Greece’s ambition could see it become NATO’s top defense spender on a per-capita basis. In 2024, the country plans to spend more than 3.1% of its GDP on military spending. This rise underscores the deterioration of relations between the country and its NATO partner, Turkey. It further highlights the increasingly complex geopolitical chessboard in the Eastern Mediterranean. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has emphasized the necessity of strong defense measures in light of regional instability, particularly influenced by Turkey’s assertive foreign policy.
The substantial military budget serves multiple purposes. Greece keeps a heavy, and some say disproportionate, military presence on its many islands, a strategy that Greece pursues despite the heavy costs it incurs. The nation’s determination to protect its sovereignty and sovereign rights underlies the nation’s defense expenditure. Despite this financial commitment, Greece’s overall military capabilities are confronted with many pragmatic obstacles.
Greece’s defense apparatus is indeed starting to show some cracks—which is enough to cause alarm about the true deterrent power of its military strength. Most of the army’s tanks are relics from the 1960s, with older models outgunned and outmatched by their counterparts in more advanced militaries. Personnel training to field these vehicles in large formations remains a gap. This major shortcoming could significantly limit our preparation and response in any future crisis.
Until recently, Greece had resisted generally deploying advanced weapons systems. This move marks a dramatic turnaround as tensions have recently heightened in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war. This transition is part of its broader effort to update its military capabilities to address growing threats. As experts warn, don’t confuse higher budgets with improved military proficiency.
“So it would be a mistake, therefore, in the case of Greece, to equate spending with sort of flat out military capabilities.” – Jacob Kirkegaard
Despite the high levels of expenditure, Greece may not reach the 5% NATO defense spending target endorsed by some alliance members. Analysts cite a laundry list of reasons behind this decision, not least of which is the historical baggage Greece has with Turkey. This forces them to navigate a web of complex historical grievances, the displacement of more than one million people, and persistent tensions over Cyprus.
All of these issues are made even more complicated by widespread instability in other adjacent regions, mainly the Middle East. The more aggressive, “muscular policy” that Ankara has pursued throughout the Mediterranean has left Greece grasping for deterrence. George Tzogopoulos highlights the urgency of Greece’s military preparations:
“Greece has no alternative but be prepared for all scenarios.”
At the same time, Greece has accomplished a remarkable strengthening of relationships with major powers including the United States and France. This growth is largely due to its skyrocketing defense spending. NATO allies such as the U.S., Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Greece have made bolstering security a priority to address escalating threats.
Furthermore, experts note that a significant portion of Greece’s defense spending flows abroad. This again calls into serious question the state of the country’s frail domestic defense industrial base. Wolfango Piccoli notes that:
“The country still lacks a strong domestic defense industry and a key priority moving forward is to build and sustain an indigenous industrial base that can reduce dependence on foreign arms suppliers.”
Greece’s increasing defense budget sends a clear message of the government’s desire to improve national security, but the efficiency of this spending is still being questioned. The interplay between financial investment and actual military readiness continues to be a subject of debate among analysts and policymakers alike.