Saturday , April 20 2024
Home / FEATURED / Greece turns down informal Ukrainian request to send more weapons

Greece turns down informal Ukrainian request to send more weapons

Greece has turned down an informal request by Ukraine to send its aging, Soviet-era TOR-Μ1 and Osa-AK missile systems as the country believes they could still be needed by its Armed Forces, media report on Thursday.

The rejection comes a day after the Chief of Greek General Staff Konstantinos Floros rules out “any possibility to grant or dispose weaponry that weakens the defense of the country.”

Citing sources daily kathimerini reports that the informal request was about Soviet-era TOR-Μ1 and Osa-AK missile systems.

Although these systems, owned by the Greek Army and Air Force, would need to be upgraded to remain operational (TOR-M1 were bought in 2001 and OSA-AK in 1992), an expense that in the current circumstances is prohibitive, “they still serve some of the country’s air defense needs,” the sources explained.

Regarding the talk about the need of Ukraine in S-300, the same sources revealed that Athens has not yet received a request to send any of its Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Ukraine, which are stored in Crete.

Early March, Greece sent Kalashnikovs and launchers to Ukraine, along with humanitarian aid.

Note that in public opinion polls the majority of Greeks considered as a mistake to send weapons to Ukraine.

Check Also

“Greek economy surges after decade of pain,” says Reuters

in a lenthy post, the Reuters global news agency refers to the upward trajectory of …


  1. Zellinsky doesn’t seem to grasp the concept that by introducing a no fly zone, this would ultimately result in losing many millions more lives by nuclear escalation. He does not realize that exponentially more lives would be lost and how that would start World War Three.

    He would do well to show his people the movie “The 11th Day” that chronicles the story of the men, women, and children in the greatest civilian resistance in history against the Nazi occupation forces from 1941-1945. The Russians do not stand a chance if the Ukrainian civilians mobilize by taking a page from the freedom loving Cretan playbook.

  2. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction is a two edged sword. It is claimed that it has kept Europe safe from war since the end of WWII but there is a downside. During the cold war NATO countries enacted war games and I am sure the Warsaw Pact countries did the same. I am not talking about military exercises on the ground but theoretical activities where two teams of top strategists would try to develop strategies that would overcome the other side. In every single case, if both countries had nuclear capability, it ALWAYS escalated to nuclear conflict. There was no combination of strategies that allowed a conflict to end without all out nuclear war. Putin is aware of this and he also thinks that the western powers will avoid such a possibility at all costs. Consequently he can do whatever he wants as long as he avoids directly attacking a NATO country. There is no red line within Ukraine. If he deploys chemical, biological or tactical nuclear weapons inside Ukraine I believe the West will still not confront him directly.

    The EU also faces an unpalatable possibility. Finland and Sweden are not members of NATO although they do collaborate with NATO. They are not covered by Article 5 so if Putin attacked Finland it is highly likely that NATO would take the same stance as with Ukraine, i.e. provide support but not directly intervene. They are members of the EU so what would the EU do? Putin seems intent on recreating the Russian Empire and Finland was part of that Empire.