As I have pointed out in my previous article, entitled «Searching for a course in a reordered world» (10/3/2025), the multilateral system of global governance, which has dominated international relations for almost eight decades, is now being called into question.
Specifically, the hitherto rule-based international order is being devalued in practice, in favour of the right of the strong, as powerful actors adjust their strategies in line with their immediate geopolitical and economic interests.
Recent events - the US intervention in Venezuela and the tension between the US and Latin American countries (Colombia, Cuba, Mexico), the debate on the annexation of Greenland, the escalating confrontation with Iran, the stalemate in Ukraine and the fragile balance in the Middle East - are not isolated crises.
On the contrary, they are systemic symptoms of a deeper transition, in which the balance of power is being redefined and the rules that have been in place for decades are being re-examined not in theory but in practice on the geopolitical field.
It is now becoming clear that we are faced with a new reality where stability is not taken for granted and international order is not based on the rules of international law, but is increasingly dependent on the geopolitical interests of powerful actors.
Despite strong criticism of President Trump's strategy, the US administration's choices can be described as neither unpredictable nor detached from a coherent strategic framework.
Instead, they represent a conscious readjustment of priorities, adapted to the new conditions of international competition.
This approach is reflected in the recently published US National Security Strategy, which describes how Washington perceives the international environment and its role in it.
It clearly states that US support for allies is no longer unconditional, but is linked to increased defence spending, assuming greater regional responsibility, aligning on export controls and participating in securing critical supply chains.
The case of Venezuela is illustrative. Washington is putting the logic of spheres of influence back into practice and adapting the Monroe Doctrine to current geopolitical and economic conditions to ensure that the Western Hemisphere remains sufficiently stable and sufficiently governable.
President Trump's message is clear: when vital American interests are at stake, such as energy security, controlling migratory flows or preventing the infiltration of competing powers, the application of the rules of international law does not function as a binding framework, but is subordinated to the requirements of national power and security.
The crucial question, however, is not what the United States is doing, but what all this means for Greece.
In order to give a meaningful answer to the above crucial question, it is not enough to observe international developments. What is required is a sober and holistic strategic analysis of the international environment, a clear statement of the country's current position and the identification of the strategic role that Greece must play in order to protect its national interests and enhance its security in a world increasingly dominated by the law of the strong.
In this context, a national consensus is required and the withdrawal of foreign policy issues from the agenda of political debate where populism, the nihilism of everything and petty political considerations for the pursuit of temporary party benefits prevail.
In fact, a typical example is the case of Venezuela, where the entire opposition was concerned with criticising the Prime Minister's statement rather than critically analysing and evaluating the US intervention in Venezuela.
Despite the correct reading of international developments by Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and the country's foreign policy makers, as and the effort to adapt the national strategy in order to strengthen Greece's position in the zones of influence of the great powers, the Greek opposition as a whole chose to focus on petty partisan and populist reactions.
At the heart of these reactions was the questioning of the Prime Minister's statement regarding Greece's support for President Trump's strategy in Venezuela.
These criticisms may bring temporary political benefits to the powers that adopt them, but they undermine the country's strategic credibility and directly affect national interests.
In the logic of this sterile and barren debate, it was ignored that the statement of Mr.Kyriakos Mitsotakis serves Greece's national strategy and international role, strengthens bilateral relations with critical allies and contributes to the defence of vital Greek interests, from energy security to regional stability..
In the context of partisan confrontation and distortion of reality, it is systematically overlooked that the country must turn international challenges into a strategic advantage in order to consolidate its position in a world where the law of the strongest now determines developments.
The Venezuelan case cannot be analysed solely as a matter of domestic politics or as another crisis of governance in Latin America.
Venezuela has become a regional focus of insecurity, which directly undermines the stability and security of the Western Hemisphere.
In particular, the authoritarian Maduro regime has been accused by the country's opposition and the international community of electoral fraud in the 2024 elections, political violence, systematic repression of the opposition and the existence of thousands of political prisoners.
Furthermore, is the principal underminer of US national interests and critical US security priorities (instrumentalisation of illegal immigration, transnational organised crime, drug trafficking to the United States, etc.).
At the same time, has become a hub for wider transnational criminal activities, such as illegal mining and exploitation of natural resources, arms trafficking, money laundering, human trafficking and support for terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah, which has on several occasions received funding and support for the implementation of its activities.
In this context, it should be understood in Greece that the invocation of international law cannot be fragmentary or selectively activated, depending on who wields power in the international system or which circumstances serve domestic political expediency.
International law is not a stand-alone substitute for strategy, but a tool for strategic stability, which must be part of a coherent foreign policy framework that takes into account the actual balance of power and the country's vital security priorities.
Otherwise, it is not about defending principles, but about their opportunistic instrumentalization, at the cost of Greece's international credibility and strategic coherence.
The crucial question, therefore, is not whether international law is violated in the abstract in every case of use of force, but how a country like Greece is strategically positioned in a world where spheres of influence and power redefine international developments.
How can the Greek Prime Minister be accused by the opposition of selectively invoking international law in the case of Venezuela and at the same time, the same political forces criticize Mr.Mitsotakis for invoking the principles of international law in denouncing the Russian invasion of Ukraine and supporting and supporting the weak?;
Aren't these the same forces that accuse the government of not supporting Mr.Zelensky and Ukraine in order not to shake the country's relations with Greece's «traditional ally», Russia?;
At the moment when all these people are denouncing the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, they are asking Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis to turn a blind eye to the violation of International Law and the illegal occupation of foreign territory with weapons by Russia in order not to break Greece's relations with an occupier.
When is the adaptation of national strategy to the international reality considered legitimate and when is it denounced as a retreat of values, selective invocation of international law and degradation of national dignity?;
Even more problematic is the identification of the forces that criticise the Prime Minister with the positions and narrative of revisionist and anti-Western powers, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and China, as well as terrorist organisations that directly challenge the Western security architecture, such as Hamas and Hezbollah..
It is surprising that the Greek opposition identifies itself with these terrorist organisations that also denounced the US intervention in Venezuela.
In what strategic context does an opposition rhetoric that aligns itself with forces and networks that undermine stability in areas of direct Greek interest, from the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, the Balkans and Europe?;
Finally, the case of Venezuela cannot be considered in isolation from its regional connections, nor from the close cooperation between the Maduro regime and Turkey, which has exploited the country as a partner on the economic, energy and, according to international reports, parastatal level.
In this light, a crucial question of national strategy arises.
What exactly is the national interest served by the rhetoric of the opposition forces when they adopt positions that objectively favour a geopolitical axis in which Turkey also participates, at a time when it directly challenges Greek sovereignty and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean?;
In conclusion, it must be understood that foreign policy cannot be conducted as a field of internal political confrontation.
It requires strategic consistency, a clear reading of the balance of power and, above all, a sober weighing of national interests in an international arena where the law of the strong, whether we like it or not, increasingly determines developments.
At a time when restrictions on the use of force are being relaxed, states like Greece that are close to or within the zones of influence of revisionist powers (e.g. Turkey), if they are blind to the dynamics of international developments, are exposed to great danger.
When your positions are identified, in the effort to support the authoritarian Maduro regime, with Turkey which openly and overtly expresses its revisionist ambitions through the doctrine of the «Blue Homeland» and exploits the fluidity of the international system to expand its strategic space, then there is a structural problem of foreign policy.
The issue is no longer the invocation of the principles of international law, but the absence of strategic awareness of the actual power relations and the consequences they produce for Greek national interests.
The Greek stance does not constitute a legitimization of any unilateral action, but a recognition that in the current international environment the maintenance of strong alliances is a prerequisite for national security and a multiplier of the country's strategic power..
Under these circumstances, the invocation of international law ceases to function as a strategic tool and becomes an alibi for political inaction, with immediate consequences for Greece's geopolitical position and credibility in the new power environment.
The Greek government, in the context of responsible foreign policy, does not choose between principles and realism, but seeks to maintain strong alliances as a precondition for national security.
In an international system where power is re-emerging as the dominant regulator of developments, the strategic relationship with the United States is objectively a force multiplier and a factor of stability for Greek interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean and the wider Middle East.
Public support for Washington in critical junctures does not constitute ideological identification, but a conscious choice of strategic alignment, based on the actual balance of power and the defence of the national interest.
The new US national security strategy leaves clear scope for countries that take greater responsibility for the security of their regions to receive more favourable treatment in areas such as defence, technology and trade.
The United States is now signalling that support for allies will not be automatic, but linked to their contribution to maintaining regional power balances, strengthening their defence capabilities and aligning them with Washington's strategic priorities.
In this light, Greece has already taken steps that place it among the allies that assume a substantial security burden, in particular by increasing defence spending, hosting critical military infrastructure and enhancing interoperability with US and allied forces.
At the same time, the US strategy also serves as a clear roadmap for Greece's next steps.
That is, the deeper linking of defence, technology and the industrial base, an active role in supply chain security and greater regional responsibility.
In this context, Greece can emerge as a pillar of stability in the Eastern Mediterranean, an energy and logistics hub and a reliable partner that does not just ask for security guarantees, but actively contributes to the shaping of regional security.
It is a strategic choice that strengthens the country's negotiating power, not an ideological and institutional alignment.
Short answer, in a less institutional, more competitive and clearly more dangerous world, the challenge for Greece is not to judge developments morally and institutionally, but to assess and understand them strategically.
The transition to a world dominated by the law of the strong is not Greece's choice.
But it is a strategic choice whether to adapt in time or to be taken by surprise.
In this new era, security is not ensured by wishful thinking and moralising, but by strategic realism, consistency and strength.
The cost of not adapting can be much higher than the cost of early action.
Author of the article:
Political Scientist – International Relations Specialist
Former Director General - Directorate General
National Defense and International Relations Policy (GDPAAD)
Ministry of National Defense (YPETHA)
