A lecture by K. Floros, translated to English.
Introduction:
The following translation is based on a reworked lecture to the “Club of the Armed Forces” in Athens, by General Konstantinos Floros, which was published as an article in the April-May issue of the greek Policy Journal, on topic of his career as well as the role of military strength in international politics. The purpose is both to make this lecture available to an English audience but also to use the occasion to speak about General Floros.
As former Chief of Staff for National Defense (Γ.Ε.ΕΘ.Α) he is one of the key figures that shaped the defense strategy of Greece in the last 4 years. But as is the case with most high ranking military personnel it is very rare for them to give an opinion, politics and newspapers are forbidden in the army. This lecture is one of the first exceptions, retired by the now, the 4-Star General has since made a few appearances in media and has most recently joined ANTENNA1, a greek Media group, as their Senior Advisor.
A few more words, it appears safe to say that Floros is a supporter of New Democracy2, the conservative ruling party of Greece even from those few appearances after his retirement, which occurred at the beginning of this year. He has since been replaced by General Demetrios Houpis as Chief of Staff, in my opinion a good choice but one that might seem strange if you look at the two men at first glance.
Although both were active in the special forces, Gen. Floros graduated Evelpidon Military Academy as an Infantry Officer, the type to jump from helicopters at 61. Houpis on the other hand looks a bit out of place as a paratrooper, and when you learn that he was initially a Communications officer it seems to make sense. But unlike the stellar but somewhat generic career of Floros, in Gen. Houpis’ three things stand out. The first being his tenure as Commander of Land Forces for the southern Dodecanese during the “Oruc Reis” Crisis in 2020. Second, his experience in communications and professorship at the National Technical University of Athens. And finally, along with his role as professor, his posts as director of the Administration for Conscript Soldiers and later as commander for the aforementioned Evelpidon Military Academy.
All this to say that, without sacrificing much experience in regular military affairs (remember also that he was a paratrooper), that here you have someone familiar with technology and education, crucial at a time when announcements of changes in the current model of military training are made, along with the greater use of electronic and novel combat forms (cyberwarfare, drones, etc.).
However, one should not get the impression that General Floros was less competent, although he was somewhat lucky, unlike the Chief of Air Staff during a disastrous 2023, to be able to shield himself from controversy. The armed forces saw an increase in quality by a number of metrics during his tenure. Furthermore he was also targeted by the Greek National Intelligence Agency (ΕΥΠ)3 and prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in 2022, a fact that paints a more complex picture than a tool for a conservative government. But many of the things that General Floros counts as his achievements you will hear as part of his article below.
Notes for Readers by the Translator.
Even though this article was partially machine-translated it required special attention to word choice and a sensitivity for the Greek language in many places when working on this text. I have tried my best to maintain it as close as possible to the original. As mentioned in the introduction, this article is essentially a reworked lecture, which means certain parts of it may well work better when delivered as one. I have not changed much in that regard and one might find that some passages, especially the parts where Floros lists, for example, types of capabilities a state possesses, can be a bit long-winded when reading them, though I imagine that when spoken with poignancy they would not tire the listener. Since the lecture was long and the format of the blog is not totally appropriate for it, I have split the speech in parts which will be published at the same time. This is meant to make reading it easier.
But aside from choices regarding ease of consumption, there were of course choices that had to be made regarding some wording. One of these words was the Greek «Ισχύος» which can be variously translated as “Power”, “Strength” or “Force”. Especially when used as an adjective it would be translated as “powerful”, so my choice of translating it as “strength” specifically might appear strange. It is a central term of the first part of this article and needs special consideration.
I believe “Strength” captures best the multidimensionality with which Floros uses the word, seemingly wanting it to mean Power (in the sense of political power and capability) but also giving it a quantitative sense of Force or Strength. But that choice captures it best because to translate it otherwise would miss that Greek has a different word to specifically refer to the first meaning, political Power (Εξουσία), and that is a word that Floros intentionally avoids in this context. And indeed “Power” for Greek is that narrower, hierarchical power of command while he really means the strength to survive, something more martial and primal.
Something more that ought to be noted, especially for readers that are new to political science, is that, while no political scientist should discount military strength, one should also be careful about the details of the vision that General Floros creates in this article. He claims that military strength is essentially the basis of all other capabilities a state has. In short, if all else breaks down and you cannot maintain your territorial integrity then you can also not maintain all the other “important parameters” that matter internationally. This is somewhat cyclical as one can see in many cases. Take for example Micronesia or Iceland which have no standing armies and essentially rely on the United States or NATO respectively for their national defense. Here, it is precisely the superstructural regime of International Law and Treaties that ensure the sovereignty of these Nations (they still need to be courted by the great powers and are not immediately subsumed without any say) that also form the basis of their military strength. And one can find any number of these “protectorate” cases.
Another example could also be the current Russo-Ukrainian War between two peers. For a short rundown of the basic facts – Russia invades Ukraine in attempted Blitz. Russian forces maneuvered from the north in a race to capture the capital of Kiev. While it looked bleak at first the attacks were repelled by Ukrainian defenders which some time down the line leads us to today’s relatively frozen front. But how did Russia attempt this Blitz? Through its own “military strength”? That specific capability was largely provided to it through its partner, Belarus, which allowed Russian troops to move through its territory. Similarly, how was Ukraine able to defend its soil? Largely through materials provided to it by allies before the invasion.
Of course, I don’t claim that Floros believes that all military strength needs to be 100% homegrown, but rather that it needs to be available. But the first example in particular illustrates the issue well.
His picture of a “Pyramid of Capabilities” in which military strength is the mighty basis and all else amounts to nothing if that basis is not there, of all those parameters seemingly flowing upwards from that strength, I think paints a skewed, though not totally wrong, view of the International System.
And those two parameters can be projected backwards in time. In the state of nature, if you cannot defend your food you will starve but if you cannot find food you will never have the strength to defend it. But perhaps more importantly, in our day and age the International System is more than just a food chain.
The Pursuit of Peace in Stormy Seasons.
Greek Armed Forces facing contemporary challenges.
by Konstantinos Floros
We are already traversing the third decade of this century which, when it began almost 25 years ago, prominent voices of academics, diplomats, military personnel and others claimed and supported that on the occasion of the recent collapse of the once mighty Soviet Union and the victory of the Western World in the Cold War, “…the end of history has come… “, Good won, Evil was punished and passed into the dustbin of the Historical Memory of Mankind along with other such optimistic and pleasant, but utterly utopian sayings having no relation to the reality of the planet, throughout the entire historical life of man on it.
On the contrary, History has the bad habit of repeating itself, with disastrous consequences for those who do not know it, but also for those who do know it, but ignore it, passing it by, carelessly and lightly, thinking or hoping that “it will be good to them”, or simply because they want it to be, or because they are somehow blessed by God, or because “it has to be”.
History, unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, for the careless and inconsiderate, and fortunately, for the cautious and quick-minded. We ought to be the latter in every way and by every means.
Given human nature, the nature of the International System, but also the tough core of the nature of human collective entities, namely the instinct of survival and self-preservation, the knowledge and thorough study of History is one of the main, if not the main, guides of historical “path” for human collectives in whatever form they have appeared over time on Earth.
Either in the form of city-states, or in the form of Empires, or in the form of modern nation-states, which constitute the dominant constituent unit of the International System since 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia, which signaled the emergence of the State as the dominant actor in the International System since then and until recently. In the last 2-3 decades, of course, attempts to “sack” it, either by supranational actors, or by supranational actors, or by non-governmental actors, or by organizations, or by hybrid forms, have been made without much success, I must say. The nation-state is too tough to die it seems, at least so far.
What is of great importance is the way in which these collectives proceed, regardless of form and era, regardless of religion and mode of governance, regardless of economic, social and moral model, regardless of all these wonderful or less wonderful differentiations that man has invented to sojourn on the planet…
On Strength
Unfortunately, in the International System, ever since people formed communities, the hard currency, highly necessary and the only thing that certainly ensures survival has been, is and will certainly remain for the foreseeable future, strength.
Strength of all kinds, but here today we will concern ourselves with military strength, as a component of the general strength that states have to accumulate, harness and maintain in order to survive and move forward in the international arena, without of course devaluing or ignoring other very important and also necessary parameters, such as diplomacy, the economy, social cohesion, education, the influence of supranational organizations and institutions, alliances, partnerships between states and so on.
These are also very important, but without strength, military strength in this case, they all have a small and likely negligible effect on international affairs and on inter-state relations. This is rather emphatically confirmed in difficult and turbulent times, such as those the planet has been going through in recent decades, and in ‘difficult’ neighborhoods too, such as our own regional unity, that is, the complex of the Balkans and the South-Eastern Mediterranean with the dependent regions that it delimits, influences and is influenced by: Eastern Europe, the Near and Middle East, North Africa and beyond.
We could well extend this already extensive region by adding Sub-Saharan Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Caucasus and, of course, Central and Western Europe and all that takes place in those regions, which of course are not the same, but if we delve a little deeper, we will find that they have the same root causes, which are primordial and similar throughout time: survival, the search for power, the search for strength and influence, and the accumulation of sources of wealth-production.
So it has always been, after all, and despite all the progress of humanity in so many areas (including, for example, democratic institutions, human rights, protection of minorities, etc.), the above, i.e. survival, power, strength (actually, relative strength), influence and sources of wealth-production, will always remain the strong stakes on which people and their model societies are fighting.
The dominant model, in my view, is the nation-state and I claim that it will remain so for the foreseeable future, with International Law setting concerns and limits, however remaining structurally incomplete, due to the absence of a supreme Authority that is able to impose it, indiscriminately and to all.
So Greece is located in this large territory. Small in size, but very important because of its position on the geopolitical and geostrategic chessboard and therefore an opponent for revisionist states and unsatisfied actors of the current “status quo” which, soit dit en passant, is the “Western Order of Things”, as it was formed by the victors of World War II and the Cold War.
On the other hand, Greece has been and remains a sought-after ally and partner by state and non-state actors who advocate the preservation and strengthening of this current order of things, with all that this implies in terms of Greece’s assumption of responsibilities and roles in international affairs, either within the alliance and partnership schemes in which our country participates, or on its own, as a state, i.e. seeking to survive, maintain, preserve, progress and strengthen its role in the region.
In other words, either alone or with others, it must occupy and maintain a place at the table for eternity, because otherwise it risks being put on the menu…
There are no friendships, sympathies, loves and hates in the international firmament. What there is is the national interests of States. A glance at the map is enough to understand this, even for anyone who is ignorant and uninformed about these kinds of issues.
This is because it is at the center, literally, of one of the most important issues that have been politically and strategically plaguing the world for the last few centuries and I am referring, of course, to the well-known “Eastern Question”, which feeds tensions and problems in the region and the “complex” I mentioned earlier, sometimes creating global turbulence and major wars, as it did so extensively in the last century, especially in the Balkans. I think everyone is familiar with the quote attributed to Winston Churchill that ‘the Balkans produce more history than they can consume’. Nowadays, I think that the saying could easily be extended to the other regions I have mentioned.
To understand how quickly and with what intensity things can change, I will give two pictures of our region in 2020, when I assumed the office of Chief, and in 2024, when I handed over the reins. We will set the clock hands to the east and look for instability and crises or wars.
So in 2020, we had instability in Kosovo and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, then we had a hot situation in Afghanistan, and from there we had Iraq, Syria and we end up in Libya, where the war ended in 2020.
In 2024, within only 4 years, following the same path, instability continues in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, with the first one being sufficiently aggravated compared to 2020, we have a large and years-long war in Ukraine, of global influence and impact, a war in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Afghanistan has collapsed and is in the hands of the Taliban, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, war between Israel and Hamas, Yemen against the entire West, and although Libya has been quiet since 2020, there is a war raging in neighboring Sudan, and the situation is volatile generally throughout the Sahel, with Mali and Niger on fire, not to mention the turmoil in Ethiopia, and on top of that we have recently had what we were all surprised to see on our televisions, between Israel and Iran. In just four years!
Having said this, then ,introductory, and admittedly rather extensively, but I consider it essential for the understanding of the role of the Armed Forces in these difficult times, I believe that the search for, possession and maintenance of strong Armed Forces on the part of Greece is indispensable for the continued existence of the state, not only as an entity, but also, I think above all, as the cradle of the nation of Greeks everywhere.
What Greece Wants
Greece is a country which consistently seeks to maintain the status quo, a country which firmly pursues peace in the region, a country which promotes dialogue and compromise solutions as a means of resolving disputes, a country which avoids tensions as much as possible and a country which promotes and proclaims international law as the most appropriate tool and means of settling any disputes at the state level. Her goal is permanent and without end, the preservation of peace with the aim of the prosperity of its society and the cultivation and creation of even better prospects for future generations of Greeks.
Peace is the highest good and indispensable for the prosperity, progress and sustained development of societies. But what peace? Any peace? The King’s Peace, was also peace, but it has remained known through the ages from then until today, as a despicable and unacceptable state of peace, because it was essentially a “defeat” and one without battle, it was a blatant imposition of the revisionist Persian over the free Greek city-states, it was “the great King’s command over the weak Greeks” as Isocrates describes it, “obscene and vile” as Plato called it. It surrendered Greek territories and Greeks to the Persians, took away the right of self-defense from the Greek cities, humiliated and shattered the triumphs and sacrifices of the Greeks in the Persian Wars, at Marathon, Salamis and Plataea. It was truly a dishonor!
Hence peace is desirable and good, but what peace? I answer: peace with dignity! The peace that is secured in terms of equality between competitors, rivals and enemies. And this peace, the peace of dignity, I repeat, can only be imposed by the armed strength of each State. That is, in other words, the National Armed Forces of each.
We are all familiar with the dilemma that is occasionally presented, particularly in Western societies, of the choice between “Guns versus Butter”, a dilemma that was first formulated in the 19th century and strengthened in the 20th. I believe that there is no more spurious dilemma than this. It is an ideological, instrumental and sterile attempt to overcome the nature of the International System with wishes and rationalizations that overlook and willfully ignore reality as it is, and try to shape it as they would like it to be, but this is impossible.
I have already discussed the nature of the International System above, as it is and will continue to be in perpetuity, in my view, and I need not repeat it.
So the answer to the false dilemma is: “Both Guns and Butter”. But how? The answer is called ” National Policy of Survival ” and, in any case, I think it is certainly easier to find a way to have both guns and butter than to find a way to eliminate the causes of conflicts and wars on the planet from its very nature.
Unfortunately, the latter (the elimination of the causes of the War, that is) has not been achieved in the entire known life of mankind, which raises the suspicion that it will not be achieved in the foreseeable future.
In my view of things, in order to have the butter you must first have secured your existence, as an entity, in this case as a state. And to do that you need guns, you need Strength. Certainly not only that, but necessarily Strength. Strength so that no one can touch you and so that you can, unencumbered by existential danger, acquire butter and other useful things, such as education, health, transportation, prosperity in general, well-being, etc.
The economy (responsible for the allocation of resources for guns or butter) cannot be developed in conditions of insecurity for the state. Everybody knows this and thus some unacceptable views on the productivity or lack thereof of the Armed Forces, heard in the past and heard from time to time, are also refuted.
The Armed Forces in all states produce what the societies they serve want, and societies maintain Armed Forces to feel and be safe.
Throughout my tenure as Chief I have not tired of emphasizing to the personnel of the Hellenic Armed Forces that they are “the producers”, the producers of the most important and critical commodity that a society needs to be able to develop and continue to develop, creating wealth and prosperity for its citizens, securing the present and building the future.
At a time, therefore, like today, when the whole world is shaken, shocked, on fire, wars are raging and geopolitical instability prevails and, indeed, is growing worse, as was demonstrated just a few days ago, once again, for the umpteenth time in recent years. I feel particularly happy, proud and satisfied that during my days as Chief of the Armed Forces over the past four years, thanks to our hard work and methodical planning, the armed strength of the country is so great that it is absolutely deterrent to any potential aggressor. And this has been demonstrated in practice, it is not just a theory.
Sources:
- Floros, K. (2024). The Pursuit of Peace in Stormy Seasons.. Policy Journal, 4, p. 86-103.
- General Houpis’ Career, last opened 2nd November 2024 https://geetha.mil.gr/archigos-geetha/
- Finnish Model in Greece, 27 February 2024, last opened 3rd November 2024: https://www.naftemporiki.gr/politics/1601069/stratiotiki-thiteia-proso-olotachos-gia-to-filandiko-montelo-ti-ischyei/
- History of the 2022 Greek Government Surveillance Scandal, last opened 2nd November 2024: https://predatorgate.gr/
Footnotes:
- Floros joining ANTENNA was announced in October 4th 2024. ↩︎
- The first indication is very simply the government that appointed him, although a conservative government does not prove right-wing leanings. Gen. Floros also took part in the creation of an historical album for the 73rd anniversary of the General Staff which whitewashes the 1967 coup. Most recently he has also done an interview for “Omada Alitheias”, an news organ for New Democracy. ↩︎
Andrej Markov 
1 comment