Greece and Turkey are moving toward a bilateral summit in early February 2026, but their key positions remain unchanged. Both sides continue to speak the language of dialogue, yet only Turkey seeks changes to the status quo. Ankara has not signaled readiness for negotiations grounded in existing legal frameworks, while Greece maintains its long-standing position based on sovereignty, maritime zones, and airspace as defined by international law. For the United States, which seeks to maintain cohesion among regional partners and avoid escalation between allies, the stakes are high.
Tensions persist. Turkey recently issued two long-term navigational advisories covering areas it disputes in the Aegean, even though Turkey’s claims are illegal under international maritime law. The timing—just ahead of the planned summit—suggests Ankara hopes to shape the agenda in advance.
Turkey recently issued two long-term navigational advisories covering areas it disputes in the Aegean, even though Turkey’s claims are illegal under international maritime law.
In this context, Athens views the security environment as increasingly unstable. Greek officials point to shifting dynamics in the United States and believe that, under a Trump administration, direct communication with Turkey becomes a necessity rather than a choice. Some Greek officials support high-level contact, arguing that open channels reduce the risk of unintended incidents. Others remain cautious, warning that Turkey could use the summit to pressure Greece into expanding the scope of the dialogue, as past efforts by Ankara to link unrelated disputes remain fresh in memory.
Statements by Turkish officials add to the uncertainty. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has said Turkey is open to discussing territorial waters, yet Ankara has not withdrawn its claims over grey zones or other islands. In this context, Greek officials argue that no talks on maritime boundaries can take place while Turkey challenges the legal basis for those boundaries.
Greece maintains that the only issue open to negotiation is the delimitation of maritime zones, grounding its position firmly in international law and the law of the sea. While many partners support this approach in principle, some officials in Washington and Brussels view it as narrow and difficult to implement in practice.
Recent developments have further complicated the atmosphere. Greece has deepened its defense ties with Israel, backed European security initiatives that exclude Turkey, and submitted a maritime spatial framework, outlining the limits of its continental shelf. Turkey interprets these moves as provocative, reinforcing its narrative that Greece is attempting to pre-define the terms of any potential settlement.
The upcoming meeting will test how firmly Greece can hold its position. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has said he wants Turkey to remove its threat of war over the possible extension of Greek territorial waters.
Beneath the procedural meetings, the divide between the two countries remains wide. Greece seeks a narrow, legally defined process. Turkey continues to press broader claims. Greek officials say this blocks progress and ask how two sides can delimit maritime zones if they do not agree on starting points.
Washington should reinforce its support for Greece as a reliable ally with a consistent record of upholding regional stability and international law.
Despite renewed engagement, no breakthrough appears likely. The dialogue may help reduce immediate tension, but it does not address the underlying cause of dispute: Turkey pursues a broader revisionist agenda that includes challenges to sovereignty, solidify claims over grey zones, and reshapes the balance of power in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. While Greece frames negotiations as a legal matter, Turkey treats them as part of a wider strategic contest, using dialogue to press for concessions on multiple fronts.
The United States has yet to define a clear role for itself, but it should avoid falling into Turkey’s trap of eroding international law with “compromise.” Instead, Washington should reinforce its support for Greece as a reliable ally with a consistent record of upholding regional stability and international law. Greece maintains strong cooperation with key partners such as Israel and is expanding its role in regional energy infrastructure, including natural gas corridors and electricity interconnection projects. These efforts contribute to Europe’s energy diversification and reduce dependency on unstable suppliers.
At a time when trusted frameworks and predictable behavior matter, backing an ally that invests in cooperation rather than coercion serves broader United States and transatlantic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean.
