Speech by D. Avramopoulos at the “Ekopolitik” Foundation in Istanbul, 31/1/2026

Dear President, Dr. Ramazan Arıtürk,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for the kind invitation to address you today.

I am grateful to the Ekopolitik Foundation, for convening this timely and important discussion, on Rebuilding Strategic Balance in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Eastern Mediterranean is far too important to be managed, through recurring crises and tactical pauses.

It is a strategic crossroads between Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.

It is a corridor of trade, connectivity, energy, religions and cultures.

It is also a maritime space, where security dilemmas intersect every single day.

Migration routes, energy choices, and regional conflicts converge here.

Yet, the Eastern Mediterranean is not merely “Europe’s neighborhood.”

Historically, it has been a passageway of commerce, ideas, and strategic power, from Phoenician sea routes and Athenian maritime dominance, to Rome’s Mare Nostrum, the Byzantine imprint, and later, the rivalry of empires and nationalisms (the control of the Straits).

This region has always been where three continents meet, and where interests collide:

Security, energy, shipping, religious and cultural identities.

Today, this historic geography translates into a modern “theater” of competition and influence, among global and regional actors.

The United States focuses on NATO cohesion and the security of sea lanes.

Russia leverages its instruments of power projection and the energy and naval dimension.

China views the Eastern Mediterranean as a link in supply chains, and in the network of ports and trade connectivity.

The European Union seeks energy diversification, stability in its southern neighborhood, and control of migratory flows, yet too often without a single strategic voice.

At the same time, regional powers shape fluid balances through alliances, armaments, legal claims over maritime zones, and competing connectivity projects.

The essence is that the Eastern Mediterranean, concentrates the defining trends of our era:

Revisionism and sovereignty, energy and technology, maritime security, crises in the Middle East, and the stress test of international legality.

This is why the region cannot endure either automatic reactions or rhetoric of escalation.

It requires strategic composure, credible deterrence, active diplomacy, and a framework of cooperation that lowers the incentives for escalation and raises its political cost, so that the Eastern Mediterranean may cease to be a “frontier of uncertainty” and become a space of stability and shared development.

And this is, above all, the responsibility of the countries of the region themselves.

Rather than remaining objects of competition among others, they must rise above stereotypes and fears and take their destiny into their own hands.

They must choose strategic maturity over momentary tension, cooperation over suspicion, and institutional foresight over improvisation.

Because this is real leadership:

Shaping the framework in which one operates, for now and for the future, rather than being carried away by circumstances, turning a geography of friction into a geography of security, prosperity, and opportunity.

And yet, too often, we act reactively.

We wait for an incident, and then we search for de-escalation.

That is not strategy.

This is not leadership.

It is improvisation under pressure.

A single episode at sea can escalate rapidly.

A single incident in the air can trigger chain reactions.

Not necessarily by intent.

Often through miscalculations or misinterpretations.

Sometimes, simply because effective mechanisms are missing.

But this is a matter of long-term planning.

Rebuilding strategic balance, does not mean “freezing” differences.

It does not mean a fragile balance of fear.

It means predictability and restraint.

It means reliable channels of communication.

It means deconfliction procedures that work quickly.

It means respect for international law.

It means practical cooperation that reduces incentives for escalation.

And, at the same time, raises its political cost.

Today I will move along five interconnected pillars.

First, the relationship between Turkey, Greece, and the European Union.

Second, the developments reshaping the Eastern Mediterranean.

Third, Gaza and its consequences for our neighborhood.

Fourth, Greece–Turkey–Israel relations in this new environment.

Fifth, migration and the EU–Turkey framework, and the need to update it.

Let me start with Turkey, Greece, and the EU.

This triangle concentrates both the risks and the possibilities of the region.

Greece and Turkey are neighbors and NATO allies.

They are also critical actors for European and Atlantic security.

Yet long-standing disputes remain unresolved.

Maritime zones remain contested.

Rules of conduct in the air and at sea, remain sensitive.

The Cyprus issue remains central and unresolved.

And domestic politics often raises the temperature.

But there is an important positive element.

Dialogue has not been interrupted.

Continuity matters more than we often acknowledge.

Open channels have been sustained, thus preventing a vacuum.

And a vacuum is where accidents become crises.

Technical talks and contacts continue.

A positive agenda helps sustain communication in difficult periods.

However, a process is not a strategy without architecture.

Architecture means stable mechanisms and predictable routines.

It means tools that can withstand headlines and electoral cycles.

In a nutshell, it means leadership and regional responsibility.

We need institutionalized de-escalation.

We need permanent channels for incident prevention.

We need open lines of direct communication in real time.

We need protocols for interactions in the air and at sea.

We need confidence-building measures that are operational.

We need implementation review and measurable outcomes.

Trust is not declared once.

Trust is built through consistency and predictability.

And there is also the psychological dimension of security.

Security is not only capabilities and hard power.

It is also soft power.

It is climate, narratives, and perceptions.

The easy invocation of “casus belli” is an outdated logic.

But its shadow remains heavy.

Wars do not come with notifications.

They can begin abruptly.

That is why war rhetoric carries a real cost.

It poisons the atmosphere and narrows political space.

It undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue based on mutual respect.

If we want trust, we must reduce such triggers.

The European Union should not be a spectator.

It is affected by every regional shock.

It is affected by pressure on borders and migration flows.

It is affected by energy security and connectivity.

It is affected by stability and by its own credibility.

EU–Turkey relations remain selectively functional.

And at the same time politically constrained.

The EU must avoid two traps.

A purely transactional logic that buys time, but not stability.

And a purely declaratory posture, that repeats principles without tools.

What works is conditional integration.

Real incentives, but not automatic ones.

Clear criteria, measurable and transparent.

Reciprocity, verifiable and consistent.

And continuous political dialogue, without illusions, but also without threats.

Threats produce counter-threats.

They produce divergence, not convergence.

Let me now turn to the developments shaping the new landscape.

The region is entering a new phase with three accelerations:

Energy realignment.

Security networking.

And a shift in migratory pressures.

In energy, the transition advances but geopolitics remains.

Interconnections and resilience are the core challenge.

Infrastructure reduces vulnerability.

Transparency increases trust.

Rules for cross-border resources are essential.

Without rules, energy becomes a multiplier of competition.

In security, cooperation becomes more structural.

Technology is changing the equation.

Cyber, drones, and hybrid threats are decisive.

The risk emerges when diplomacy falls behind.

Signals blur and misinterpretations grow.

Balance requires deterrence, but also discipline.

Deterrence must be paired with dialogue.

On migration, the southern corridor is gaining importance.

Instability in Libya is linked to smuggling networks.

Smugglers adapt faster than political systems.

Therefore, the southern arc is a strategic axis.

It cannot be treated as a sporadic emergency.

At this point, allow me to emphasize Cyprus.

A settlement would create a positive domino effect.

It would benefit all directly involved.

It would also benefit those indirectly affected.

It would reduce structural mistrust.

It would immediately improve the overall security climate.

A reunited Cyprus would become a platform for cooperation.

It would cease to be a permanent fault line.

It would release political energy from zero-sum logic.

It would facilitate economic integration.

It would strengthen energy and connectivity projects.

It would support maritime security and humanitarian coordination.

And it would improve the environment, for a meaningful EU–Turkey rapprochement.

No serious regional analysis can ignore Gaza.

Gaza is a stress test for our entire neighborhood.

It intensifies polarization and hardens narratives.

It increases the risk of spillover.

And it tests everyone’s humanitarian credibility.

Balance requires a dual commitment:

Security for Israel.

And a credible political and humanitarian horizon for Palestinians.

Without a horizon, the vicious cycle repeats itself.

That is a strategic conclusion.

Not a slogan.

Let me move to Greece–Turkey–Israel relations.

Turkey–Israel relations have historically been cyclical.

There have been phases of convergence, and phases of rupture.

Shared interests exist.

Trade, connectivity, ancient-old historical ties and the need to manage instability confirm this.

Yet competition persists, through alliances and narratives.

Gaza often amplifies tensions.

Greece–Israel relations have deepened substantially.

This reflects real strategic convergence.

At the same time, Greece–Turkey relations require steady decongestion.

Dialogue is necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own.

We need mechanisms that reduce the risk of incidents.

On migration, allow me a personal reminder.

The EU–Turkey Statement, began during my tenure as Commissioner.

It was based on mutual trust.

And on a clear assumption of responsibility by both sides.

It worked because it was operational.

And it delivered because it was implemented.

It proved that serious agreements are possible when trust exists.

Today, credibility must be restored.

With workable mechanisms.

With predictability.

With respect for international obligations.

And by linking cooperation to a broader, conditional approach.

But the region also needs something more ambitious.

It needs a Partnership Compact.

With shared sustainable principles and shared goals.

With clearly defined common interests.

And with an institutional framework, not “ad hoc” understandings.

A practical platform, could be the revival of a “Mediterranean Cooperation Scheme”.

Updated, with the participation of the European Union.

With the participation of the Gulf countries.

And with the participation of the African Union.

Because the challenges today form a single system.

Energy and investment.

Ports, corridors, and logistics.

Climate, food, and water.

Migration and security.

Humanitarian readiness and maritime surveillance.

Such a scheme would mobilize resources.

It would align incentives.

It would build a community of stability, grounded in real interests.

And it would reduce the momentum of destabilizing forces.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We live in volatile times.

In such times, stability must be embedded and consolidated.

It must be integrated into national strategies as a priority.

Not as an issue that is addressed only when tensions rise.

And we must liberate our politics from outdated antagonisms.

From antagonisms fueled by nationalist postures.

Nationalism can mobilize.

But it weakens strategy.

It narrows options.

And it turns compromise into stigma.

Societies need security, opportunity, and predictability.

These are achieved through mature statecraft.

Through dialogue, discipline, and cooperation.

Through deterrence,

but also through institutional de-escalation mechanisms.

Through cooperation that is treated as strength.

Not as concession.

This is the strategic balance we must rebuild.

This is the stability we must consolidate.

Before the next crisis defines the region for us.