“We can come suddenly one night.” The phrase was not uttered as a reminder of the past. It was uttered as a warning for the future , by one of Ankara’s most influential strategic minds, on the occasion of a defense system that Greece is installing on its own territory.
Retired Admiral Cihat Yayci , one of the architects of the “Blue Homeland” doctrine, has returned with a position that surpasses any precedent, openly invoking the right to preemptive strike against our country. The reason, the “Achilles Shield” . And he is not alone. The Turkish media has been flooded with extremist voices, with the tension peaking after the clarifications about the “source code” of the system.
The starting point of his argument is the characterization of Greek defense systems as a direct threat . The radars and sensors, as he argued, “will monitor all the movements of Turkish aircraft” and “will form an information network around Turkey.” He also repeated the standard accusation of placing “troops, weapons, radars, sensors and missiles on islands that should have a civilian status,” wondering if it is possible for his country to watch this silently.
Citing the Turkish president, Yayci made sure to clarify that “these words are not spoken in vain.” He warned that if Ankara believes that a real threat is being formed against it and that an “Alliance of Evil” is being created that is waiting for the right moment to attack, then “it will do whatever is necessary.”
The most dangerous point, however, is the way in which he attempts to legitimize such an action in advance . He cited the US, which “talks about preventive legitimate defense and implements it,” and Israel, which “attacks using the same excuse, and no one protests,” leading to the question of whether “it will only become a problem when Turkey does it.” His country, he declared, “will also exercise its right to preventive legitimate defense.”
This is a highly controversial legal construct in international law, which in this case attempts something even more extreme. To turn the existence of defense systems into a justification for attack. With this logic, any country that strengthens its defense automatically provides a pretext for anyone who wishes to attack it. And the fact that the position is publicly expressed by an executive with such a strong influence on the formation of Turkish strategic thinking gives it weight that goes beyond personal opinion.
The blame-shifting part followed. The retired admiral accused Greece of publishing “almost daily articles against Turkey” and that “Greek newspapers and politicians constantly talk about Turkey, highlighting it as a target,” while in his country, as he said, “we talk about it occasionally, that’s all,” because Turkey “has no aggressive intentions toward Greece.”
His conclusion encapsulates the entire contradiction of the position. The Greek islands, he argued, “are so close to Turkey that they are almost within slingshot range ,” and his country “has not thrown a single stone with a slingshot at these islands to date.” He concluded by stating that “Turkey is not aggressive,” but “those who threaten Turkey will not find a silent, helpless, and passive state before them.”
The phrase about the sling is perhaps the most revealing of the entire interview. It is presented as a demonstration of self-restraint, but in reality it functions as a reminder of proximity and possibility. It is, in other words, a threat formulated in the grammar of peace.
The timing , finally, does not lend itself to many interpretations. The intensity of the Turkish reaction peaks precisely at the moment when Greece is moving forward with the implementation of a system which, as Yaytszi himself admits, will fundamentally change the image of the airspace in the region. The provocation, in other words, is not triggered by any Greek offensive action, but by the prospect of a stronger Greek defense .
