Minister of National Defence N. Dendias Participates in Conversation in Sydney on Security in the Southeastern Mediterranean

Home > 2nd position > Minister of National Defence N. Dendias Participates in Conversation in Sydney on Security in the Southeastern Mediterranean

Minister of National Defence N. Dendias Participates in Conversation in Sydney on Security in the Southeastern Mediterranean

July 16, 2026

Today, Thursday 16 July 2026, the Minister of National Defence Nikos Dendias participated in a conversation in Sydney with former Senator of Australia and University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Professor Stephen Looseley on the subject "Security in the Southeastern Mediterranean".

The event was organised by the Embassy of Greece in Australia and Business Sydney, whose Executive Director is Greek-Australian Paul Nicolaou.

The conversation was also attended, among others, by the Ambassador of Greece to Australia Stavros Venizelos, the Ambassador of Cyprus to Australia Antonis Samoutis, the Director of the Hellenic Navy General Staff Armaments Directorate, Rear Admiral Panagiotis Karavas HN, the General Consul of Greece in Sydney Georgios Skemperis, the Right Reverend Bishop of Canberra Athinagoras as representative of the Archbishop of Australia, the CEO of Bank of Sydney Kieran McKenna, representatives of foreign diplomatic delegations to Australia, Australian officials, and representatives of diaspora organisations.

The conversation was as follows:

S. Looseley:

Thank you very much, Paul. I know of no other person in Australian politics and business who can welcome everyone in the room to the gathering. It is a most spectacular talent. Minister Dendias, you are a most welcome visitor to Australia. There are issues on the agenda for Greece and for Europe that are almost identical to the issues that are on the agenda here in the Indo-Pacific. And we look forward to your perspectives on certain of the challenges that you are confronting at the moment, the lessons learned, the policies that are emerging and the consequence for Australia. Because, ladies and gentlemen, everyone here realizes that there are no localized strategic issues or economic issues anymore. Every issue that confronts the nation - state on whatever continent has a global consequence. And the best illustration of that is the fact that issues that are serious challenges in the Arctic or the Antarctic
have a consequence for all of us here tonight and for people everywhere. Now, looking at Australian and Greek history there are so many elements in common. For over a century the eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, has been a very serious consequence for Australia, from 1915 in Gallipoli to the very present day. In two wars, both in the Great War and in World War II, serious consequences have emerged in your part of the world, sir, which its been our responsibility, along with Greece, to confront, and from peacekeeping in 1948 to the present time. So the matters that are on your agenda are very much on ours and they have very much a global consequence. So I thought I might begin by asking you, in terms of Europe, in terms of Greece, in terms of Türkiye, how significant is NATO and what do you believe the future holds for the Treaty organization?

N. Dendias:

Well, first of all, in order to look to the future, one has to appreciate the past. And both us, but I also believe Türkiye as well, have to accept and appreciate the fact that NATO was a critical factor in as remaining in what vaguely we can describe as the western world.

We feel that the era before 1990, when the Berlin Wall and the Warsaw Pact came down, is a far forgone era. But the truth is, it's only 36 years ago. And it was a time when the Warsaw Pact troops were just 80 kilometres from the Aegean Sea. And let us be honest, if it was not for NATO, and if Greece and Türkiye were not members of NATO, allow me to say that Greece and Türkiye became together members of NATO in 1952, my hypothesis was that the Warsaw Pact would have controlled both countries at the end of the day. At that time, now we see Russia as a mid-sized power who cannot conquer Ukraine. But at that time, it was a different story altogether. Russia, the Soviet Union then appeared triumphant after World War II, it was occupying half of Europe. The famous Churchill speech in Missouri about the Iron Curtain was what was happening at that time. So NATO had a substantial presence in our region, in Southeastern Europe. And I have to appreciate that NATO guaranteed our freedom, our democracy, the human rights, whatever we have today, whatever we hold precious. There are different challenges now. And the question now is: is NATO relevant to these new appearing challenges? My clear answer would be 'Yes', with a capital letter. Why am I saying that?
Well, one would have said that the Soviet Union is not with us anymore, the Warsaw Pact does not exist, so why do we need NATO? And it would have been a subject for a serious discussion. But there comes the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And then again the whole argument changes. And I have to say that without NATO the European countries, not just the European Union, are not able, at least at the present time, to address the challenge presented even by Russia alone. Although the Russian GDP is marginally higher than Spain, yet again Russia was able to create a war economy and put on the field armed forces, whether we, in the European Union, thinking that the war is not something that will occupy us in a lifetime, tend to put armaments and preparation for a potential war aside.

So NATO is a factor that still guarantees prosperity and stability in Southeastern Europe. My anxiety is for the United States to remain engaged. Because I hear what you hear coming out of Washington. And sometimes the way the American administration expresses itself creates doubts in Europe, but not only in Europe. It creates doubts around the world of the continuous presence of the United States, both in Europe, but also beyond Europe. I deeply believe, being a friend of the United States of America among others, that it is in the interest of the people of the United States for the United States to become engaged, to remain engaged in Europe. And there is a historic precedent, because one could ask me, why do you care, why are you offering an opinion? Well, the only thing I would say to that question is, just reminding you something: Twice in the 20th century, the United States departed from Europe. And then they came back running: during World War I and during World War II. So lets not try for a third time.

S. Looseley:

Dr. Henry Kissinger, a very distinguished American statesman, was once quoted as saying that to be an enemy of the United States was a dangerous circumstance, but to be a friend of the United States could prove to be even more dangerous. And if we look at some of the Trump Administration's pronouncements on close allies, including Australia, they are much harsher than any of the judgements that Washington seems to furnish on our adversaries. And that is extraordinarily disquieting. Could not agree more with your observation about the need for a continuing US presence, not only in NATO, but in Europe. But what else do the democracies, and I' m thinking of Greece, I'm thinking of Australia, I'm thinking of other civilized states, what else do the democracies need to be doing to counter the aggression of the authoritarian states? Not only the Russians, but states like Iran, states like China, and so on and so forth. Should we have a more clearly defined agenda?

N. Dendias:

Again, I' m afraid that we became victims of our own success, it is absolutely clear. I have to tell you, I'm opening a parenthesis here. I was the last Western minister in Moscow before Russia invaded Ukraine. I left Moscow 48 hours before Russia invaded Ukraine. And at the time, I very clearly remember Minister Lavrov spending 45 minutes of his precious time to explain to me, and who am I, I was a Minister of Foreign Affairs of a mid-sized country, not only that they will not invade Ukraine, but why it would have been stupid to invade Ukraine. And I wouldn't agree with him more, even today. By the way, the reason I was in Moscow was to plead to the Russian government, at that time, we had this scenario at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Russia may do a limited operation in Mariupol, and there was a vibrant Greek community of 100,000 people in Mariupol. So I went there to plead to the Russians to spare the Greek community. And then I flew to Africa when I was waking up at two o'clock in the morning with the news that Russia invaded. So, why I mention this particular incident? Because although the Americans were bringing us photos of the Russian troops in movement, although they were giving us proof that Russians were moving units towards the front, even they were moving medical units, so it could not have been just an exercise, we refused to believe them. Because war in Europe was totally out of our mind. We never believed that somebody would be foolish enough to bring humanity back to where humanity was in the 20 th century. So we disregarded what any serious country should have done, prepare its defence. Defend the values that it stands for. And now we have to go running back and build up armaments and create possibilities. But even more than that, change again the culture of the young generation. Any young child nowadays, any young man, any young woman have to understand that they have to defend their country. It's a right and it' s an obligation. A right and an obligation that we have forgotten. Greece has a conscript army, as some of you may know. Historically, although we have, I believe, high-level professionals, historically we believe that it is the duty of the citizen to protect the country. That has been our tradition since the time of the Persian Wars, 500 years before Christ. That is our tradition. And I believe that's a sound tradition. Yet again, even that was disregarded in the sense that, yes, the young generation was serving in the army, but as a matter of procedure, not really to acquire the capabilities that are necessary for the modern fighter. Now we have to create that capabilities. All democracies have to do that.

S. Looseley:

We are surely learning the lessons of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, not only on the battlefield, but the diplomatic consequences. And I'm thinking in terms of Finland and Sweden joining NATO.

N. Dendias:

Who would have thought that?

S. Looseley:

Close relationship prior to joining, but now officially members of NATO, which really begs the question of the Baltic having become locked up by the NATO powers. Putin said he wanted no more NATO on his border. With Finland joining NATO, he has 1,300 kilometres more NATO on his border. The question arises, I think, from all of us trying to read Moscow accurately and fairly, we are told constantly by the US, by the European powers, by others, that Putin is surrounded by a clique of sycophants who tell him only what he wants to hear. So he actually has less than a reasoned assessment, not only of the battlefield, but of Russia' diplomatic situation, which is powerless, and its economic situation, which is continuing to deteriorate. How do we break through, in terms not only of the Russian leadership, but of the broader Russian community, in terms of dealing with realities?

N. Dendias:

I'm afraid here we have two different, totally opposite perceptions. If you talk to anybody in Europe nowadays, the perception is that Russia is preparing itself, if they can be successful in Ukraine, to invade Europe, and especially the Baltic states, or Finland, or Sweden, or Poland. On the other hand, if you speak to a Russian diplomat, he would say exactly the opposite, that NATO is preparing itself to invade Russia. Now, honestly speaking, I cannot understand the perception from the Russian side. Of course, there is a serious discussion on how NATO's expansion to the east played to the Russian insecurity. I could admit that that may have created insecurity. But yet again, I cannot accept that Russia can impose on the governments of the ex-members of the Warsaw Pact if they should or they should not become members of NATO, or for that matter, if they should or they should not become members of the European Union. Because if that was the case, then why did we oppose the Warsaw Pact? We could have left things as they were, and livedhappily ever after. The epitome of what we are trying to achieve is for all societies in the world, not just European societies, to have the democratic right to determine their future. And it is clear, in my humble opinion, that most of the societies in Europe want to become members of the European Union, and most of them also want to become members of NATO. On the other hand, is there really anybody that in his right mind would believe that one day NATO countries would invade Russia? That we can mobilize our societies and our armed forces to start an attack against any country in the world, but especially such a big, powerful country as Russia? To fly from Moscow to Vladivostok, I have done it, it takes you eight and a half hours. Do we really imagine the NATO armies starting to march past the Urals, etc.? I mean, surely this is nonsense. This will never, ever happen. So, what I think we should try to do is persuade the Russian people that that cannot be the case. And also try to help them understand that the democratic choice of the societies of the European nations should not and cannot be perceived as a threat from Russia. Russia is a proud country with a huge civilization, a country that demands our respect. We respect Russia. On the other hand, we cannot give to Russia the ability to dictate the future of the European societies.

S. Looseley:

Agreed. Unfortunately, nonsense has taken over political discourse in countries well beyond Russia of recent times. Turning to the Eastern Mediterranean, if we can manage the security issues, what are the major opportunities for investment, economic growth, and for turning the region, all the countries in the region wherever possible, to a more prosperous future?

N. Dendias:

If we manage that, the sky is the limit. Because the geographical position, of course, poses us a challenge. But the challenge is a double-edged sword. It could be also a huge opportunity. Energy, interconnectors, electricity interconnectors, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, any kind of connectivity. Trade. Innovation. You name it, it's there. It's the connection of three continents: Asia, Africa, Europe. As is the traditional role of that part of the world, when there is peace, this part of the world could become extremely prosperous. And extremely relevant to a better future for Europe and for the world. But, I have to say, we are a little far from that. There's huge problems in the Middle East now, huge problems in the Gulf. You watch the news, you see what the situation in the Gulf is like. You have heard the rumours of what we can expect in the next few days, if Iran does not back out from the claim to stop traffic in the Hormuz. By the way, this is totally unacceptable. Imagine what would happen if Indonesia, for example, and Singapore stopped traffic in the Strait of Malacca, Greece stops traffic in the Aegean, Spain stops traffic in Gibraltar etc., Russia stops traffic in the Arctic. We cannot accept that. Freedom of navigation is essential for humanity. Also, it's a really serious factor for prosperity. We cannot live without trade. But, again, to go back to the question, if we address those challenges in the region, the sky is the limit for the Southeastern Mediterranean. And I hope that I will be able to have the opportunity to see that happen one day.

S. Looseley:

It would be first class. In terms of the European response to the challenges from the authoritarian powers, how important is the German role?

N. Dendias:

The German role is extremely important. There are voices in Europe, not really publicly expressed, but there are there, that are afraid of the German rearmament. Especially in the older generation, who remember World War II, they still view Germany with suspicion. My impression is that the younger generation of Germans would not go back to what I call the Prussian way. There is a very interesting small book, The Short History of Germany. The story goes in that book, there are two Germanies, Prussia and Germany. Whenever Prussia takes over, we have war. Whenever Germany takes over, then there is prosperity and stability.

And what it says is that the defining line is the borders of the Roman Empire. So whatever was part of the Roman Empire became Germany. Whatever was left out of the Roman Empire became Prussia, it became militaristic, and it viewed continuous war as a method not just of survival, but as a way of life, in a sense.

But now what used to be Prussia is mostly part of today' s Poland. So I believe that the Federal Republic, which is absolutely necessary for our common European future, will not become a challenge for Europe. And anyway, let us be realistic for those who are not idealistic. It' s better to have them in than have them out.

S. Looseley:

Some would argue that that was actually the reason NATO was created, to keep the Germans inside. The tale of Arminius and the destruction of the Roman legions in the Teutoburger battle in 6 AD is always instructive. There are some wonderful historical theses.

So if this had not happened and Rome had been able to civilize the Germans as far as the Elbe, there would have been no need for a Kaiser or a Führer. Germany would have emerged as a European democracy a long time before it actually happened. So history is always there.

Could I turn to an issue of significance for not only Greece, for Australia as well, given our UN contribution in Cyprus? How would you characterize the situation facing Cyprus at the moment? Is there a possibility of a negotiated outcome with Türkiye that would see a more normal circumstance apply on the island?

N. Dendias:

Well, my opinion is that there is a possibility, there is a new possibility for a win-win situation.

It would be good for Cyprus, first and foremost, and when I say Cyprus, I don' t just mean the Republic of Cyprus, but also I mean the Turkish-Cypriot community as well, and of course the Greek-Cypriot community as well.

But apart from that, it would be extremely good for the Greek-Turkish relations, and for prosperity and stability, as we discussed before, in the Eastern Mediterranean.

I' m happy to see now that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is making a new effort. And I hope, I hope that we could take stock of what has been achieved in Crans-Montana where unfortunately the negotiations broke down, we could go back to what had been agreed at that time, and be able to find a way in which we could resolve the division of the island, which is since 1974.

And again, I believe that would be, it would be hugely, hugely important for the Eastern Mediterranean. There's a school of thought in Turkey and in Greece, that says that unless we resolve the Cyprus issue, Greek-Turkish relations could never improve, regardless of what has been agreed or has not been agreed between Ankara and Athens. Cyprus is the major focus point in order to have a good relationship between Turkey and Greece.

So, for the first time now in many years, I do have high hopes that there is some sort of light in the end of the tunnel, but it's a big tunnel.

S. Looseley:

There is an American expression with which you' d be only too familiar, that in the democracies we should never waste a crisis, we should look for the opportunity.

And this period of uncertainty might provide the opportunity, as you were saying, Minister, to advance the negotiations on Cyprus.

On a broader strategic issue, China's role for the future, not only with Greece, with Europe, more broadly, how do you see that evolving?

N. Dendias:

Well, it' s becoming more complex by the day. China is simultaneously three different things. And of course, I appreciate the fact that you here in Australia see China in a much better way than I do from Europe. But China at the same time is a business partner potentially, is a competitor, and is a security challenge. All three of them, and we have to address simultaneously all three of them.

Is it easy? No, it is not easy. And being Greek, I'm well aware of what now is being described as the Thucydides Trap. The old idea that an emerging power, because of insecurity, like Sparta at the time, goes to war to address the security challenge. I hope that will not happen.

I think that we can address China in all three different dimensions that I spoke about before. But also, we should not kid ourselves. We have to keep a very clear eye and understand that all of them have to be addressed.

As I was going around in the streets of Sydney, for the first time in my life, I saw quite many Chinese vehicles. And I wonder, how does, for example, the other car- producing countries in the region, Korea, Japan, see the invasion of subsidized exports of Chinese vehicles?

The same thing, by the way, happens in Athens. You can buy a huge luxurious Chinese SUV for half the price of what you would need to pay for a European one or an American one. How come? Are the Chinese so productive that they produce it at half the price?

If that is the case, fine, this is capitalism. It's good. The consumer profits. But is it hidden subsidy from the Chinese state? Then, no sir, that's not acceptable. Because those are not the rules of the game. And China has to understand that they can not subsidize. That' s not the way to go forward.

Or, for example, just a few months ago, I was sorry that I had to authorize the arrest of a Greek Air Force colonel for espionage on behalf of a big foreign power, you can imagine which one I'm referring to. No, that is not acceptable.

We respect China, but we demand their respect as well. So, we have to be careful.

S. Looseley:

Agreed. We have had that experience of China being particularly angry with Australia under a previous government. The sanctions that were placed on certain of our industries totalled over 20 billion dollars Australian. Now, Australia is a commodity trader, as you are aware. We then proceeded to trade 24 billion dollars' worth of product in different alternative markets. That seems to have caused Beijing to pause for the future.

But the key thing was to stand up and to argue, this is our position, we' re happy to work with you, but if we can't work with you, then we will work against you and solve the problem.

In terms of the immediate future, how would you grade the challenges that you reacing? There' s obviously Ukraine, there's the Middle East, there are the economic challenges. What is the most pressing, in your view, Minister? And how will Greece and Europe deal with the challenges?

N. Dendias:

Well, I would say that what is of utmost importance is not to allow the situation in Ukraine, the war in Ukraine, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the situation in Iran, that is Iran's effort to produce nuclear weapons, to create a new norm.

What I' m advocating in all the countries I' m visiting, is that pacta sunt servanda, we should stand by the treaties that have already been signed and have helped Europe and the world remain in peace for so many decades.

And also what I 'm advocating is that change of borders, or any discussion for change of borders, is something that is extremely dangerous in today' s world.

So, what I would suggest to everybody is open lines of communication. Open lines of communication, continuous discussion, and a clear view that peace is very, very precious, and we should preserve what has been achieved after World War II. Isolate the two huge trouble spots, Iran and Russian invasion of Ukraine, try to address them, they are totally different issues, but yet again, they are creating huge dangers in world stability, and not allow problems to spread.

S. Looseley:

The Thucydides Trap, ladies and gentlemen, is based upon false assumptions. False assumptions between the Greek city-states at the time.

And I think the point you made earlier about open discussion, open dialogue, and being able to talk the issues through is most important.

Final question. Helmut Schmidt, a very formidable German Chancellor, made this remark about European relations with Margaret Thatcher. And he said 'we realized', and he was talking about Europe rather than simply Germany, 'Mrs. Thatcher was not going to be in power for 25 years, so we waited for a change in the breeze.'

Should we be waiting for a change in the breeze in Washington, D.C., in four years time?

N. Dendias:

Well, I' ll be open about this. As a Foreign Minister, I worked with the first Trump Administration. As a Defence Minister I' m working with the second Trump II administration. Also, in the meantime, I worked with the Biden administration.

And Greece has always been very close to the United States. We have been a close ally and a friend of the United States of America. We never forgot the help given to us by America after World War II.

So, what I would suggest is not to buy too much into President Trump's rhetoric. Try to be a little more distant from what is being said, which I understand sometimes is very provocative, and if I may say so, sometimes even insulting. If I was a European leader - that had nothing to do with Greece because Greece spends more than 3% of GDP on defence - but the way President Trump addressed European leaders who did not spend 2%, I wouldn't like to be in their shoes. And if it was me, I would have reacted for sure. But having said that, I would be more careful to see what Washington is doing than what President Trump is saying.

S. Looseley:

I think it' s also important for Australians and for Greeks, the US allies generally to realize that President Trump is sometimes talking to very different audiences. And this propels him into some extraordinary outbursts from time to time.

But, as a British statesman once said, they' re the only Americans we 've got and we need to be able to work with them.

Ladies and gentlemen, on your behalf, could I thank the Minister most sincerely for an extraordinary tour de force on the platform tonight.

Thank you.