Over the past three decades, Greece has invested enormous sums in defense, spending an estimated €170–200 billion on its armed forces.
Yet despite these investments, Greek officials continue to argue that the country needs additional resources to address growing security challenges.
This has raised questions about whether the issue lies in the level of spending itself or in the strategic model Athens has pursued for decades.
A large part of Greece’s defense policy has been shaped by the perception of Turkey as its primary security challenge. Disputes over maritime boundaries, airspace, Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean have directly influenced the steady increase in military expenditures.
In 2025, Greece spent approximately $8.4 billion on defense, equivalent to around 3% of its gross domestic product (GDP), placing it among NATO members with the highest defense spending relative to the size of its economy.
However, critics argue that the problem is not only the amount of money spent, but also how it has been used. For decades, Athens has relied heavily on purchasing ready-made military systems from abroad.
Rafale fighter jets, Belharra frigates, Exocet missiles, F-16 modernization programs and other advanced systems have been acquired mainly from France, the United States and Israel.
While these purchases have strengthened Greece’s military capabilities, they have also created long-term dependence on foreign suppliers for technology, maintenance and future upgrades.
As modern warfare increasingly shifts toward drones, artificial intelligence and cyber capabilities, this dependence could become even more costly in the future.
The debate becomes even more significant when viewed through the economic lens. During the financial crisis that struck Greece after 2008, the economy contracted by more than 25%, unemployment reached record levels and hundreds of thousands of educated young people left the country.
Despite these hardships, defense spending remained largely protected from budget cuts. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Greek economy suffered another major contraction, military expenditures increased significantly.
As a result, many analysts speak of the “opportunity cost” of defense spending, arguing that part of these funds could have been invested in industry, technology, scientific research, education and infrastructure.
According to this view, if even a portion of the billions spent on importing weapons had been directed toward developing domestic industries, Greece could have built a stronger technological and manufacturing base.
Investments in national drone programs, advanced manufacturing, renewable energy and partnerships between universities and industry could have created high-value jobs and helped slow the brain drain.
Turkey is frequently cited as a comparison. In the early 2000s, Turkey’s defense industry covered only a small share of the country’s military needs. Today, most military systems are produced domestically, and the sector has become a major driver of exports, innovation and employment.
For many observers, this demonstrates that defense investments can serve not only security objectives but also economic and technological development.
Against this backdrop, Athens has announced a new 12-year modernization program worth between €25 billion and €28 billion.
Unlike previous programs, the new plan places greater emphasis on strengthening Greece’s domestic defense industry. This suggests that Greek authorities themselves increasingly recognize that long-term security cannot rely solely on imported weapons systems.
At the same time, shifts in the international environment make the debate even more relevant. The European Union is increasingly focused on the war in Ukraine and security concerns related to Russia, while the United States is directing more strategic attention toward China and the Indo-Pacific region.
Under these circumstances, reliance on allies may become more expensive and less predictable than in the past.
Ultimately, the central question remains: what does Greece intend to achieve with the hundreds of billions spent on defense?
If the objective is merely to acquire new military systems, dependence on foreign suppliers will continue. But if these investments are transformed into a broader strategy for developing technology, industry and human capital, they could contribute not only to national security but also to the country’s long-term prosperity.