This text summarizes the key discussions/reflections from the 10th edition of the Greek-Turkish Young Leaders Symposium (GTYLS), which took place on the island of Hydra, Greece, from October 10 to 12, 2025. The symposium brought together emerging leaders, scholars, and practitioners from Greece and Turkey to discuss the evolving nature of relations between the two countries. Participants explored the current state of affairs, identified key challenges, and proposed constructive ways to enhance cooperation and mutual understanding between Greece and Turkey through dialogue and exchange.
Please note that the reflections in this report are not attributed to any individual participant. The rapporteurs of the GTYLS, Christos Kourtelis and Cihan Dizdaroğlu, summarise the central themes, shared concerns and recurring arguments raised during the workshop discussions.
The Current State of Greek-Turkish Affairs
The relationship between Greece and Turkey has always been deeply complex, shaped by historical legacies, differing interpretations of international law, and evolving regional dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean. The two countries have different political, cultural, and institutional approaches to key issues, including maritime sovereignty, international treaties, and regional security. Thus, during the two days of GTYLS, different perspectives on the approach of the two countries were voiced. Over time, both countries have adopted a legalistic or rules-based approach or made strategic and political calculations in response to contemporary realities by reevaluating existing agreements.
The nature of the relationship itself has changed over time. Earlier phases of Greek–Turkish relations were predominantly “Westphalian”, focusing on sovereignty, territorial control, and state-to-state bargaining. By contrast, the current landscape is increasingly characterized by “post-Westphalian” dynamics, in which identity politics, civilizational narratives, media ecosystems, and public sentiment influence foreign policy behavior as much as traditional geopolitical factors. This evolution introduces new layers of complexity, making disputes more emotionally charged and politically sensitive.
It is noted that the coexistence of separate maritime accords, such as the Turkey–Libya and Greece–Egypt agreements, illustrates the overlapping jurisdictions and conflicting legal frameworks that complicate bilateral relations. The sovereignty of the islands, the maritime boundaries, and the exploitation of natural resources remain central points of contention between the two. Furthermore, the lack of clearly defined maritime borders creates practical issues, such as unregulated fishing and unrestricted access to waters.
The European Union (EU) continues to play a crucial, albeit increasingly complex, role as a stabilizing force in the region. Even though political shifts since 2010 have limited EU funding for Turkish civil society and reduced avenues for societal dialogue, the EU framework has long provided mechanisms for dialogue, cooperation, and restraint. Meanwhile, the strengthening of partnerships among Greece, Cyprus, and Israel, particularly in the areas of energy and security, has further influenced the regional balance of power.
Similarly, the US’s shifting relationship with both Greece and Turkey has contributed to a new regional power imbalance. The US’s individual relationships with both countries have also generated mutual insecurity. Turkey often underestimates the regional reverberations of its policies, while Greece perceives an increased US military presence as a strategic hedge.
Main Challenges in Greek-Turkish Relations
There are two primary challenges in Greek-Turkish relations: a lack of political will to improve bilateral relations and a lack of trust. There are, of course, other challenges, such as the differing interpretations of international law and key treaties, including the Treaty of Lausanne, which both sides use to support their respective positions on sovereignty and jurisdiction. This legal and political asymmetry is exacerbated by domestic political pressures, with nationalist rhetoric and media narratives often exacerbating tensions rather than fostering understanding.
A recurring theme was the “imbalance of power” and the fact that the two sides were effectively “telling completely different stories”, reflecting deep ontological and narrative gaps in their respective views of the bilateral relationship. These gaps continue to erode trust.
Despite a general awareness of maritime issues in both countries, “fact-resilience” is low. While the publics on both sides believe they understand the disputes, their actual knowledge of the legal and technical aspects is quite limited. For example, in Greece, although many Greeks believe they are familiar with maritime law, surveys suggest that their knowledge of the technical details remains limited. Similarly, few people in Turkey understand the complex military and geopolitical issues related to the relationship. This has paved the way for misinformation spread by social media influencers and other prominent figures to dominate the discourse, creating fertile ground for manipulation.
This is an important aspect of the relations because public opinion exerts considerable influence on policymakers, often constraining diplomatic flexibility. This is also related to how the two countries instrumentalized each other during election periods to mobilize nationalist voters and/or divert attention from domestic crises. The volatility of rhetoric is strongly correlated with election calendars rather than changes in the disputes themselves.
In addition to bilateral disputes, issues such as foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI), cyber threats, and hybrid warfare have become pressing concerns due to shared vulnerabilities. Greece, Turkey, and the EU are all facing external attempts to influence public opinion and democratic processes. These challenges underscore the importance of coordinated responses in protecting societal resilience and democratic integrity.
Future Proposals and Pathways for Cooperation
To improve relations, participants agreed on the need for a multifaceted and pragmatic approach. One that combines dialogue, confidence-building, and regional cooperation. Several initiatives were proposed at the GTYLS to this end.
To reduce zero-sum competition, both countries could pursue joint investment and energy projects. Measures such as establishing shared marine parks, establishing joint monitoring mechanisms for natural disasters, and promoting environmental cooperation could help build confidence.
Strengthening educational, cultural, and youth-exchange programs, including scholarships, language-learning initiatives, and academic collaborations, would help dismantle stereotypes and foster long-term mutual understanding. Supporting more sustainable diplomacy also involves encouraging policymakers to engage more directly with public opinion and incorporate societal perspectives into the formulation of foreign policy. As the previous examples show, cooperation requires not only the formation of agreements but also the establishment of robust domestic political coalitions to support their implementation. While leaders have historically met and agreed, implementation has often been halted by domestic politics.
Cooperation between the EU and Turkey should be revitalized, particularly in areas such as cybersecurity, countering disinformation, and collective security. Shared initiatives to address foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) operations could lay the groundwork for renewed trust. Within this framework, the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), alongside mechanisms such as PESCO and the European Defense Fund, could facilitate a more structured partnership with Turkey to promote regional stability.
Climate change, wildfires, and natural disasters were identified as areas in which “neutral cooperation” could be established. Disaster management, renewable energy, and the protection of the Aegean ecosystem could form a new, positive agenda that goes beyond traditional security concerns.
A compromise that is both realistic and balanced, grounded in shared interests and respect for international law, rather than unilateral positions, offers the most promising path forward. Reaffirming the principles of dialogue, accountability, and mutual respect, both bilaterally and within the broader EU context, could transform long-standing rivalries into a cooperative and resilient partnership in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The establishment of a Greek-Turkish epistemic community comprising experts, academics, and civil society actors could generate shared knowledge, reduce misinformation, and facilitate ongoing dialogue, independent of political cycles. This could pave the way for cooperation in the aforementioned areas.
