With attack on the European Union, NATO, the U.S. and the government, the KKE is reviving its well-known anti-Western rhetoric regarding Greek-Turkish.
The debate in the European Parliament on Turkey has revealed once again the enduring political paradox of the KKE. At a time when Ankara continues to challenge sovereign rights, to invest in the “Blue Homeland” and to claim an enhanced geopolitical role, Perissos has identified as its main adversary not the Turkish leadership but the European Union, NATO, the United States, Israel , and, of course, the Greek government. As if nothing ever changes in the international reality, the KKE remains trapped in an ideological pattern that views the West as the permanent source of every problem.
The result is a political approach that often resembles nothing more than a recycling of slogans from past decades than a serious foreign policy proposal. Because when Greece faces a revisionist power like Turkey, the crucial question is not who you will denounce, but how you will strengthen the country’s position.
Turkey in the background, the West in the crosshairs
In his remarks, KKE MEP Kostas Papadakis argued that the European Union is essentially rewarding Turkey, while attacking the government for its so-called “calm waters” policy. However, behind the criticism of Ankara, what prevailed was the familiar anti-Western narrative.
For the KKE, the problem is always the EU. It’s NATO. It’s the U.S. It’s Greece’s allies. Rarely, however, does one hear a convincing explanation of exactly how Greek interests will be protected without strong international alliances and without an active presence in decision-making centers.
From Realism to Ideological Obsessions
The government has chosen a strategy of strengthening the country’s deterrent power, deepening alliances, and exercising diplomatic flexibility at all levels. This policy does not eliminate Turkish claims, but it strengthens Greece’s international position in the face of them.
The KKE, on the other hand, insists on treating any form of international cooperation as tantamount to a national concession. This is an approach that may offer ideological purity, but fails to produce a viable national strategy. Because geopolitics does not operate in a vacuum, and isolation has never been an answer to Turkish provocations.
When Accusation Becomes an End in Itself
The most characteristic feature of the KKE’s stance is that it always reaches the same conclusion, regardless of the issue. Whether the issue is Turkey, defense, or energy, the conclusion is always the same: the fault lies with Western alliances and the governments participating in them.
But the reality is much more complex. Turkey cannot be contained by slogans or dealt with through political denunciations. It is confronted with a strong economy, credible deterrence, international alliances, and diplomatic influence—precisely the tools that the KKE has consistently viewed with suspicion.
It’s something like this: every time the discussion on national issues comes up, Perissos seems to put on the same show. It denounces everyone, rejects everything, but in the end never explains what the realistic alternative is. And this is perhaps the greatest political impasse of this particular line of reasoning.
