“The country must be able to defend itself and alone,” said National Defence Minister Nikos Dendias, speaking at the forum of the Economic Tachydromos newspaper. Against the backdrop of cruel geopolitical developments, but also the intensifying Turkish provocativeness, “we have to be able to stand alone. I have a firm belief that we will not be alone,” the minister continued, saying that “to be respected, you have to be able to defend yourself.”

“It will be unnecessary if it is. If they are not, then we will be in trouble,” he explained about the arms programs, while he commented on the need for EU defense autonomy, the Middle East conflict, and the US high strategy, going forward.

Against the backdrop of the latest statements by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, and his counterpart Yasar Güler, the Defence Minister explained that “I was not and am not convinced that Türkiye has renounced its fixed aspirations. So Türkiye is making and even with an exploratory scope, with increasing scope, its claims towards the country.” “The calm surface, i.e. the non-violations to a certain extent of the airspace”, as Dendias argued, has to do, at the same time, “with Türkiye’s need, in its broader image, to be seen as a good player in international affairs.”

As for the cost of defense spending, “the reality is that if you can’t defend yourself, you can’t eat butter. You can’t eat anything,” Dendias said, noting that “Greece is forced to have a sufficient defense capability to deter” at least one neighbor, the Defense Minister argued, recalling that Türkiye “threatens us with a casus belli.”

Asked to comment on the referring debate, following the change of baton in the US regarding the EU’s strategic autonomy, “Europe must have a defense arm”. However, “it is far from ready. It is elsewhere for elsewhere,” the Defence Minister described, while criticizing its functioning, as “there is no communication of two EU policy axes”. Specifically, “one part of the Union says we should have a defense arm”, Dendias said, while another insists on fiscal orthodoxy. “Where do these two realities communicate?” he asked.

“The EU tends to deal with the problem after the damage has been done and not before,” he stressed, saying it was acting as a “sorcerer’s apprentice”. At the same time, the discussion on defense autonomy is finding favorable ears among his European counterparts, Dendias argued, “and I tell you this as a criticism without being anti-European,” he continued, adding that “certain things must be understood in due course and not when the damage is done.”

“We are trying to build the armed forces of 2030,” he said, but “the US is expanding its deficits, and the EU with much lower growth rates is advocating a fiscal sequence that is inconsistent with its other precepts,” he said.

Asked about the consequences of the war between Israel and Hamas, Dendias remarked that “the need for the frigate is a consequence of conflict in the Middle East”, noting that “we are in no way part of the Middle East conflict”. “So we do not tolerate that ships of Greek interests should be targeted”.

As for the philosophy of the new arms programs, the defense minister defended the increase of Greek participation in them, as not satisfied with the percentage that has been in place so far.

In this context, Dendias announced the presence of the French Defense Minister on December 12-13 in Athens, launching a new phase in their bilateral cooperation, while recalling the Greek participation in the new programs by the major platforms as a parameter of participation in the Greek arms programs. “We want more,” the Defense Minister noted, against the backdrop of the negotiation of the 4th Belharra frigate.

Finally, asked about the possibility of his election for Presidency of the Hellenic Republic as a person of broad political consensus, “For God’s sake, I cannot even adopt the question,” Dendias replied, recalling that “on the issue of the Presidency, with absolute respect, I have answered twice. I left no choice in any way”, he said, commenting further that “woe to the country if I was the only solution”. “If six months before the expiration of the term of office of the President in office, a discussion about his succession starts, which to the extent that it does not include him, does not include her, it is not respect for the institution,” he concluded.