The tenth trilateral meeting between Cyprus, Greece, and Israel was presented by Nicosia as a major upgrade in plans and a sign of mature cooperation among the participating countries. After this year’s talks, the three leaders emphasised that the decisions and objectives of the meeting had reshaped the regional dynamic and the collaboration between their countries.
If the focus is on improving bilateral relations - particularly Cyprus and Greece with Israel - this is undeniably positive and a realistic assessment of diplomatic ties. While bilateral matters tend to dominate such meetings, it would be mistaken to suggest that trilateral gatherings are unimportant. However, portraying the latest trilateral as a landmark moment in geopolitical shifts or historical evolution is not only exaggerated but risks creating a mismatch between words and actions.
Dangerous exaggerations
Nicosia’s portrayal gave the impression of an unprecedented elevation of Cyprus’ role, almost to the point of suggesting that regional balances in the Eastern Mediterranean were on the verge of being overturned, and that the trilateral agreements would act as a counterweight to Turkey’s ambitions and narrative. This perception was immediately reinforced by Israel’s Prime Minister, who referred to those “dreaming of empires,” implicitly pointing to Turkey, delighting the assembled audience and their supporters in Greece and Cyprus.
Some attempt to frame this narrative as proof of a security alliance capable of protecting Cyprus. In reality, it is a politically convenient but weak story when compared with the actual international balance of power.
Trilateral talks: Useful, but limited
There is no doubt that trilateral meetings are both necessary and useful. The issue arises when the perceived utility is conflated with expectations that cannot dictate or replace a genuine strategy capable of controlling events. In short, the latest trilateral risks creating political illusions and false expectations.
Domestically, the meeting was again presented as a deterrent against Turkey. Underlying this narrative is a fragile political notion that Cyprus can “build axes” and strengthen its position without cost or confrontation with reality.
The idea that Israel-Cyprus defence cooperation acts as a strategic counterweight to Turkey has been repeated for years but has never been substantiated. Israel treats Turkey as a difficult but necessary interlocutor, able to clash strategically but also cooperate when national interest demands. For example, the September 2023 agreement between Netanyahu and Erdoğan marked a new phase of rapprochement after more than a decade of tension, including renewed collaboration on trade, the economy, and energy, with Turkey proposing a pipeline for Israeli gas to Europe. These plans, however, were disrupted by the Hamas attack a month later.
Whatever is claimed at trilateral meetings, Israel maintains open options and will not sacrifice relations with Ankara for the benefit of Cyprus or Greece. Betting on such a scenario amounts to a dangerous illusion.
Cooperation vs Guarantees
Cyprus’ defence cooperation with Israel exists, but it is asymmetrical. Cyprus provides operational access via ports, airports, and airspace, while Israel retains full freedom of action without any explicit obligation for reciprocal support.
A key question is whether there is any political or military guarantee for Cyprus’s defence. The answer is no. Cooperation ends where costs for Israel begin. Portraying this relationship as a shield against Turkey only undermines its credibility.
Back to normal
Timing makes this situation more problematic. The UN and mediator Maria Angela Olguín, following the change in Turkish Cypriot leadership, have launched a new process for the Cyprus issue after eight years of stagnation. In this context, presenting the Greek-Cypriot side as politically investing in alternative security arrangements sends the wrong message - that the status quo is acceptable, safeguarded by an illusory sense of protection.
Changing the status quo does not require trilateral talks with military cooperation. It requires dialogue within UN parameters, supported by the EU, and resolved through political will, international legality, and clear strategic planning.