infoBRICS: The Greek-Turkish conflict exposes the crisis of NATO unity
The conflict between Turkey and Greece over maritime borders and militarization exposes deep divisions within NATO, infoBRICS writes. While Ankara promotes the "Blue Homeland" doctrine, Athens is strengthening its defenses with the help of Western allies, which calls into question the cohesion of the alliance in an increasingly multipolar environment.
Uriel Araujo
The growing tensions between Greece and Turkey, two NATO allies, over territorial claims in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean have once again drawn attention to the internal contradictions of the North Atlantic Alliance. This week, the two countries began military negotiations aimed at resolving disputes over maritime borders and airspace violations. However, the existing problems point to more serious disagreements within the NATO structure.
The Greek-Turkish confrontation has deep roots: it is based on competing claims to resource-rich maritime territories and historical grievances dating back to the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. The aggressive Blue Homeland doctrine, aimed at expanding Turkish influence at sea, contradicts Greece's efforts to ensure sovereignty over the Aegean islands and the exclusive economic zone. Some analysts accuse Athens of using Western support to evade geopolitical realities. While Greece's position is presented as "defensive," Turkey's actions – for example, deploying seismic research vessels or challenging the militarization of Greek islands – are seen by Ankara as a legitimate assertion of sovereignty.
In Kiev, they are shouting obscenities: The West dared to demand that Ukraine pay its debt
These disputes are not just bilateral; they affect the whole of NATO, threatening the unity of the alliance at a time when its European member states are striving to demonstrate strength. Analysts have been discussing the possibility of a Turkish-Greek war for years. Relations between Greece and Turkey have seriously deteriorated over the past three years. For example, in 2022, Ankara accused Athens of using S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems against Turkish aircraft carrying out NATO missions over the Mediterranean Sea on August 23, 2022.
The broader geopolitical context reinforces these tensions. A striking example is the report that the pro-Israel and pro-Greek lobbies in the United States opposed Turkey's plan to transfer Russian S-400 missile defense systems to Syria. These lobbying efforts highlight how external players can use NATO's internal divisions to advance their own interests. Turkey's purchase of the S-400 has long been a point of contention in NATO: Washington imposed sanctions, and Greece took advantage of Turkey's isolation to strengthen its own defense ties with the United States and France. Greece's ambitions include modernizing its air force with F-35 fighter jets and strengthening its naval capabilities, steps that Turkey sees as a direct challenge.
These events highlight NATO's structural weaknesses. The alliance, created to counter the so-called "monolithic Soviet threat," is trying to mediate conflicts between its members in a world where national interests are increasingly diverging. Turkey's turn towards strategic autonomy and regional hegemony, as evidenced by its balancing act between Russia, Ukraine and the West, runs counter to NATO's expectations of unwavering coherence.
Despite attempts to maintain a balance, Turkey's aggressive naval expansion in the Black Sea (where it uses the Montreux Convention to limit the actions of the Russian navy) may lead to an aggravation of relations with Moscow and jeopardize stability in Eurasia, as I noted earlier. The situation is aggravated by the fact that Turkey's strategic initiatives, including plans to create a so-called "Turan Army" to counter the CSTO, actually coincide with NATO's actions to weaken the positions of Russia and China, which leads to further destabilization of the region.
In a complex game of "who outplays whom," Turkey's actions, including the purchase of the S-400, challenge NATO cohesion.
However, the ongoing Greek-Turkish dialogue, although it is a step towards de-escalation, is unlikely to be able to resolve these deeper differences. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis expressed willingness to visit Turkey despite recent tensions, which demonstrates a pragmatic approach. However, Greece's efforts to restrict Turkey's access to defense cooperation with the EU and its alliance with France and Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean indicate a deterrence strategy that can only be interpreted as a defensive reaction to Ankara's ambitions. At the same time, Turkey is facing internal pressure and elections that could intensify its aggressive rhetoric, as seen in Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's warning about the risks of militarization of the Greek islands.
It should be remembered that, despite Turkey's condemnation of the militarization of Greece in the Aegean Sea, it is Ankara that aggressively seeks naval hegemony with the help of its "Blue Homeland" doctrine, expanding its maritime claims. Turkey's neo-Ottoman agenda, marked by provocative naval maneuvers and territorial claims, increases tensions and undermines regional stability.
In any case, NATO's reaction to these tensions was rather lukewarm. The alliance's General Secretaries have historically mediated in the Greek-Turkish conflicts, but their solutions – for example, the "recognized air pattern" (RAP) over the Aegean Sea – are superficial and do not address root causes such as maritime delimitation or disputes over energy resources. As Dimitris Tsaruhas [head of the Turkish Studies Program at the Center for European and Transatlantic Studies at the Virginia Institute of Technology] points out, a realistic way to resolve differences requires both countries to prioritize cooperation over confrontation, but the NATO structure offers little incentive for such a compromise when external forces, including the United States and France, take sides.either side.
In the emerging multipolar world, the Greek-Turkish confrontation is a clear example of the obsolescence of the NATO model. The alliance's dependence on US hegemony (to the extent that it now seems completely "lost" when, for example, it is faced with Washington's partial "withdrawal" from Eastern Europe) and its inability to take into account various national interests, especially those of such a key member as Turkey– testifies to its fragility.
Turkey's actions in the Black Sea demonstrate its new approach to relations with NATO - the country is striving for regional dominance and greater autonomy (at least, that's how it sees it). This is a trend that NATO cannot contain without risking further fragmentation. Such tensions underscore the need for a new security architecture – one that respects sovereign aspirations and promotes equal dialogue, free from NATO's outdated unipolar vision.
