Trump and Zelensky Hold Private Talks at Vatican
Categories:
Greece’s relationship with NATO has been shaped by Cold War tensions, regional rivalries, and shifting geopolitical priorities. From its early postwar instability to its current status as a key contributor to the alliance, Greece’s NATO journey has been far from straightforward.
By William J. Moloney, geopolitical analyst and OSINT expert.
The country joined NATO in 1952, alongside Turkey, amid fears of communist expansion and in the aftermath of a devastating civil war. For both sides, the partnership offered strategic and security benefits, but underlying tensions would soon test the strength of the alliance.
Today, despite lingering distrust and friction with fellow NATO member Turkey, Greece remains a vital part of the alliance. Its geographic position, military contributions, and political leverage continue to make it indispensable to NATO’s southern flank.
At the end of World War II, the withdrawal of Axis forces from Greece left a power vacuum. This power vacuum erupted into the Greek civil war (1946-1949) between the Greek government and the Communist rebels, the seeds of which were sown during the Axis occupation.
The Greek Civil War is one of the first proxy wars of the Cold War, with the Greek government receiving direct aid from the United Kingdom and the United States and the rebels receiving direct assistance from the communist-controlled countries of Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia, and indirectly from the USSR itself. With the victory of the Greek government in 1949 and the creation of NATO that same year, it seemed logical that it would only be a matter of time before the two came together.
This occurred on February 18th, 1952, when Greece and Turkey became the first nations to join the alliance since its creation in 1949. It was mutually beneficial to both parties, with Greece still struggling with some internal instability after the civil war and having experienced the spread of communism firsthand.
NATO membership provided Greece with enhanced security along its northern border, particularly against communist neighbors like Bulgaria. Territorial disputes—especially those stemming from the Second Balkan War—and concerns over Bulgaria’s military strength made NATO’s collective defense guarantee a valuable safeguard for Greece.
For NATO, Greece’s ascension into the alliance also held strategic importance. It helped to bolster the alliance’s southern flank and counter growing Soviet influence in the area. Ensuring NATO access to the Mediterranean—and, by extension, Africa and Asia—was strategically important for securing vital trade routes and oil supplies. The establishment of the NATO pipeline system, in which Greece played a key role, further reinforced this goal. For a time, the relationship functioned smoothly, with NATO providing both military and economic aid that helped strengthen Greece’s defense capabilities.
The relationship between Greece and NATO took a drastic turn for the worse following the Greek-backed 1974 coup d’état and the subsequent Turkish invasion of Cyprus in that same month. It marked a major crisis between two NATO members with the potential to spark a conflict that would have torn the alliance apart.
The NATO response to this, or lack thereof, caused outrage in Greece, not just among the government but across the whole population. With NATO taking a hands-off approach, their refusal to intervene was seen as a complete betrayal, effectively handing Cyprus to Turkey and showing apparent favouritism, which has had a lingering effect, permanently tarnishing NATO’s reputation and popularity in Greece to this day.
As a direct result, Greece withdrew from NATO’s military command structure in August of 1974, meaning they would maintain political ties and contributions but no longer be militarily involved. During this time, Greece, under Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis, improved diplomatic and political relations with Eastern bloc countries, including the USSR, with deals being made on the supply of soviet oil and gas.
Greece moved towards a more independent style of foreign policy, not influenced by NATO, with a focus on peaceful coexistence. Karamanlis even visited Moscow in 1979. The purpose of this foreign policy approach was to grant Greece greater strategic leverage, showing NATO that Greece had other options if NATO support fell short.
Greece eventually rejoined the NATO military command structure in 1980. However, not all tensions disappeared. Karamanlis threatened a complete withdrawal from NATO in the same year if issues over Greece’s operational control in the Aegean Sea were not resolved.
It is fair to say that the relationship between NATO and Greece today can be described as stable. Despite this, there is still scepticism and doubt across the population regarding the alliance and a healthy amount of distrust; however, Greece still plays the crucial role it did all those years ago in providing security on the southern flank and securing access to vital trade routes. They will always maintain that geopolitical significance.
Greece has consistently maintained a highly trained and competent military. Ironically, this is mainly due to the threat from Turkey, a fellow NATO member. Between 1960 and 2022, Greece managed to average an impressive 3.77% of its GDP spent on defence, well above the NATO 2% target. In terms of percentage, they are consistently one of the top spenders in NATO across the board.
There has been a significant effort to modernise the military in recent years, with the purchase of F-35 fighter jets and Black Hawk Helicopters, and as recently as this month, when Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis announced plans to spend 25 billion euros between now and 2036 to bolster modernisation efforts.
None of this has come without strong opposition from Turkey, albeit not with much success, with Turkey even being expelled from the F-35 program. This gave the Greeks a significant advantage in the Aegean and arguably showed a shift in the West’s attitude towards Turkey.
Greece is home to one of NATO’s Rapid Deployable Corps. Each corps can command up to 60,000 soldiers, with Greece also contributing to the air policing mission in Albania, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. It is also worth noting that the Crete Naval Base has the only deep-water pier in the Mediterranean capable of accommodating U.S. Navy supercarriers. Considering all of this, it’s clear to see just how much Greece offers to the alliance. They are undeniably a critical part of it. They play a crucial role in many areas and are irreplaceable.
The relationship between Greece and NATO in the future seems solid. However, the potential for renewed turbulence remains, largely driven by the enduring tension between Greece and Turkey and the ever-present threat of escalation between the two. NATO’s perceived history of inaction on this matter continues to weigh heavily on Greek policymakers and the wider population. Greece’s continuous efforts to bolster its military imply an expectation to stand alone in the worst-case scenario.
However, Greece’s role in NATO is essential, and it directly serves NATO’s best interests for Greece to remain anchored within the alliance. With renewed tensions between NATO and Russia, the alliance cannot afford a conflict between two of its members to compromise the security of its southern flank. This is compounded by the increasingly strained relationship between the West and Turkey, owing to the latter’s ambiguous strategic stance. For these reasons, Greece is likely to remain an indispensable member of the alliance for decades to come.
By William J. Moloney, geopolitical analyst and OSINT expert
