actions are constantly being more and more
and they openly claim that there are many issues with Greece that we have to talk about.
Turkey's official government says it, not just journalists
the government itself says that the continental shelf is not our only issue.
It's not just the continental shelf, the EEZ and the territorial sea
which I heard in Athens recently,
there are issues with minorities, and that's the muslim one which is already called Turkish in Thrace
and I should note that it would be tragic to forget about Thrace...
there are sovereignty issues
politics issue regarding the FIR
issues about how Greece is presented as a country that can make choices
like the one in Egypt, without having to inform other countries,
it's a country that according to Turkey has already started their Finnishization
so there are more issues that we understand.
So it's very difficult to find a solution that will satisfy Turkey's revisionism
and will guarantee viable peace
as that's what we want from Turkey.
And that solution, to answer your question,
could only be implemented after many painful years
of diplomacy
and constant increase of the country's military force.
I'm not saying this is something pleasant
for Greece, which is a country that went through difficult times in the last 10 years and has been trying to stand on their feet
and more spenings on military and equipment is the last thing we need.
However, I'm afraid that we live through a time of regional and international changes
and if we don't boost our prevention force,
it will be very difficult to reach viable peace with Turkey.
It would be dangerous to wait for the US, France or some naive would say Russia to help us
and wait for them to help us overcome another crisis.
It would be a mistake and strategically catastrophic
because that would mean that we do not have a longterm strategy to deal with Turkey's provocation
in NATO whose leader, the US, is bordeline willing to intervene
and give NATO a direction, this is something that is missing from NATO
so Macron was right to say that NATO is brain dead.
I would like to stand on the word strategy...
Hasn't this been Erdogan's strategy for at least 20 years?
Our governments' fault was that we hadn't realised it before
and now we have reached a dead end?
I think that two things happened, first Greece was blinded by Turkey's attempt to enter the EU
and that is important because that's where a few tactics were based
that had to do with how Turkey's common people's opinions will be formed
as well as Turkey's economy and how Turkey's culture will change
I heard mr Borrell's advisor talk about earthquake diplomacy
as if it was important then, it wasn't actually,
although people based their political careers based on that
so the first part of the answer is that many people were blinded by Turkey's Europeanization
and made them lose focus from the important issues.
Greece has accepted the fact that there was an issue with Turkey that could be talked about regarding the continental shelf and the EEZ since 1973-1974.
And there have been conversations about the territorial sea as well, about expanding ours, and how to do it etc...
But believing in Turkey's Europeanization
no matter each person's terms
left other issues neglected, like alliance issues
issues about actively being a part of NATO
about relations with the US, France, Britain, countries like Israel etc.
The second part is that of course, the strategy is a difficult term
but I would say that Turkey's basic strategy is doubting agreements,
facts, and attempts to conquer fait accompli.
Again, Athens, was late to realise it and was in denial.
Because it was in the political class and the analysers best interests, that were part of a series of European programmes
regarding the need to expand the EU
it was also good for the common opinion to ignore what was happening right next to us
and the second part has to do with an uncertain strategy that
gradually is being developed into a strategy of doubting rules, agreements
and of course we saw it more clearly after 2016
as a clearly officially revisionist version
so since 2016, nobody has the right to be so blind against Turkey.
Before that, nobody could say they are a specialist and be blind to it.
Of course, it wasn't so clear,
Greece chose to be delusional
which is exactly what we're paying for now, as we have to make choices very fast
because what you described is a dilemma of ours which was made by Turkey for us
it's a dilemma cause by Turkey's policy
and that's a win for Turkey
and the dilemma is, you either talk about what they want you to talk about, or there's a war.
That's Turkey's win against us, that we reached that point, it's not geography's fault
but a misunderstanding of what you called Turkey's strategy and I don't disagree with,
but I'm saying that its stages and way of interpretation is complicated
and it's clear that there still are some voices inside of Turkey
like Davutoglu, whose political and academic status is known,
who says that they should lay back on the  power projection because it might end in a war crisis.
Davutoglu didn't use to say the same things a few years ago
but now he sees that if a war happens, Erdogan will bond allies together
so he will lead a delirium of nationalism
a muslim nationalism
to the whole Turkish community and system.
So there are some not so powerful voices in Turkey that are now trying, probably due to the realisation that their best interests now can be fed
and will be harmed in the future
so a collision can be prevented,  which Erdogan will be the only one to benefit from.
Whether or not Turkey will be benefited later on is another conversation, now we have to talk about the economic aspect.
Turkey will lose, economically, even more than us.
But that's another conversation.
Erdogan built a new army, during the last 20 years
which he is using as diplomatic pressure
because there hadn't been an economical crisis in Turkey until now,
and even now, they are pressuring us strategically so we can sit and negotiate.
Do you think that he prefers the two countries sit and talk or is Hague one of his options?
I think Erdogan wants a win without a war and if someone thinks of the other country's options and wishes
I think that would be the first one.
Of course, there are more. It is clear that an intervention could be a possible scenario for Turkey but nobody can be sure,
but what would a win without war mean for Turkey?
It means that Greece wouldn't have the arguments that we use now
and these arguments are either about the international law
or self-defense, about the islands in the Aegean,
and when we no longer have these arguments, we will sit and talk about their agenda.
If that happens and is accepted by Greece, which is an interesting conversation,
then Turkey will be able, after they will have managed to browbeat us
to make a series of agreements most of which will be in Turkey's favor
and of course, Greece will be isolated from their allies like France,
which invest on Greece's ability to prevent Turkey's force.
This is what Turkey wants and it should be looked into especially when it comes to our allies
we all want a successful negotiation
no sane person can say that Germany's chairmanship which also Europe's
is wrong to intervene. They are right to do so, it's Europe's duty and we wait for the results.
The thing is that longterm,
what will happen to Greece's currency once we accept to sit and negotiate with an open agenda
and what will that mean not to Germany's presidency that will rightfully say that it's a success of theirs,
but it won't be the same for countries like Israel, France, Egypt and European countries that for other reasons want a convergence
like Austria, Poland with some terms and other countries
For them, it will mean that we are an unreliable country.
That will also be a win without war for Turkey.
In my opinion, that is Turkey's main goal,
and of course they are risking actual war happening, which I don't think the pursue
But Erdogan prefers war than having to leave this fantasy of Ottomanism
or having an actual conversation with Greece, which will mean Turkey's disarmament
from militaristic and nationalist arguments.
So it would be very difficult to imagine, under the circumstances known, after the exploratory contacts,
which is something that has been proved by the past that is not that significant,
it's very difficult to imagine with the now government in Turkey, the US, the mix of forces in the EU
and with this vacillation in Greece about whether we want longterm allies or just some deus ex machina to prevent crisis for us from time to time,
...having viable peace with our neighbor.
The deus ex machina seems to be France.
Do you think we were wrong to not follow France's way
which seemed to have more military action than Germany's...
France had suggested a defence agreement outside of NATO
so was it a mistake of ours that we didn't have such an active naval presence with France in june when the agreement could be signed?
...and we waited for Germany's initiative...?
The answer is yes.
Of course we were wrong, there is no doubt.
Two years ago, when the conversations about the Prespas agreement were taking place,
I had written that because nothing is certain about Europe's future
apart from the fact that it will not fall apart anytime soon,
however Europe's future is uncertain especially after Brexit.
so ever since I have been writing that there needs to be a convergence with France when it comes to Europe's future for example, beware of the 'auto-pilot' mode with expansions, like Albania, North Macedonia
and all these fairytales that constant expansions help with stability and lead to the Europeanisation of these countries...
And I have also been writing that France has some interests in our area
and even if we ignore our relations, which are significant but let's ignore them for the sake of the argument,
France is greatly interested in Turkey not taking over the Mediterranean.
So, I have been saying that there needs to be convergence with France about the EU,
which cannot be expanded forever, it needs to be deeper if we do want to invest in it,
and when it comes to the Mediterranean and Greece's defence.
That's why I told you that the answer is yes. There has been uncertainty from Greece along with the fact
that people's attention was drawn by made-up enemies and not the problem itself
and that it was due to the fact that we had to give the retired back pay...
That was sad...
A funny excuse.
Exactly, which was unfair to the community, the people have the right to know, instead of the classes fighting each other...
But the main point is that it was a mistake,
we should encourage ms Merkel and the German presidency to do their job
and we have every reason to thank them for it
but it was a mistake to think that something like that could prevent Turkey's force in our area.
It is clear that Turkey is annoyed by France
and it is also clear that when negotiations between Britain and the EU are over,
and gradually a new era begins, during the first couple years, the British-French defense cooperation will be developed.
It is clear that such plans will be developed when France won't have to represent Europe
so this Europe-France issue has a future, due to France's defense abilities
and their ability to reach their goals using their force in many areas of the planet,
and Britain will recover their pace.
For many reasons, we are interested in being in sync with France
not as a deus ex machina
because in that way, we also thought the US presidency, which was on the phone
and even stayed awake sometimes, exactly the opposite of what they are doing now...
Now we don't even know if they will pick up the phone...
Exaclty.
So, for a country that respects itself, a deus ex machina is wrong
and an longterm agreement that includes Europe
and the Mediterranean
with a country like France, there is a bright future.
Since you mentioned Turkey's economical state, an it is crumbling and they do have their issues,
They do, but we have been hearing that for years.
On the other hand, common people are mad at the Europeans.
How do these things link?
There is a theory, I don't know if it's based, you will tell me,
that Erdogan is an alternative option or the new China, for the Europeans...
and it's something that Erdogan aims at for the industries to move there with the same wages and better conditions...
Do you think that's the main reason that the Europeans do not want to disturb him?
I think that the issue of the relatios between Europe and Turkey is something that hasn't been talked about enough...
because it's full of landmines...
3-4 years ago I started saying that it's in our best interests for a relation between Turkey and Europe to exist, but in a new shape
which, again, is parlty the same with France's concept
which wanted a series of special agreements to be made.
In my opinion, it should be the same with Albania, North Macedonia and other countries as well...
but that's another topic and I wouldn't like to bore our viewers.
About Turkey, since it won't just disappear from the map, and both the EU and Greece have best interests in keeping a relation with Turkey, as you know we have very good commercial relations,
so none of us in Europe really wants to cut ties with Turkey and completely turn to China or Russia, whatever that means
so because we want that and we need  to prevent Turkey's militaristic, revisionist, expansionist strategy
we have to go through a relation crisis, there is no other way in my opinion,
which will 'reset' the table but this time it will be more permanent.
That means that Europe will stop pretending that Turkey's will for a full reintegration to the EU is false,
and also every country that caress this ambition of Turkey is misleading.
On the contrary, Europe and Turkey need to make a special agreement which can be used by many European groups that are interested in
the production capacity in Turkey with low primary cost.
No person in Europe should ignore Turkey, we can't even if we want to,
but what we also can't do is continue this painful procedure
during which Europe pretends to see Turkey as a potential member
Turkey pretends to be interested in a full Europeanization,
and then threat us with the immigration flow, which I'm afraid will happen again,
they act the way they do with countries like Cyprus, Greece and as we saw, with any other country,
and I should say that the 5th French dimocracy wouldn't have to deal with a series of attacks by a country-ally in NATO
so that is something that needs to be dealt with, even with a crisis
so we can make a special agreement for a special relationship that will be in both Europe's and Turkey's best interests of course
and that will get rid of false arguments
that I have heard by people's advisors...
there is no point in me saying it, but people inside the EU
claiming that Turkey could be used for the European defense.
An interesting argument...
Which has been heard by people in the European authority...
Besides that, we could see Turkey as an interesting economical area
our relations should go through a crisis, we will see its size,
so the table can be reset because what is happening today is not in our best interests at all.
I think we saw the results of the German presidency
and we will see them again.
I'm afraid that these results, best case scenario, I hope I'm proven to be wrong and to pessimistic,
I think that they will lead us to a conversation that will either be a dead end or painful for us.
Conversations have a point when there is an agenda with some guarantees
you asked about Hague and I don't want to seem like I'm avoiding it,
this is one guarantee that Greece had always thought of,
Greece would repeatedly ask Turkey to talk about the continental shelf and  the EEZ
from time to time they would imply that the territorial sea could be a part of this conversation,
and if the conversations failed, we would go to Hague.
Turkey never wanted to do something like that and what annoys me is that Hague is used as Mithridatism
as a way to make the common opinion believe there is an international class
which is so perfeclty made that
the courts are significant, there are guarantees
and there is justice.
This is false, because as you know Turkey hasn't validate the agreement of 1982
second, because Turkey does not acknowledge the general mandatory jurisdiction of the international court
that's why we need a special agreement between the parties to go to Hague
and third, Turkey might do what other countries have done as well, which is ignore the decision if they do not like it.
Since the ship has sailed from both parties when it comes to relations between Europe and Turkey,
and since Turkey's relation with NATO is not guided rationally
what would prevent Turkey from saying "Hague's decision was bad for us so let's talk again"?
So Hague should not appear as something that we would want to avoid,
although the avowal is complex as you know
but however it is a procedure,
and we shouldn't give the impression to the greek citizens, who should always be informed,
because at some point they will be called to decide and vote,
so we shouldn't make them think that Hague is a solution that would be in favor of our best interests,
or it will guarantee viable peace.
I don't think that's the case because Turkey might refuse to implement a plan that is not in their best interests.
I should clarify that Greece's opinion, which used to be "let's have a conversation and go to Hague if we don't find a solution"
used to be logical
because it's different to talk about it in Brusseles, in Washington, in Berlin, Paris, Tokyo and Moscow etc...
then we gave the impression that Greece is a country that wants stability and not showing off as a bully
as opposed to Turkey.
So my answer about Hague is complicated because it is a complex issue
but what should not be thought of Hague is that it's what would solve our issues with Turkey, that's not the case.
Common people in Greece are worried about this;
Both Athens and Turkey suggest having a conversation...
Greece wants to talk about the continentah shelf and Erdogan has more things in mind...
Do you think that in the end he will settle to talk about the continental shelf, which is what the Greek government wants,
and if that doesn't happen, will there be a government that will talk about the demilitarization of the islands?
I think that's impossible.
I can't think of a government, democratically elected,
that will talk about sovereign issues.
On the other hand, we should not forget that we live in a world that is constantly changing
and I'm not saying that as an argument in favor of the conciliation
but because the world is constantly changing, is important to see what will happen with the elections in november,
and see what will happen if the German presidency's actions are limited
and what will happen with France's attempts to play the part of the leader in Europe
now that after Brexit the balance has been disturbed...
Let's see what will happen with Italy, whose government leads them in diplomatic dead ends
see what happens with Spain, who seems way more friendly with Turkey that we expected etc...
I say that because if Turkey doesn't win before the elections in the US
I shouldn't have to note that it's a critical time for Turkey, who has invested everything in Trump
and if it's believed that Trump will lose the elections, Turkey will have an extra motive to do everything they would want to do before november.
Before the election of a new leadership.
So things might change for the better or for worse for us,
and if things in Libya don't turn out the way Turkey wants to,
and if Turkey is pressured enough in Syria
and if the voices inside Turkey that want another approach when it comes to the economy and the alliances are heard
and if Russia doesn't want to intervene more actively in our area, which I hope they don't because
because that would mean Russia would threaten NATO even more to stay closer to it,
if all these things happen and 2020 leaves painlessly
there might be a brighter future for Greece's best interests.
Right now, in my opinion I don't think we can win from talking with Turkey
because the conditions are not in our favor, although Erdogan is partly isolated,
but he is isolated as a player of a country that sets the terms,
that has their army in 8 different countries, apart from their own,
who uses muslim networks in several countries and gains empathy,
and a country whose stay in NATO is the alliance's priority.
Τhis is the reality which we might not like but is true at the moment.
If the conditions do not change, so Turkey is pressured genuinely
then I think we should prefer time's damage
than an immediate solution that won't be good for Greece.
And the opinion that an immediate solution is always better than giving time to the issue is naive because it depends on the field of the issue.
There are fields like secuity, unemployment,
issues about public debt
in which such opinion would be meaningful.
When it comes to rather powerful countries like Turkey
such opinion would be naive or suspicious
meaning that they ignore the state of Greece that the next generation will inherit,
which cannot be forgotten
but also the freemasonry to some points of our lives
because a solution might be thought to be good in october but in 2021 it could be thought to be rushed
while the conditions could be better in 2 years.
So I don't think there could be good solutions short term.
The conditions are not suitable, we have to see what happens after the elections in november,
we need to boost our prevention forces
and the country's military,
and we need to prove to countries like Israel, France and of course the US
that we are trustworthy longterm allies
and that we are not looking for help last minute.
That does not prove that we are a serious country.
And Greece deserves to be shown as a trustworthy and powerful, reliable country.
And I think that needs to be boosted.
Let me give you an example about what you asked.
We seemed to be waver when it came to a deeper defense cooperation with France.
And there seemed to be scenarios, apart from the ones about the retired people and other nonsense...
saying that we can find more meaningful solutions.
We heard stories about Dutch, Spanish, British frigates
like the issue about the equipment, apart from the fact that France has reliable weapons, not even the US doubt that,
besides that, the equipment choices are strategical.
So when someone hears about these frigates, the are asking what kind of strategical apprehension this country has,
and in order to not be presented as such a pro-French
I should remind you that when the new agreement with the US was being talked about,
I was one of the not-few that said that these ships, although they are amazing and low cost and might want a big crew
we asked them to send us a couple to see them and we never did.
It would count if we could see them from France.
Of course, it would still count if we could see them from the US, and the minister of National Defence is active
so we want immediate solutions with immediate results
with a strategical target.
My obsession with France has to do with the fact that it's affecting the EU as well.
It's a country that has invested in the European integration
and the old conversation about whether the European integration can be both expanded and deepened is still interesting, however my opinion is that it can't do both.
We have many common points with France about it, it's an issue of longterm tactic and strategy,
and about the defence, the US always has and will be an ally of ours
it's very difficult to imagine Greece free and in peace without the US' presence
but as long as the US are drifting from the EU
and that's not about Trump, it's historical and was started by Obama as well
in a more approachable and predictable way
but it's a historical move.
So as long as this is happening, we should be thinking more about our place in Europe and eastern Mediterranean longterm.
That's what I'm afraid we are not doing because we are used to having someone else do it for us.
Mr Lavdas, thank you very much for the information and knowledge you shared with us,
We will be bothering you often from now on...
Thank you for this conversation.
People can talk with you for a long time...
We do provide that...
It is important, because opinions that are being exchanged between 30-60 seconds...
We can't do it with catchlines...
Exactly. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
