For almost ten months now, an unprecedented calm has been observed in the Aegean. This is not only a consequence of political will. It also has an economic dimension, while it is also due to operational weaknesses. In any case, it is a positive development that can and should be exploited.
The two sides positively assess the progress so far, which started informally after the devastating earthquake in Turkey, last February, and gained concrete momentum after the meetings of the Greek prime minister with the Turkish president on the sidelines of the NATO summit in July, in Vilnius , and the UN General Assembly in September, in New York.
Communication channels are working and agreements on low policy issues are moving forward. The positive course will be further upgraded with the meeting of the Supreme Cooperation Council in a month in Thessaloniki.
Of course, there is always the danger that an unexpected event could lead to a sharp reversal, especially from the unpredictable and explosive Tayyip Erdogan. Given the attitude of the Turkish president towards the West, the last thing that is needed is a worsening of relations with Greece.
Common pursuit, to limit the consequences that the war may have in their region.
Athens moves steadily in the Western camp, exploits its geographical position with its role being upgraded and, at the same time, activates itself in the humanitarian sector.
For its part, Ankara is attempting to emerge as a leading power in the Muslim world in direct conflict with Israel and the West. In this effort, she does not desire and cannot bear additional open fronts, which do not offer her benefits, but on the contrary make her path difficult.
A hot issue that worries both countries is the flow of refugees and immigrants. Turkey is already hosting nearly four million people as a result of the war in Syria. The problem concerns all the countries of the Mediterranean, especially in a phase in which the Arab populations are revolting, putting to the test the moderate regimes in geopolitically important countries such as Egypt.
Athens and Ankara start from different starting points and have different strategic goals in relation to the crisis. However, they do not wish for the spread of hostilities, not at the level of theoretical rhetoric, but for specific practical reasons. They are “united” by the common pursuit to limit the consequences that the war may have in their region.
With the volatile scene in the Middle East increasing uncertainties, the mature and stable continuation of Greek-Turkish dialogue benefits both sides.
