Twice in the past week, the United States has clumsily weighed into mounting tensions in the East Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey.

First, Washington announced last weekend the opening of a maritime security base on the island state of Cyprus, which is allied with Greece. Then the U.S. followed up by formally clearing the way to send weapons to Cyprus, ending a 33-year arms embargo. Washington claims the arms are “non-lethal”, but we have seen that semantic ruse played before with regard to U.S. weaponizing Ukraine and other places. Never mind the hairsplitting, the move is a military involvement whichever way it’s presented.

Both U.S. moves have infuriated Turkey, which lies to the north of Cyprus and which maintains territorial claims over the northern part of the island populated by Turkish-Cypriots. The main part of the island, the Republic of Cyprus, is historically aligned with Greece. Cyprus became divided in 1974 after Turkey invaded following a coup led by the Greek military. The territory has been a source of tensions ever since and a recurring cause for confrontation between Greece and Turkey over competing claims.

This year tensions have flared up again over disputed rights to oil and gas exploration in the East Mediterranean Sea. The area is reckoned to be rich in untapped hydrocarbon resources. There are even fears of a military confrontation escalating between patrolling Greek and Turkish navy vessels.

What is remarkable too is that both neighboring states are members of the U.S.-led NATO military alliance, which claims to be a protector of global peace and security. Yet here we have its own members jostling on a hair-trigger which could erupt into war on the southern arc of Europe.

What’s even more remarkable is the ham-handed, destabilizing way that the U.S. is intervening in the dispute. The establishment of a new “security” (read “military”) base at Larnaca in southern Cyprus and the supply of weaponry are viewed by Turkey as a flagrant attempt by Washington to put its thumb on the scale in favor of Greece and Cyprus against Ankara.

Last weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, where he signed a memorandum of understanding to set up the maritime base at Larnaca. Ironically, the installation is to be known by the acronym, CYCLOPS, after the mythical one-eyed giant of ancient Greek legend.

During his visit, Pompeo rebuked Turkey for stoking tensions in the region and he called for diplomatic resolution of the dispute. Pompeo went on to make a jab at Russia, saying: “Increased tensions help no-one except adversaries who would like to see division in the transatlantic unity.”

The U.S. top diplomat appeared to be referring to a visit to Nicosia only days earlier by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. In his meeting with the Greek-Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades, Lavrov offered Moscow’s help in mediating the conflict with Turkey. Given Russia’s cordial relations with both sides, the offer by Lavrov was certainly a reasonable and pragmatic one. Why Pompeo should seek to portray the Russian intervention as pernicious only betrays the typical reflexive Russophobia that dominates in Washington.

In any case, the reality is that it is the United States which is evidently fomenting tensions in the East Mediterranean through its destabilizing initiatives. Its exhortations for diplomatic resolution is empty hypocrisy belied by its actions.

What is behind the U.S. moves? One reason is the intense umbrage taken by Washington over Turkey’s decision last year to purchase the Russian S-400 air defense system. That represents a big commercial loss for the American military-industrial complex. Ankara’s adopting of Russian air-defense technology also grievously undermines NATO propaganda seeking to portray Russia as a security threat to Europe.

Another factor is Turkey’s warnings that due to American bullying over the S-400 issue it may shut down the NATO base at Incirlik in southern Turkey. If that were to happen, then the U.S. loses an important power-projection point against Russia. Therefore, it seems that the U.S. move to set up a new base at Larnaca in Cyprus may be a hedge against potential closure of Incirlik.

A third factor is proximity to Syria. Cyprus is only 200 kilometers from Syria which hosts strategically important Russian naval and military air bases at Tartus and Hmeimim. Those bases have been crucial in Russia’s alliance with Syria to defeat the U.S.-sponsored covert war for regime change in Damascus. By gaining a foothold in Cyprus, Washington may be trying to curb Russia’s pivotal support for Syria.

Whatever the precise calculus, it is nonetheless clear that Washington’s posturing is both reckless and hypocritical. Cyclops, the ill-fated clumsy giant outwitted by Ulysses, has a 21st century counterpart – the United States.

At the end of February Turkish president Recep Erdogan decided to tear up an agreement with the EU which obliged him to accommodate over 3 million Syria refugees. In doing so, he gave many the nod and the wink to leave their camps and head towards the Greek border, placing enormous pressure on the EU which simply cannot take the strain, politically, from its two giants – Germany and France – with a new imminent influx of Syrian refugees. We should also note that Greece itself in recent years has dramatically changed its attitude towards Syrian refugees as its people felt both abandoned by the EU and its own government, which has led to shocking pictures of the tourist hotspot of Lesvos being turned into a squalid site, fermenting with locals’ anger, much the same with vigilante groups today on the Greek side of the Greek-Turkish border.

The crisis on the border is very much of the EU’s making though.

We should remember that in 2016, Erdogan was turned to by the EU, to stem off a political calamity that these two European countries were having over Syrian refugees, in particular Germany, which had reached breaking point. A deal was agreed which involved Turkey being paid 3bn euros in aid, of which half has already been given, with the second tranche about to be released.

But at the heart of those talks, was a nefarious deception which has been the root cause of all of the Turkey’s problems with the EU and its hot-n-cold relations which is endures which goes back way before the 2016 deal was struck.

Today, many analysts believe that Syrian refugees being let into Europe is a stunt being played out by Erdogan to give Brussels a prod to remind it who is really holds all the cards. But one could argue that the resentment felt by Ankara in the last twenty years of being teased by Brussels into getting a special deal has also reached breaking point. Analysts like to point out that Erdogan needed a media distraction to the 34 deaths of Turkish soldiers fighting in Idlib and so pulling the knife from the sheaf and holding it to the EU’s throat achieves two things: puts the EU on the back foot over the refugee issue, but also puts Turkey’s objectives in Northern Syria under the spotlight.

But that’s only half the story.

The problem Erdogan has in Idlib is that he has burnt all his bridges with international players and hasn’t the might to take on Russia. The EU is seen by him as a super power which could muster a bold military policy in the region which favours him, via an important EU summit of EU leaders on March 26. He sees, erroneously, the EU as a super power which has the means and the desire to take on Assad and Russia in Syria and so therefore could be plied into working with Ankara.

If he can’t get any support in Idlib from EU member states, then Erdogan has gambled that at least he can extract much more cash from the EU, although some analysts are arguing that the refugee exodus stunt was due to fears in Ankara that the second tranche of 1.5bn euros might be blocked.

Unfortunately, the move to send the Syrian refugees to the Greek border has merely opened old wounds on both sides and is unlikely to result in any kind of policy decisions in Idlib to counter Russia.

On the Turkish side, officials feel cheated, betrayed by the hype in recent years which has been designed to make Ankara feel important to the EU. Erdogan, to some extent, has fallen for the media hype that the EU machine in Brussels can create with journalists embedded there and only too happy to process the ‘manufactured consent’ of what Brussels is trying to sell.

But what was originally on the table and offered as part of a carrot and stick deal to Turkey, has long since been removed, which is the real heart of the matter with the refugee build up on the border.

The EU’s failure to deliver on three of the deal’s provisions –  visa liberalisation, a customs union upgrade and accelerated negotiations over Turkish accession to the EU – had been airbrushed out of the agreement. Nobody in Brussels really believes that Turkey will ever be allowed to join the 27 member block, as, for one thing, France and Germany, would not be able to cope with scores of millions – possibly more – of blue collar Turks looking for a new life. The fact that the EU cannot even agree to special visas takes this level of disingenuous bargaining to a new level of farce.

And Turkey knows it.

But a small part of the talks also included backing for Ankara’s venture in Idlib, including air cover to establish a “safe zone”, and more humanitarian aid for displaced civilians in Syria, as well as more cash for Syrian refugees in Turkey, which Erdogan claims he has spent a staggering 40bn euros on. The mistake from Erdogan is to assume that the EU has a foreign [military] policy in place which can carry out “safe zones” in the first place, rather than, say, lobbying the UK (which has an increasingly special relationship with Ankara post Brexit) which might have assisted. The last time the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini tried to pull off a “safe zones” ruse was by offering a cash deal both to Assad and to “opposition” [read terrorist] groups in Syria. Neither took up her offer, as officials on both sides are still in pain from laughing too much at the rank stupidity, if not desperation of the plan.

The EU will not give Erdogan any “safe zone” plan as too many of its harsher critics of him are now using strong language with words like “blackmail”, “hell” and “devil” when talking about the present relations with Turkey. Sure, Erdogan has managed to put the subject on the table for discussion, but just like Trump, he has started with overkill. And now there is too much distrust among many EU member states and so more likely conditions will be demanded from Erdogan for the second payment to be made and a new approach to paying Greece to cater to new levels of refugees might be a counterweight to the Erdogan threat.

But when relations break down and trust is lost, all that is left is money. And now really that is all Erdogan can ask for, although it is interesting that one of his chief complaints is that EU funds are funnelled directly to NGOs which cater to the refugees and not directly to the central government, where, presumably, the central bank could benefit. Merkel and Macron on March 26^th will have to reboot the deal. Critically they will have to act quickly to show other countries – like Lebanon – that the EU is not weak and will not be blackmailed, as the Erdogan stunt might give ideas to the cash-strapped government in Beirut to play the same card with its 1 million refugees there, perceived to be a drain on the economy. But it is likely that the plan has backfired as all it has done is reinforce old prejudices against Ankara and pushed the EU into looking at other partners to take the refugees in the Eastern Mediterranean, inside the EU’s borders (Greece) and even outside it. The problem with blackmail, is that the blackmailer never stops in asking his victim for more, leaving the one paying to consider more drastic measures to end the extortion. Perhaps not paying the second payment to Erdogan is not such a bad idea after all.

The original Migrant Crisis at the start of the Syrian Civil War in 2011 was portrayed as an organic consequence of events that happened on their own. The Mainstream Media pushed hard to sell the idea of the migrants as victims of either circumstance or Assad, who deserved to get everything they want from the wealthy West. However, this time around the narrative is surprisingly different (at least for the moment) as Migrant Crisis 2.0 is not really getting much media push, in fact the opposite appears to be happening, possibly due to the fact that Erdogan made it so bluntly clear that with his decision to allow migrants to leave Turkey is directly connected to his failures in Syria. If he doesn’t get a piece of Syria, then Europe will.

For example Foreign Policy frames the move as “Turkey’s decision to allow migrants to cross into the European Union was intended to pressure EU leaders to come to Ankara’s aid against Bashar al-Assad”. The Independent went with the headline “Turkey says it has allowed more than 100,000 migrants and refugees across its border with Greece”. This is not the narrative of waves of poor victims coming to Europe, but instead the tale of the Turks using human beings as pawns of influence. Even the Hyper-Liberal Cultural Masochist den that is NPR positioned the event as an attempt for victims to “Leave Turkey For Europe, But This Time The Gate Is Closed” which is surprisingly soft. It is almost like NPR is hinting at some sort of logic like “well we should let them in but we can’t, I guess it’s bad, but whatever”.

What a difference a decade and a resurgent Turkey make as this migrant narrative has completely shifted. Furthermore, it is important to note that according to RT, the footage of the poor migrants trying to find peace and happiness in Europe, while being attacked by Greek authorities comes from Turkish sources. Essentially, the Turks who were able to hold all these migrants perfectly fine for years (since a deal was struck with the EU in 2016) have now, all of a sudden, decided they can’t do it anymore, releasing them into the wild. This also by a stroke of luck happened at the exact moment when NATO denied help to Ankara in their fight for Idlib partially via proxies against Assad and his Russian pals.

Even with the best of intentions massive waves of migrants are unlikely to be loyal to Europe thus turning into a subconscious fifth-column of foreign interest.

This is the point in an article where one might get the feeling that this is a hit piece against the Turks but it is far from it. The Turks are the ones making the moves now but they did not start the Syrian crisis, they just capitalized on it.

Firstly, the Civil War in Syria was started by Washington. This mess was started by the Obama era with a massive demonization campaign of Assad all over the Mainstream Media.

Secondly, it is the EU’s welfare state policies that send a message to the world that “if you sneak in, you are entitled to live like kings for free” that attracts the bottom of global society to immigrate to Europe. EU law/policies are really what created the Migrant Crisis, if they were to “man up” and have real borders and reasonable attitudes towards immigration (as well as dump the welfare state for immigrants) there would be zero problems.

So to be clear the Turks are just taking advantage of conditions created by Europeans and if I were born a Turk and were in Erdogan’s place I would have done many of the same moves. We shouldn’t blame others for jumping on the opportunities that we ourselves create for them. Yes, Turkey is now fanning the flames but they never started the fire.

So what could or should the strategies be for the various players going forward in Migrant Crisis 2.0?

Greece

This country finds itself as the farpost of Europe in terms of a migrant invasion. The Greek economy is still in ruins and the nation has definitely not been a beneficiary of EU status. If the Greeks actually have any political will of their own to take action, then they unfortunately need to “go hard” on any attempts to violate their borders.

Greece has nothing to lose but its Euro chains so they may as well militantly react to any attempts to violate their territory to send a message to Turkey that “this won’t work”. This may sound violent, but allowing enough migrants into your country to the point that it destabilizes, would lead to vastly more violence. A few unpleasant pieces of footage from Greece will make thousands of potential migrants think twice against storming a border unarmed with an army sitting on the other side of the barbed wire.

If Greece did become like a real country and actually protect its borders it would be demonized by Brussels, but then again so what? What are they going to do, kick them out of the EU? If so then that would be a boon for the average Greek. If Greece does actually have sovereign control of itself and can take action then Brussels has no real means to punish them for said actions, and any punishments would only push Greece towards an independence that it needs anyways. Harsh border control of Greece is a win win for anyone except the most delusional EU enthusiasts in Athens.

Turkey

In many ways the Turks are doing the right things to restore their former glory. They have done a good job of convincing Central Asians that they are actually Turks via their massive trade and education network in those countries. As stated above the flood of Turks into Europe is an exploitable beachhead for Ankara, and if they were to have negotiated with the Russians for some eastern chunk of Syria, this could have become an ideological Sudetenland for Erdogan, who may start to feel the heat as home as the proud Turks are losing to the WWII era looking Syrian Arab Army.

The Turks need to slow down and be patient. The West is slowly eroding, but until it hits the breaking point it will be an unstoppable barrier. Erdogan needs to stay cool and keep shoving as much of his fifth column of migrants into the EU as he can, and rally Europe’s migrant Muslims around himself even if they are non-Turks.

Turkey is in the rough geopolitical position of having Europe to the west and Russia to the north which made the idea to push south against weak Syria very logical, until it essentially became part of Russia. They want to expand but they are surrounded by spheres of influence even to the East. Right now there is no wiggle room for the Ottomans so they need to patiently grow and maybe try to make some deals with the Russians to understand just what the spheres of influence could turn into in a world with a collapsing EU that we will probably see in our lifetimes. Today is not Turkey’s day, but a weak West will open up huge opportunities for Turkey, they just need to stay patient, stay in NATO and wait it out.

Brussels

The EU is the source of its own problems. The mentality of those in power in the Euro bureaucracy is culturally suicidal. If they would only turn on a tenth of their former zeal for European Civilization and control their borders while cutting out immigrant welfare, they could save the continent, but they won’t do that.

Immigrating to Europe needs to become an impossibility so Europe an assimilate the people it has now and fine a future for itself. They need some sort of “Renaissance II: The Revenge of Europe” to take place, but the elite and intelligentsia fervently against any such move. The borders around Europe need to close but the powers that be are convinced the opposite is the correct policy. This is good for Ankara, Moscow and Beijing, but not so great for Europeans.

Europe’s openness is on track to being essentially the same as Africa’s helplessness during the Colonial Period. If you cannot defend yourself you will get carved up, this is the reality of International Relations that the status quo in Brussels does not believe in.

In Summary

• The Turks did not create the conditions for the first or second Migrant Crisis
• The Turks are exploiting these conditions for their benefit by artificially starting a new Migrant Crisis, which is opportunistic and not evil.
• The Greeks have everything to gain by using any means necessary to send a message that they cannot be overrun by migrants.
• The Turks want to grow but have their backs to the wall geopolitically and have started Migrant Crisis 2.0 due to their failure in Syria and NATO’s lack of will to support them.
• All migration problems in Europe could be solved by having a strict external border and enacting pro in-group policies towards throughout the EU, while cutting all welfare for the migrant out-group.

Of course, Greece’s involvement in this alliance (now renamed the 17+1 CEEC) has broadened its geographical boundaries to the west and is especially important as Greece’s Port of Piraeus is a strategic east-west trade gate way for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) into Europe centered on the China-Europe Land-Sea Express Route. Greece is painfully aware that its survival depends upon China’s BRI, as the EU programs for austerity, privatization and bailouts have brought only death and despair with a collapse of youth employment, crime rate spikes and suicide. It is also not lost on anyone that this breakthrough follows hot on the heels of Italy’s joining of the Belt and Road Initiative on March 26 and also serves as a precursor to the second Belt and Road Summit which will take place in Beijing at the end of April, involving over 126 nations who have already signed MOUs with the BRI and thousands of international businesses.

Ten additional BRI-connected agreements were signed between Croatia and China before the 17+1 Summit including the modernizing of rail lines (especially from Zagreb to the Adriatic port of Rijeka), telecommunications cooperation between Huawei and Croatian Telecom and major port, roads, harbors, education and cultural cooperation.

The Belt and Road Initiative, as Tsipras aptly pointed out, is not just another set of infrastructure programs designed to counterbalance western hegemony, but is rather a “new model of regional and global cooperation” founded upon a principle of mutual development and long term thinking not seen in the west since the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the takeover of the Anglo-American Deep State that ensued.

The fact that China formalized an economic and trade cooperation agreement with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union in May 2018 is extremely relevant as it incorporated its five nation membership of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan directly into the BRI. Already China has invested $98 billion into the real economies of the EEU involving 168 BRI-connected projects.

The new model of development which has increasingly won over central, and eastern Eurasian countries as well as Greece and Italy have provided a breath of fresh air for citizens everywhere who are looking with despair upon a Trans-Atlantic system which can do nothing but demand obedience to a defunct set of rules that commands only austerity, hyperinflationary banking practices and no long term investment into the real economy. Thus the technocratic mobilization against the BRI over the past days in response to this new paradigm can only be seen as an absurd attempt to save a system which has already failed.

The Technocrats Defend their New World Disorder

Two recent counter-operations against the BRI and the new win-win operating system it represents are worth mentioning. The first is found in the formation of a trilateral alliance between the American-based Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Canada’s Finance and Development Agency (FinDev Canada) and fifteen members of the European Union announced on April 11. A second counter-operation was created several days earlier with the Canada-Germany-France-Japan “Alliance for Multilateralism” during the G7 meeting in France.

OPIC Acting President and CEO David Bohigian (Center) signed a memorandum of understanding with FinDev Canada Managing Director Paul Lamontagne (right) and EDFI Chairman Nanno Kleiterp (left).

While OPIC was founded in 1971, its use as a subversive force against the BRI was formalized on July 30, 2018 when it created a trilateral alliance with Japan and Australia in order to finance infrastructure in the Pacific basin. Added to this, a second trilateral alliance was created on April 11, 2019 when Canada’s Paul Lamontagne (head of FinDev Canada), the European Development Finance Institution’s Nanno Kleiterp and OPIC President David Bohigian signed a new agreement to create a parallel infrastructure financing mechanism. Taking aim at China, the press release stated that the alliance “will enhance transactional, operational, and policy-related cooperation among participants and underscores their commitment to providing a robust alternative to unsustainable state-led models.”

At this signing Bohigian stated “we’re trying to hold up an example for the world of the way development finance should work” clearly attacking China’s “incompetent” concept of development finance and thus ignoring the fact that over 800 million people have directly been lifted out of poverty by China’s approach to investment. Bohigian was clearly hoping that the world would ignore the vast debt slavery and chaos spread by 50 years of IMF-World Bank dominance that has produced no real growth of nations. Although the American BUILD Act has increased US government funding to OPIC from $29 billion to $60 billion over one year, no serious integrated design for development has been presented and instead provides fodder for laughter at best.

The other anti-BRI operation mentioned is the German-French-Japanese-Canadian “Alliance for Multilateralism” which saw Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland stating at a press conference in France that “Canada has formally joined a German French coalition armed at saving the international world order from destruction by various world dictators and autocrats”. While Freeland didn’t mention Trump by name here, France’s ambassador to Canada Kareen Rispal was more candid stating “Mr. Trump doesn’t like to value multilateralism”. Citing his withdrawal from COP21, and criticism of the WTO, UN and NATO the envoy continued “it sends the wrong message to the world if we think that because Mr. Trump is not in favor of multilateralism, it doesn’t mean we- I mean countries like Canada, France and Germany and many others- are not still firm believers.”

What exactly this “Alliance for Multilateralism” IS remains another question entirely, as no actual policy was put forth. After the smoke had cleared, it appears to be nothing more than a lemming-like club of hecklers yelling at Putin, Xi Jinping, Trump and other “bad people” who don’t wish to commit mass suicide under a Green New Deal and technocratic dictatorship.

Commenting on these developments in an April 10 webcast from Germany, Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-Larouche made the following apt observation: “Geopolitics has to be thrown out of the window, and the New Silk Road is the way to industrialize Africa, to deal with the Middle East situation to get peace there, to establish a decent working situation between the United States, Russia and China: And that is for Europe what we should demand. And the best way to do that is that all of Europe would sign MOUs with the Belt and Road Initiative, then that would be the single most important thing to stabilize world peace and get the world into a different domain.”

With Russia and China leading a new coalition of nations fighting to uphold the principles of sovereignty, self-development and long term credit generation under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, a great hope has presented itself as the Titanic that is the City of London and Wall Street continues to sink ever faster into the icy waters of history.

In the spring of 2018, the US began operating MQ-9 Reaper drones out of Greece’s Larisa Air Force Base. The American-Greek defense cooperation agenda includes the extension of the agreement for the use of the US naval base in Souda Bay, Crete, the upgrading of the Greek fleet of F-16 military jets and the plans to build a second military base in southern Crete. The United States and Greece are reportedly discussing the creation of a military base on the island of Karpathos in the South Aegean Sea, between Rhodes and Crete. According to the plans, the island will host US Patriot air defense missile systems and F-22 Raptor fighters. US F-35 will be stationed in Volos, F-16 in Andravia, while F-15 are already in Souda airbase in Crete.

As the relationship with Turkey continues to deteriorate, Greece acquires a more significant military role for the United States in the Mediterranean as well as the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The Wall Street Journal reported last month, “the US military is in talks to expand its operations in Greece, including using more air and naval bases here, signaling a potential move toward the eastern Mediterranean amid growing tensions with Turkey.” According to the source, US officials who had visited Greece not long before the publication said both the government and the opposition were receptive to strengthening military ties. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes that the “geography of Greece and the opportunities here are pretty significant.”

A military alliance of Greek Cyprus, Israel and Greece, Eastern Mediterranean Alliance (EMA), has actually been formed. Greece and Israel have a military cooperation agreement in place since 2015. The military ties between Cyprus and Israel are also expanding. After a trilateral conference held in Larnaca in June, defense chiefs of the three countries pledged to expand cooperation on cyber-security, joint military drills and search and rescue operations in the eastern Mediterranean. The three also visited the US together in May. Last month, the United States opened its first permanent military facility in Israel.

The US has recently changed its Syria policy, including the support of the Kurds that angers Turkey so much. With the tariffs and sanctions war unleashed by Washington against Ankara, it appears to have nothing to lose. The United States is considering permanent cuts to its military presence in Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, a strategic point for its military operations in Syria. This possibility is very real as several pro-government Turkish lawyers have reportedly filed charges against US Air Force officers associated with the base, alleging they are connected to those who staged the attempted coup d'état against Turkey’s government in 2016.

Greece wants Alexandroupolis to become a hub for the gas being exported from Israel via Cyprus, Crete and Greece to Italy. The route will bypass Turkey, which is adamant in its desire to prevent such a scenario. It says part of the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus is under Turkish jurisdiction. A conflict is possible and the EMA partners want the US to be on their side. America needs the allies too as it strives to increase its clout in the Middle East. Libya is among the countries it wants to control, while rolling Russia back. The United States needs military support, especially bases, as it has decided to stay in Syria “until Iran withdraws its forces”. The growing military cooperation between the EMA alliance and the US reflects nothing else but war preparations.

In summer, Greece expelled two Russian diplomats accused of attempting to instil opposition to the agreement in order to prevent Macedonia’s NATO membership. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov subsequently canceled a planned visit to Athens. All these trends and events create certain background before the visit of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to Russia scheduled on Dec. 7 (it had been previously planned for Dec.12). The two countries have always been friends and close partners but the announced plans to turn Greece into a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean is a matter of concern and not only for Moscow.

Public-sector clientelism is leading to disastrous inefficiency

Why do tragedies like these occur in social environments with firmly entrenched clientelist political systems and in political entities that operate on the periphery of major, bureaucratic, modern empires? Sweden saw huge uncontrolled fires this summer. However, there was no loss of life or major disasters that befell the urban centers. In Portugal last year — and very recently in Greece  —  scores of people died, mainly due to the inability of the state machinery to efficiently deal with the problem. The major difference between these examples is the quality of the civil service. In Greece and Portugal there is no real ethics in the public administration, which frequently fails to meet any vigorous efficiency test .

In public bureaucracies that sprout favoritism the way trees grow branches, it is very difficult to design long-term plans to handle critical and life-threatening situations. Likewise, the political system lacks the prerequisites to draw upon informed societies that are trained to be cooperative and disciplined when there is a need for coordination. When clientelism dictates and forms the essence of the political culture, this culminates in fractured societies that are infected with spreading islands of lawlessness and limited possibilities for administrative coherence.

In Greece in particular, the deep-rooted mentality of state favoritism produces whole sectors of uncoordinated urbanization, with no respect for the environment, chaotic borough formation, and a coastline that has been brutally violated by hasty real-estate developmental schemes,. In such a social context, thorough planning becomes almost impossible and the idea of applying administrative guidelines to deal with a crisis sounds like a joke. It is essentially the political system itself that invites disasters and not any sort of physical deluge that begets them.

The need for market solutions

Clientelism and heavy state intervention in the running of the economy and society are the basic causes of inefficiency and, henceforth, administrative chaos. It appears that the process of rational choice is the fatal enemy of the dominant mentality in such systems of government. This is represented by any model that relies on the market to deal with questions of economic policy and societal organization. A bloated public sector that is encouraged by the political authorities to constantly expand, irrespective of its ability to deliver on its promises, becomes the major problem. Instead of being the solution to emerging issues, the state actually becomes the cause of most troubles and difficulties.

Henceforth, without clear objectives or cost-benefit solutions, the state is unable to provide reliable outcomes or to cope with situations, especially emergencies. In the case of Greece in particular, the fire-fighting service had been financially starved, while its personnel had been recruiting new staff based on specific social criteria! In other words, firefighters entrusted with saving people from emergency situations were hired on the basis of their physical inability to deal with normal life situations, i.e., the physically handicapped, mentally unfit, generally unhealthy, or recruits who were simply from disadvantaged social backgrounds.

Relying on a market mentality means that choices are made based on measurable results, well structured plans to deal with crises, and thoroughly tested options. When none of these requirements are met, it is more than certain that achievements will be negligible and the consequences disastrous. Hence one must assume that societies that do not rely on rational-choice procedures and which pursue policies of heavy state intervention and patron-client favoritism are not likely to see successful results. This essentially means that societies built on capitalist principles pursue measurable results that further the welfare of their citizens.

Geopolitical repercussions

There is also a geopolitical angle to these observations. If a country cannot keep up with globally established administrative and financial trends, it will end up facing dead-end situations and find itself being marginalized. With the exception of its reliance on heavy state taxation, the EU always pursues policies of open social frontiers and market economics. Countries that deviate from this logic find themselves gradually lost in a political wilderness. They constantly creep along on the fringes of events and absent themselves from all contemporary processes. By acting as the exception instead of the rule, they will rapidly find themselves marginalized. They will become a stark anomaly and thus be excluded from every movement going forward. They will become the pariahs of the international system. Geopolitical events will pass them by, and they will be looked upon as the "black holes" of the international order.

Domestic events and major financial and/or economic choices cannot be limited any longer to national or regional occurrences. Notwithstanding the importance of events within a country, opting for heavy state intervention may lead a country into the international wilderness. What’s more, its international standing may also be impaired, contributing to the nation’s overall marginalization.

In Greece we witnessed this repulsive, internally-generated tragedy in all its horrifying glory. Unfortunately we may soon see more far-reaching consequences…

Let’s first sweep the picture clean of inaccurate assertions and unfounded claims. Commentators who almost always turn to the anti-Western narrative immediately took to the field. The Greek government, they claim, is trying to earn its credentials vis-à-vis NATO and the US. Although nobody has ever required such a demonstration of allegiance from Athens. Under the present circumstances Greece is not going to win any points with such behaviour. With the agreement at Prespa Lake and Athens yielding to FYROMacedonia's membership in NATO, the Greek government has already earned what it could from like-minded Western European capitals. A breakup with Russia would not have added anything to Athens’ pro-Western arsenal.

At a time when the US is blaming Germany for being friendly with Russia and other European states — namely Austria, Italy, and Hungary, among others — appear to be moving closer to Moscow, what would an anti-Russian gesture by Greece signify? How could Athens expect to capitalize on this? I cannot honestly discern any direct benefit for Greece. Likewise, why would Washington pressure Athens to adapt such a hostile attitude? What would the Americans expect to earn at a time when the US president himself reiterates that in Vladimir Putin he sees a man he can fully understand … and make a deal with…

On the other hand, as far as bilateral relations are concerned, Athens' relationship with Moscow has been seriously wounded — without any clear benefits for Greece. Putin has made it clear how he would react if faced with a repeated challenge: "If you squeeze a spring as far as it will go, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this".

One should not overlook the fact that some months ago a meeting was called off between the Greek and Russian government ministries that had been aimed at fostering economic cooperation between the two countries. The reason given was the unexpected appearance at the meeting of some Crimean politicians — the Russians maintaining however that the Greek side had been forewarned and had not raised any objections at the time! In the end the episode was brushed aside without any major repercussions, at least public ones. But it was an issue nevertheless…

At the last occurrence, culminating in the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Athens there is enough ambivalence as concerns the matter.The main issue being discussed is a possible Russian effort against the Prespa agreement, objecting in order to to nullify FYROM’s future membership in NATO. Two comments must be made here. Only Northern Macedonia can render the agreement invalid at this point, not Greece. Even if the Greek parliament fails to ratify the agreement, the northern Macedonians will automatically become members of the Atlantic alliance. In order for that to happen the government in Skopje merely needs to satisfy the requirements set out by the Prespa agreement and stipulated by NATO. It is ridiculous to think that Russian diplomats are not fully aware of this situation. Why then, as some observers insinuate, should they try to nudge Greece into walking out of the agreement?

As for NATO, it is doubtful that the Russians do not recognize that the attitude of the US and of its president, who recently met with Russian officials and with President Putin himself in Helsinki, poses a greater threat to the cohesion of the alliance than the membership of tiny FYROM. My opinion is that the various reports on the issue are making the matter seem much weightier than it really is. My assessment is that Moscow is much less concerned about it than is generally acknowledged.

There is, however, definitely an issue. Otherwise we would not have reached the point of repatriating diplomats. One should never overlook the fact that great powers are usually burdened by many decision-influencing centres. Sometimes they are working outside of the official process that the governments dictate. Russia can hardly be an exception. Often the tentacles of such decision-making centres reach the state machinery. This has happened in Greece in the past, when a retired Air Force pilot attempted to bomb parts of Albania. We saw it again in the case of a fugitive from Turkey, the Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan. In the US it is very often the case that various agencies take initiatives without the knowledge of the central government authorities.

With Russia, the issue of Orthodox Christian belief is quite important. Adherence to those principles can potentially prompt actions and moves without the knowledge or approval of a central authority. Unfortunately, I am not privy to specific information. But I believe that my ideas make logical sense. Why should the Kremlin jeopardise a carefully cultivated cordial relationship with Athens just to pursue a dead-end policy on the issue of Skopje? After all, that’s an issue of paramount importance to Greece! And it could not possibly produce any fruitful results…

There are people in northern Greece who have often involved themselves in issues of vital importance to Greece without the slightest official authorisation or coordination with the aims of the Greek state. Some of them refer to Russia as a sister Orthodox power, without having been entrusted with such authority.

On the other hand, one should not overlook the fact that Greece carries a grudge against the Kremlin for having embraced Turkey in recent months, supplying it with missiles and accepting its friendly overtures on the Syrian front, although aware of its diverse inclinations concerning the future of that region.

It is not impossible that such sentiments may have culminated in and led to the recent crisis between the two states. 

Notwithstanding the above, there is a wider issue contributing to the current misunderstandings. Russia has always been a puzzle for anyone attempting to do business with her. They find it difficult to comprehend her reactions and behaviour. Almost all are reminded of Winston Churchill's words describing Russia: "It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". What few people remember is the rest of Churchill's phrase: "But perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest". 

Some years later he explained: "I am convinced that there is nothing they [the Russians] admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness". No country can expect a positive appraisal if it does nothing but beg and offers little or no policy coordination. These words might adequately explain Russia's attitude towards other countries and its posture towards various global affairs.

Nothing like this ever happened before. The relations between the two countries have traditionally been warm. This year Moscow and Athens mark the 190th anniversary of diplomatic relations and the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Hellenic Republic. They have signed over 50 treaties and agreements. The Greek people’s positive attitude towards Russia is well known. It had been widely believed that Athens trusted Moscow more than Brussels. Russian ambassador to Athens Andrey Maslov has recently described Greece "as a reliable partner". More than one million Russian tourists are expected to visit Greece this year.

Unlike the majority of other Western countries, Greece rejected the British request to expel Russian diplomats in the wake of London’s claims of Moscow’s involvement in the Skripal poisoning. It’s also among the few NATO members to have Russian weapons in the armed forces’ inventory, including S-300 air defense systems.

The Greek Kathimerini daily’s report offers details on the matter. It’s not so important what exactly happened or if the sources cited are reliable enough to believe them. The information is too scarce anyway for making any conclusions. New Democracy’s shadow Foreign Minister Giorgos Koumoutsakos on July 12 criticized the lack of information from the government on the rift between Greece and Russia. 

Such things happen from time to time and if the relations are good, the differences can be ironed out behind the scenes without much ado. There is always a hidden agenda behind making such scoops leaked into media. Nothing comes from nothing. And timing is never accidental. Spy scandals never come out of the blue. For instance, the news about the expulsion coincided with the NATO summit in Brussels demonstrating Greece’s solidarity with the allies. It was also the time preparations for a visit of Russian FM Sergey Lavrov to Greece were in full swing. Now it’s not known whether the visit will take place.

Kathimerini says the relationship started to gradually worsen behind the scenes about a couple of years ago. What happened back then? Geoffrey Ross Pyatt assumed office as US Ambassador to Greece. Before the assignment he had served as ambassador to Ukraine in 2013-2016 at the time of Euromaidan – the events the US took active part in. He almost openly contributed into the Russia-Ukraine rift. Now it’s the turn of Greece. The ambassador has already warned Athens about the “malign influence of Russia”. He remains true to himself.

During the two years, Greece has not been opposing the anti-Russia sanctions as vigorously and resolutely as Italy or Hungary. None of the planned energy or other economic projects has come into fruition.

Greece is involved in the EastMed sea gas project along with Cyprus, Italy and Israel. The country is also viewed by the United States as a potential customer for American LNG exports, especially after it modernized its port facilities near Pireaus. Greece plans to build a floating storage terminal for LNG in Alexandroupoli. Economy always shapes foreign policy. Evidently, Greece is not interested in cheap Russian gas coming to Europe via the North Stream pipelines. Neither is the United States.

The scandal may be a straw for Greece to catch at as the heavily indebted nation is balancing on the brink of financial crisis. Athens needs relief deals to restructure the debt. It makes it dependent on the US-controlled IMF and the EU (Germany is the largest lender) to bail it out. Under the circumstances, it cannot be politically independent. As opposition to the austerity measures is growing, the government needs a “meddling scandal” to distract the people from everyday life woes.

President Trump has promised Prime Minister Tsipras large investments into economy. The United States is the sixth-largest foreign investor in that country. Addressing the American-Hellenic Chamber of Commerce annual New Year’s event in Athens, Geoffrey Pyatt expressed his optimism that 2018 would be a year of recovery for Greece, while all the more US investors are seeking ways to collaborate with Greek enterprises.

The extension of the agreement for the use of the US naval base in Souda Bay, Crete, the only deep-water port in southern Europe and the Mediterranean able to accommodate American aircraft carriers, is a topic for talks. Upgrading of the Greek fleet of F-16 fighters is also on the agenda. The US is ready to make it a relief deal. Its military is reportedly harboring thoughts about developing in Greece a regional alternative to the use of the crucial Incirlik base in Turkey. The relationship between Turkey and the West continues to deteriorate. Greece sees it as a chance to boost its importance for the US in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa.

Propaganda also has a role to play. For instance, Russia is blamed by Western media for harboring nefarious plans to hinder the possible agreement between Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the UK to reunify the island. It is also accused of meddling in Macedonia. As usual, one story is invented after another to be spread around by Western media outlets.

A day after expelling diplomats, Greece said it wants to turn a page seeking good relations with Moscow. Russia has no desire to seriously deteriorate the relationship but it will retaliate as it always does. It will also keep in mind that the Greek government is playing its own games and Russia is supposed to a part of it. Greece is also used by those it depends on. National sovereignty happened to be too costly for Athens. Normal bilateral relations may be preserved but things like trust and sincerity will be missing. Games change and governments come and go but friendly relations between the peoples remain. The provocation committed by the Greek government cannot change the reality. 63% of Greeks hold a favorable view of Russia. This relationship is too strong to be ruined outside pressure.