A remarkable analysis was published on the Greek defense website Militaire, signed by retired Lieutenant General Konstantinos Loukopoulos.
In the analysis, it was questioned how prepared Athens was in the face of the possibility of increased tension between Türkiye and Greece.
In the analysis titled "10 brutal questions about how prepared we are for a possible conflict with Türkiye", Greece's defense capacity, mobilization system and military preparations were discussed in comparison with Türkiye's capacity.
"WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE SURPRISED"
Loukopoulos argued that Türkiye's policies in the Aegean did not emerge "suddenly" and that Ankara has been pursuing defense and security policies in line with certain goals for a long time.
Retired Lieutenant General stated that Türkiye's air and sea power, missile capacity, unmanned systems, electronic warfare capability and the capacity to concentrate its forces in a short time in times of crisis should be taken into account in Greece's defense planning.
Reminding that Greece has been analyzing Türkiye for years, issuing warnings and announcing armament programs, Loukopoulos argued that the statement "we were caught unprepared" after a possible crisis is unacceptable.
Retired Lieutenant General expressed this situation with the words "We have no right to be surprised."
The following question was at the basis of Loukopoulos's 10-question analysis:
"Is Greece really ready for Türkiye, which it has been saying it has been facing for years?"
DOES ATHENS HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY?
The first question of the analysis was directed to Greece's national security mechanism.
Loukopoulos questioned whether the country has a National Security Strategy and whether the current strategic framework provides the Armed Forces with a concrete road map.
Retired Lieutenant General argued that the National Security Council, which the Greek Prime Minister promised to be established before the 2019 elections, has still not been established.
He also claimed that the National Defense Policy dates back 16 years and does not adequately reflect current geopolitical conditions.
Loukopoulos stated that it should be questioned to what extent the military and strategic capacity that Türkiye has achieved is taken into account in defense planning.
Stating that the topics announced by Minister of Defense Nikos Dendias within the scope of the "2030 Agenda" are ambitious, Loukopoulos argued that it should be discussed how much these goals overlap with the objectives of the National Defense Planning process.
HOW MANY OF THE WEAPONS PURCHASED ARE ACTUALLY READY?
The second question of the analysis focused on how many of the modern weapons systems Greece has are actually operational.
According to Loukopoulos, it is not enough to just look at the number of warplanes, warships, missile systems and unmanned aerial vehicles.
The operational status of these systems, ammunition stocks, logistics and spare parts capacity, how long it will take to compensate for losses, and the command-control infrastructure also need to be evaluated.
Retired Lieutenant General argued that it should be revealed to what extent the armament investments made in recent years have turned into real combat capacity.
CAN DETERRENCE REPLACE WAR PREPARATION?
Loukopoulos' third question was about the limits of deterrence.
Retired Lieutenant General stated that deterrence is necessary but does not mean preparation for war alone.
Loukopoulos asked how Greece would act if it believed that Türkiye could achieve its goals despite the costs it would face.
He therefore argued that rather than relying solely on deterrence, Athens should also have a reliable combat capability that could be used if deterrence failed.
IN HOW MANY DAYS CAN GREECE BE MOBILIZED?
The fourth question was about how long it would take for Greece to transition from a state of peace to a fully operational order.
Loukopoulos questioned how many reserve personnel could be called to duty in a short time, the level of training of these personnel, and how long it would take for the troops to reach full capacity.
Stating that the need for reform in Greece's reserve force system has been recognized for a long time, the retired Lieutenant General claimed that the steps taken were not progressing at a sufficient pace.
Loukopoulos argued that Türkiye could concentrate its forces in a short time and said, "In the face of such a situation, Greece does not have the luxury of having a slow mobilization mechanism."
MODERN WEAPONS ARE NOT COMBAT POWER ALONE
In the fifth question, the defense investments made by Greece in recent years were discussed.
Loukopoulos acknowledged the importance of investments in modern warships, warplanes, missile systems, UAVs, anti-UAV systems and new technologies.
However, he stated that these platforms cannot create a combat force on their own without personnel, ammunition, maintenance, logistics and command-control elements.
Retired Lieutenant General argued that real deterrence cannot be measured by photographs taken at the reception ceremonies and said, "The real measure is whether the opponent believes what Greece can do and what it is determined to do in the moment of crisis."
IS Türkiye'S MILITARY CAPACITY BEING ANALYZED CORRECTLY?
The sixth question was devoted to military intelligence and planning.
Loukopoulos stated that reliable military planning cannot be done without accurate and comprehensive information about the opponent.
Retired Lieutenant General said that not only the weapons inventory, but also the deployment and preparedness level of the troops, force concentration ability, air and sea power, missile capacity, unmanned systems, electronic warfare and hybrid operation capabilities should also be examined.
"LAND FORCES ARE BEING NEGLECTED"
The seventh topic, which Loukopoulos described as one of the "most unpleasant" questions, was about the Greek Land Forces.
The retired Lieutenant General questioned whether a strong Air Force and a modern Navy could alone compensate for the structural problems in the ground forces.
Stating that the Armed Forces should be evaluated as a whole, Loukopoulos drew attention to the coordination of air, sea and land elements.
Loukopoulos also drew attention to the problems in the Land Forces, stating that he thought the infantry units, which he described as the backbone of the army, were seriously neglected.
WHAT DID THE UKRAINIAN AND MIDDLE EAST WARS TAUGHT THE GREEK ARMY?
In the eighth question, the lessons learned from the wars of recent years were discussed.
Loukopoulos stated that the importance of UAVs, missiles and electronic warfare systems on the battlefield has increased with the Ukrainian war, conflicts in the Red Sea and Israeli attacks.
The retired Lieutenant General argued that factors such as the dispersal of troops, the importance of reserve forces and the fragility of large and expensive platforms have changed the way war is waged.
Loukopoulos's main question was how much of the lessons learned from these developments were reflected in Greece's actual operational capacity.
Retired Lieutenant General stated that identifying a problem and applying it during combat are not the same thing, and argued that the difference between "presentation" and "usability", "announcement" and "preparation" should be seen.
THE HUMAN ELEMENT IN MILITARY PREPARATION
In the ninth question, the human resources of the Armed Forces were discussed.
Loukopoulos stated that in addition to the number of personnel, the morale of the soldiers, the trust in the institution and the belief in the command level are also important elements of military preparedness.
The retired Lieutenant General argued that a military force that lacks the necessary human resources and sees itself as worthless, voiceless or the object of administrative and political experiments cannot be strong.
For this reason, he stated that the effect of morale on operational effectiveness, whether the prestige of the military hierarchy is preserved, and the trust of officers in the institution should also be examined.
"THERE WERE WARNINGS; BUT WERE THE PREPARATIONS ACTUALLY MADE?"
The final part of Loukopoulos's 10-question analysis focused on the question of how ready Greece really is today.
Retired Lieutenant General said that what needs to be measured is not weapon purchases, statements or presentations, but direct combat readiness.
Loukopoulos said, "There were warnings, but were the preparations really made?" he said.
Drawing attention to Türkiye's military capacity again at the end of the analysis, the retired Lieutenant General argued that Ankara's strategic goals and the speed of using this capacity in times of crisis should be among the basic elements in Greece's defense planning.
Loukopoulos commented, "But no matter what, Turkey's power is obvious. The truth is staring us in the face."
