We can’t keep buying off the shelf
Greek defense minister outlines plan to bolster domestic arms production and innovation and to change military service model
Friday’s sweeping overhaul of Greece’s military leadership is indicative of a radical shift in the dogma governing how the armed forces are run, Defense Minister Nikos Dendias tells Kathimerini in an exclusive interview.
Dogmas must be revised, he says, noting that the new leadership needs to speak its mind and to remember that the country cannot buy everything it needs off the shelf abroad, without producing anything of its own.
You chose to change the entire leadership of the armed forces. Were the changes introduced by the National Security Governmental Council (KYSEA) on Friday driven by a specific long-term vision?
We opted for the approach of a complete change of leaders, meaning going beyond the chief of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff (GEETHA) and the chiefs of the general staffs, because we believe that it is time for a new era in the armed forces. It’s an approach we’ve dubbed “the armed forces of 2030.” The challenges faced by the country because of its geographical position, but also because of the situation in the broader vicinity, demand a radically different approach. The presence on the battlefield of a string of new systems – as demonstrated by the experience in Ukraine and the Caucasus and the recent conflict in the Gaza Strip – tell us that the dogmas governing the Greek armed forces need to be examined and, to a significant extent, revised. The country also needs to develop the capability to produce low-cost, high-potential systems. It’s inconceivable for a country like Greece, with such a high defense budget, to be buying everything off the shelf and, what’s more, from abroad, and not to produce a single thing itself. This, however, is something that also needs to be understood by the armed forces’ leadership.
So, we’re talking about a complete change in rationale, which also pertains to how the armed forces are organized?
What we are talking about, in fact, is something that has already become apparent from the conflicts in the broader vicinity. Ukraine, for example, has clearly shown us that the lower ranks need to have a certain amount of authority, that mid-level and even junior officers need to be able to make decisions and act on them. Questioning a decision in order to make the best possible choice should also be rewarded. When an order is eventually given by the leadership, it must be executed, of course. But at the planning level, everyone needs to be fully conscious of the obligation to express what they think is right. That is the only way to come up with optimal solutions. I think that there is a lot to learn from the history of the Israeli armed forces in this regard.
You have already basically assumed responsibility for Greece’s defense industries, along with the political risk this entails. Are we also talking about closer interconnections between the ministry and the defense industry?
It has become obvious that the Air Force cannot survive without an aerospace industry that functions properly. The problems we’re having with our transport planes and helicopters is the result of this decades-long dysfunction. From there on, once the appointment of the new hierarchy is concluded, in the next few days, we will submit new legislation concerning innovation in the armed forces. This bill will illustrate how the country’s production capabilities can be linked to the needs of the general staffs. It will also demonstrate how research produced even by military academies can make a positive contribution to the development of new products that could cover some of the needs of our armed forces, at a reasonable cost. We intend to create an ecosystem that is entirely different from anything we have seen so far. Because – let’s not kid ourselves – what have we really seen so far? Two deeply problematic state-owned companies, the Hellenic Aerospace Industry (EAV) and Hellenic Defense Systems (EAS), and zero, or practically zero, domestic output. This cannot be tolerated in the 21st century in a country that spends as much money as we do in servicing the armed forces’ needs for weapons systems. It is an effort which, I believe, will have the support of all the parties in Parliament. I repeat that I associate it with the new leadership because the new leadership also has to get into the mindset of describing its needs to and covering these needs from the domestic defense industry, as it gradually evolves. It also needs to understand the new era, the cost-benefit rationale, opposing extravagance that does not serve our needs. To attain this goal, we will commit a small part of the defense budget at first, and a larger one later on, to be used exclusively on Greek products.
Therefore, this is one way of joining the race that Turkey has already been running for the past 10-15 years and that has made it an exporter.
Just look at where Turkey and Greece were in 1980 and where we and Turkey are today, in 2024. Turkey has made leaps forward, while we have taken steps back. That is not acceptable. I don’t view the issue as a competition with Turkey – that is something I must not do – but looking at my country, at its needs and its potential, I am not at all ready to say that the present situation is acceptable and the only one that is possible. It can do a lot better.
Is this also going to bring changes to the military service?
We plan to turn what is seen as the chore of military service into an opportunity. In principle, but adapted to our own needs, we will follow the Finnish model, which means that the military service will provide opportunities to the soldiers, as well as regular retraining so that they can be integrated into a unit that will be able to operate in the future as well, keeping abreast of new weapon systems, doctrines and capabilities. We will be introducing a new reality to military service. We are embarking on a new reality for military service. It will be implemented gradually so as to secure broad social and political consensus. But the present situation, with units at 25% to 30% capacity being scattered all over the country, cannot be the 21st century reality, if we want to respect ourselves and our nation’s needs. The effectiveness of our armed forces can no longer be something we confirm at parades.
Does this also mean longer military service?
No, it does not entail an increase to the term of service. Increasing non-productive time gets you nowhere, you know. What we need is a different approach. On how to maximize the human capital that is the Greek citizen who wears his country’s uniform with pride. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel here, so we’re choosing successful examples from abroad and adapting them to our situation. Greece needs strong armed forces because it is dealing with real threats. It’s not a matter of choice; it would be great if we were like Luxembourg in that respect. One choice would be having a standing professional army. My answer to this suggestion and that of the government is “no.” We believe in the army of citizens. With professional officers, naturally, but not only professionals. From there on, for that army of citizens to be able to call itself an army, it needs to be properly trained and arranged into combat-ready units. Units at 25% capacity, where the remaining 75% will be covered by untrained reservists, cannot be regarded as combat-ready; not by anyone.
There are two issues being hotly discussed with regard to Greece’s armament programs: One has to do with the American F-35 fighter jets. We are waiting for a response from the US to our request. How is that going?
The F-35 is an iconic weapon and I think it works as such in the collective imagination as well. Greece currently has an extremely capable Air Force at the level of fighter jets. I think we have a clear advantage. We will get the F-35s, but it is not necessary to get them tomorrow morning. The American side has told us that they will accept our request and we will proceed to acquire a sufficient number of F-35s, within our capabilities. But that’s not the main problem. As much as I understand that when we see the F-35s we will feel pride and self-confidence, as we did with the Rafale [fighter jets], we must also deal with the root of the problems. By only acquiring weapons systems at the top of the pyramid and ignoring the base of the pyramid, we are not moving forward. We should not kid ourselves. An Air Force that has F-35s but not enough transport aircraft, is not a modern Air Force. We will get the F-35s, there is no need for Greek society to worry about it.
Concerning the Navy, there is a lot of talk about the main surface fleet, with a kind of supermarket logic prevailing of what to buy and what not to buy. Is there a plan following the acquisition of the French FDIs?
The fleet needs to be modernized. First of all, it is obvious that a number of MEKO warships should be modernized. What must be addressed first, above all else, is the availability of the Navy ships. To be precise, the full availability of the ships, not just to go out to sea, but to go out with all their systems in operation. If this is not achieved, having a huge fleet whose capabilities are sub-optimal is not a solution. So we need to help our fleet reach pre-crisis levels. This means making smart use of the resources we have. We don’t necessarily need many ships, but we definitely need well-equipped ships. We have a huge tradition at sea. I don’t think the Greek fleet has ever been defeated in its history, therefore we have a solid foundation on which to build, thanks also to the excellent human capital. If we allocate money better and make better use of the means at our disposal and their capabilities, we can achieve amazing results in the foreseeable future.
Do you think there is a specific timeframe for these reforms to be made in the armed forces? And I say this in the sense of the window of opportunity that seems to exist right now with Turkey.
I respect the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and I hope that he will not take things to extremes in the remaining four and a half years of his presidency. But I am worried about something else. What will happen to Turkey when Erdogan is gone? We don’t know. Turkey is not a static country and I do not think it certain that the current president will impose his choice of successor. But even if he imposes it, we don’t know how that would work. There is always instability during the succession of a powerful, long-running leader. We don’t know how this instability may be expressed. So, we are talking about four and a half to five years from now. That means that we must be ready for any eventuality before 2030. But, in general too, our region does not allow for complacency. We have many sources of instability around us that require us to have modern armed forces.
‘I voted for same-sex civil unions’
How do you comment on the government’s legislative initiative to introduce marriage for same-sex couples? What is your personal position?
As the prime minister recently said, his aim is for the debate to mature in society, before the bill is submitted to the cabinet. Only then will we have a complete picture of what it will include. It goes without saying that all opinions are respected, but in the end, it is the government that makes the laws. In any case, the specific issue should not be a cause for division in society, just as it should not be a cause for petty instrumentalization on the part of the opposition. As far as I am concerned, in order to express an official opinion, the final bill must first be submitted, as I mentioned above. Let me remind you, however, that in 2015, as a deputy of the then main opposition, I voted in favor of same-sex civil unions.
