A strategy with a beginning and an end: what Tsipras said correctly and what he kept silent about

Alexis Tsipras raised difficult questions for the government about dependence on the US, Turkey and the situation of Greek families. But his performance requires not applause, but point-by-point checking.

1. “White check” to Washington

Criticism of over-reliance on the US is not unfounded. Athens expanded the American military presence, but did not receive guarantees that Washington would not simultaneously strengthen Ankara. The latest NATO summit and talk of Turkey returning to the F-35 do pose new risks for Greece.

However, Tsipras speaks as if the pro-American turn began under Mitsotakis. It’s convenient amnesia. In 2017, he himself called Greece “a reliable strategic partner of the United States”and in 2018 his government launched the Greek-American Strategic Dialogue. The dispute is not about the alliance with the United States, but about its price and reciprocity.

The allusion to Mitsotakis’ “private benefit” from speaking in Congress is the weakest part of the accusation. Without documents, this is not an established fact, but a political innuendo.

2. Balance of power in the Aegean Sea

Tsipras’ concerns about the changing balance of power are worth considering. The Athens News has already written that rapprochement between Trump and Erdogan and Turkey’s possible return to the F-35 complicate the situation in Athens.

But calling this solely a “national defeat for Mitsotakis” is too simple. Türkiye has been developing its own defense industry for decades, while Greece under the current government has received the Rafale, is modernizing the F-16 and purchasing F-35s and new frigates. The final balance is determined by capabilities, delivery times and combat readiness, and not by one photo from the summit.

3. “Talk to the East”

Maintaining diplomatic channels with Russia is a reasonable idea. Tsipras adhered to this line during his prime ministership, as previously written about “Athens News”.

But the role of the “bridge” cannot be announced from the stage. Amid the war in Ukraine, Greece is bound by decisions EU and NATO, and mediation requires trust from both sides and real leverage. Tsipras did not explain what exactly Athens should offer Moscow, Kyiv and its allies.

4. Economy and poverty

This is where the former prime minister’s criticism is most convincing. In 2025, 27.5% of the Greek population was at risk of poverty or social exclusion, and GDP per capita was only 68% of the EU average. About the pressure of high prices on families the publication has already written in detail.

However, the phrase that Greece is “at the bottom in all indicators” is a propaganda exaggeration. The country’s economy in 2026 is growing faster than the EU average, the budget remains in surplus, and debt is decreasing. The formulas for “one in five households” and “one in ten workers” also require an exact figure and year.

And Tsipras himself cannot discuss economic policy as an outside observer: 2015, closed banks, capital controls and the third memorandum belong to his own legacy.

5. “We left 37 billion”

This formula requires clarification. According to the European Stability Mechanism, at exit from the program in August 2018, the official cash reserve stood at around 24 billion eurosand a significant part was formed at the expense of ESM funds. The later total liquidity of the state may have been higher, but it was not 37 billion free money to hand out.

Editorial comment

The main weakness of Alexis Tsipras’s speech is that he criticizes a system of which he himself has long been a part. Today, both Tsipras and Mitsotakis operate within the same Euro-Atlantic model: linkage to Brussels, NATO, large supranational institutions and decisions that are not always formed in Athens.

The difference between the two increasingly comes down to rhetoric, political style and target audience rather than strategic choice. Mitsotakis sells the same dependence under the guise of modernization and European stability, Tsipras offers it in the package of social justice, progress and “national dignity”.

Therefore, the words of the former prime minister about “subordinate Greece” sound especially hypocritical. Greek politicians usually remember sovereignty in opposition, and once in power, they quickly discover that the instructions of Brussels and Washington have somehow become a manifestation of responsible public policy.

Tsipras has the right to criticize Mitsotakis. But before portraying an alternative, he will have to explain in what way exactly will his own course differ from the same policy, only with different slogans and a different color of the party logo?

Source link