China’s Strategic Investments in Europe: Why Greece Matters

Greece is the epicentre of Chinese investment in Southern Europe. Screening these investments is vital to relieving Europe of its external dependencies

by Vassilios Thierry Faïtas and Antonios Georgios Zairis

Greece is considered one of Southern Europe’s most consequential maritime economic bridges, connecting the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Black Sea, and the Eastern Mediterranean, and linking three continental ecosystems together—Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Its most significant ports are located in Piraeus and Thessaloniki—responsible for facilitating trade passage from mainland Europe—especially the Balkans—out to the rest of the world.

In turn, this makes Greece a key hub for European capital in Southern Europe, with partners such as France, Germany and Italy contributing to its economic and strategic development.

France accounts for around €2 billion of investments on Greek soil, with 150 French companies invested in fields such as transportation and energy (e.g., Thales), industry (e.g., Servier), and consumer goods (e.g., L’Oréal), alongside critical contracts focused on the Athens Stock Exchange, the East to Med Corridor and Mistral AI. France is also "investing" in a strategic relationship with Greece, having signed a bilateral defence agreement in 2021 and sold 24 Rafale aircraft and 3 Belharra frigates in order to consolidate security in the Eastern Mediterranean against territorial disputes and leverage Greece’s geostrategic position.

Germany is considered one of Greece’s largest investors with over €7.7 billion in investments, holding key assets in telecommunications with Deutsche Telekom in OTE, 14 regional airports managed by Fraport Greece and energy initiatives with Siemens and RWE.

Italy is also an important investor focused on Greek infrastructure and energy networks, notably through Italgas, which acquired DEPA Infrastructure (Enaon), Snam with its stake in the gas transmission operator DESFA and Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane, which operates Hellenic Train.

For Greece, these investments are essential, as they strengthen its economic stability, but also enrich the European economic ecosystem.

Yet, investments coming from third-party states, such as China, create challenges for the balance of such an ecosystem.

Chinese investments in Greece date back to the earliest periods of the economic crisis, when China invested €6 billion in Greek debt, reaching today an estimated total investment between €5 and €10 billion. Besides, Chinese capital was particularly consequential in Greece, especially during the debt crisis, helping the country attain vital liquidity and infrastructural modernisation. However, its latest expansion into the Greek market in recent years has also raised concerns among European partners.

Still, Chinese investments should not be thought of as homogeneous, as different entities have different interests and distinct priorities. As a state, Beijing is not always seeking to undermine European interests. Most of the time, it simply wants to expand its trade opportunities—which can offer reciprocal benefits even for European partners.

For China, Greece offered an ideal stepping stone into Southern Europe to put that trade strategy into practice. Notably, by acquiring a majority stake in the port of Piraeus via COSCO, China has marked its place in the European trade network and has shown a desire to further integrate into it.

Already in possession of the Port of Piraeus—a major node in the Southern European network— Beijing can exert influence across associated commercial activities through strategic transport corridors linking maritime terminals, warehouses, railways, distribution centres, and industrial markets in the Southern Mediterranean.

This risk becomes apparent when considering the fact that Chinese investments no longer limit themselves to maritime infrastructure, but also expand to the non-maritime market through smaller, but strategic investments. For example, Beijing introduces substantial and non-conditioned capital into Greek infrastructure projects through the Belt and Road Initiative, ultimately having a considerable impact on the TEN-T (Trans-European Transport Network)—with potential negative effects—and gaining increasing influence over regional trade flow decisions. Beyond commercial activity, Beijing’s inclusion into the European ecosystem may raise concerns about the appropriation of sensitive data and civilian infrastructure for national benefits that undermine European interests.

Beijing’s strategy extends beyond government capital—promoting private investors to expand in European markets. Chinese companies operate under the Guanxi system (personal relationship networks), with a binding mutual obligation to return a favour when asked. Most of the Chinese corporate world, being heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party, pursues its Military-Civil Fusion framework (Junmin Ronghe), where some Chinese companies investing in Greece act not as mere independent market actors, but as entities either trying to honour debt obligations or meet Beijing’s strategic imperatives.

Furthermore, an expanding number of Chinese enterprises are trained by the CICI (China Institute of Competitive Intelligence), a state institute, in the art of competitive intelligence in service of national priorities, utilising European market data to their advantage to become ever more competitive—sometimes hurting European competition.

Nevertheless, if these investments are not more efficiently controlled, Europe may become more vulnerable and dependent on Chinese trade. For example, Europe—including Greece—is becoming increasingly dependent on China, posting a record trade deficit of €359.9 billion in 2025 and finding itself critically dependent on imported raw materials.

Efforts have been made to counterbalance Chinese dependency, such as the Metlen-led gallium extraction project in northern Greece; however, an isolated case is not sufficient to relieve Europe from its dependencies.

These growing concerns have pushed European leaders to enforce stricter screening controls, aiming to balance out these investments and keep the European market stable.

Currently, the foreign investment screening system in the European Union displays weaknesses, clearing the vast majority of investments (92%) very quickly in Phase 1 (preliminary assessment) and reserving very few files for the in-depth investigation phase (8%), which is reserved for transactions presenting a real threat to security.

Greece, for its part, has shown resilience by adopting Law 5202 in 2025, which manages foreign investments through the interministerial committee DEEAXE (Interministerial Committee for Control of Foreign Direct Investments). This committee requires prior authorisation for investments exceeding 10% to 25%, depending on the sensitivity of the sector, under penalty of fines and nullity. In doing so, it obliges foreign investors to submit to Directorate B1 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a complete record of their shareholding history and ultimate beneficial owners (UBO).

Regulation (EU) 2026/1386, applicable from January 2028, plans to address this gap by requiring all Member States to participate in investment screening in sensitive sectors such as defence, financial services, and semiconductors. This comes with a substantial improvement to the cooperation mechanism, the harmonisation of procedures and the setting of stricter conditions on foreign investments such as those from China. Yet, China could still benefit from this delay.

While preparing itself for the implementation of this new regulation, Greece should strategically strengthen its resilience to Chinese investments by further increasing its cooperation with its most important European investors.

Chinese investments do not need to be halted completely—as some remain essential for the prosperity of the European economic ecosystem. The objective is therefore de-risking rather than decoupling, ensuring that capital inflows are monitored more efficiently through targeted screening regulations.

At the state level, Athens should pursue closer collaboration among Bercy (France), the BMWK (Germany), the Golden Power coordination office (Italy) and the Greek B1 Directorate, through the development of an economic and strategic intelligence system that both protects critical state data and simultaneously stays informed and adapts to emerging non-market techniques.

As for the protection of European companies on Greek soil, these screening authorities should introduce complementary security clauses such as integrity audits (verifying the identity and UBO of the investor), screening suspensive clauses (conditioning the final conclusion of the transaction on prior FDI clearance) and exit clauses in the event of an indirect hostile takeover.

With Greece at the centre of Chinese commercial expansion in Europe and state-backed economic competition becoming increasingly visible across the continent, the European Union—especially Greece—must quickly adopt a strategic plan focused on security and competitive intelligence,

including the Paris–Berlin–Rome axis, in order to guarantee shared economic sovereignty and ensure the resilience of a European strategic corridor in Southern Europe.

*Vassilios Thierry Faïtas is a Master’s student in International Strategies and Diplomacy at ISIT - Paris-Panthéon-Assas University.

*Antonios Zairis is a Prof. of Business Administration & Marketing and Member of the American Economic Association (AEA)

Source europeanbusinessreview.eu

New Strategic Implications for the Greek Space Programme

Greece is entering a new age of space involvement where it must strategically ready itself to face the geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges to come

by Vassilios Thierry Faïtas and Antonios Georgios Zairis

In a historic turn of events, the first Greek astronaut is expected to participate in an ISS mission in late 2027—paving the way for new strategic horizons for Greece’s participation in the European space programme.

Greece’s involvement in space initiatives is neither new nor unique, broadly pursuing the standard EU framework timeline of smaller states. A signatory to the Outer Space Treaty since 1967, the country has transformed itself over the last decade from an observer into an active participant in European space affairs.

Through the attainment of ESA membership in 2005 and its cooperation in other similar programmes, Greece managed to establish the Hellenic Space Agency in 2018. The latter was later restructured into the Hellenic Space Center, becoming Greece’s first national space agency and further deepening the country’s cooperation with other states and entities.

The National Recovery and Resilience Plan Greece 2.0, introduced in 2021, gave way to the preparation of the National Microsatellite Programme and later its implementation in 2024—coinciding with the country’s ratification of the Artemis Accords the same year. With its first microsatellite programme in space, the following year, Greece launched its first two SAR satellites into orbit and followed suit with other similar projects.

This year, utilising the experience and results of the aforementioned programme, Greece has unveiled HELLAS-SPACE 2.0, a new national space programme under the auspices of the European Space Agency with an estimated budget of €350 million. This transformative programme—with horizons up to 2030—has already entered its second phase of further expanding the country’s satellite ecosystem.

Through space diplomacy, Greece is seeking new ways to ensure its strategic autonomy by increasing its national capacity within the European ecosystem and integrating itself into European power networks.

Athens has already been expanding its space initiatives via multi-million-euro investments, supported by bodies like Enterprise Greece, in areas such as data processing, geoinformatics, and AI. For the moment, the Greek space programme includes the Hellenic space radar, assembly, integration, and testing, but its ultimate goal is to build control centres, data processing systems, security systems and attract specialist human resources.

Investment in space technology is a key factor in ensuring the retention of skilled personnel specialised in cybersecurity, AI, microelectronics and robotics, as this will attract new talent in areas previously conditioned to pursue careers in other EU countries (brain gain). Furthermore, the transition from a microsatellite programme to HELLAS-SPACE 2.0 is of strategic importance, as it will further strengthen Greece’s economic attractiveness by allowing for the sustained development of infrastructure and domestic industry.

For Greece, following European space initiatives directly affects regional dynamics across the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Eastern Mediterranean is one of the world’s most strategically important maritime corridors—being a rich energy hub and linking European markets with the Suez Canal and other parts of the world. Notwithstanding, it is also a place of critical importance, with interested actors such as Greece, Türkiye, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt, all competing for its control.

Athens has a maritime pendency with Ankara regarding the delimitation of their EEZs, continental shelves, as well as their airspace. However, space has a fundamentally different legal regime.

Both Greece and Türkiye are signatories to the Outer Space Treaty—establishing that outer space cannot be claimed as national territory—and the Artemis Accords—promoting cooperation and the prevention of harmful interference between signatory members—which gives them a domain in which they can cooperate without having to resolve their disputes over the Eastern Mediterranean first.

Furthermore, Greece is an established member of ESA and Türkiye is an important strategic collaborator of the latter, meaning that any space-related collaboration between the two is channeled through multilateral ESA frameworks rather than fraught bilateral avenues.

In other words, Athens can freely use its already established national microsatellite programme (GNSSP) for disaster management, wildfire response, environmental monitoring, as well as maritime awareness and national security in the context of European collaboration and Türkiye, in turn, can do the same with its TÜRKSAT satellites, while still collaborating with the latter.

This can also be applied to other regional actors in the Eastern Mediterranean, such as Cyprus, Egypt and Israel, which have already developed their own respective space initiatives. For instance, Cyprus is an ESA associate member, Israel—having one of the world’s most advanced and capable space programmes—has signed a cooperation agreement with ESA and Egypt, through its own space agency, as well as the African Space Agency (AfSA), channels cooperation with the wider European ecosystem.

Ultimately, despite the differences among the actors involved, space collaboration can help limit tensions—if not entirely avoid them. Importantly, it also strengthens Greece’s ability to maintain regional stability, while extending its diplomatic reach into neighbouring hotspots.

Sustaining such a national space programme presents significant operational challenges. The Greek space programme still suffers from some fundamental problems and risks. Firstly, following the completion of initial research, funding is often suspended by companies. Additionally, the fragmentation of projects, dependence on external providers, as well as technological decay and mission failure have a considerable impact on financial performance and undermine strategic continuity. Finally, relying on satellite-driven data means that just as critical industries depend on real-time processing, government infrastructure simultaneously becomes an attractive target for cyber-attacks.

In order to tackle this, Greece must transform itself from a mere financier into an anchor customer and capital provider. It is essential, therefore, to consider the multiplier effect across public investment, private capital, exports, research, entrepreneurship and infrastructure. This will effectively allow Greece to increase its capacity to generate and utilise critical data.

The establishment of an independent space-driven Greek think tank—connecting industry leaders, defense planners and academic researchers—is another necessary measure. This could be set up either as a sub-division of the European Space Policy Institute, or as an independent body aligned with ELIAMEP. Through such an institution, Greece can establish a concrete long-term strategy to keep space investments afloat.

Greece’s success lies in whether it can effectively translate public space funding into corporate engagement, human capital retention and exportable services. Were Greece to succeed in linking space infrastructure with defence policy, civil protection, shipping, agriculture and high-tech research, space will act as a genuine multiplier of national power and productivity. This will ultimately determine how Greece organises its economic, technological and security posture for the coming decade.

Greece should aim for selective strategic autonomy, rather than pursuing unrealistic space self-sufficiency: possessing sovereign assets of distinct operational value while actively leveraging shared European infrastructure.

For the time being, space diplomacy seems like a cost-effective approach for Greece and the wider European alliance. Nonetheless, its future is hard to predict, as space increasingly becomes a field of economic and geopolitical competition, forming two opposing camps: China-allied countries (ILRS) and US-allied ones (Artemis Accords). In this context, Europe—and to an extent Greece—should strategically prepare for such a future through a concrete strategic space plan; otherwise, they will risk exposure to strategic dependency and external vulnerability.

*Vassilios Thierry Faïtas is a Master’s student in International Strategies and Diplomacy at ISIT - Paris-Panthéon-Assas University.

*Antonis Zairis is a Prof. of Business Administration & Marketing and Member of the American Economic Association (AEA)

Source europeanbusinessreview.eu

Στην κυριακάτικη έκδοση της «Καθημερινής», στο ένθετο «Οικονομική», ο Αντώνης Ζαΐρης αναλύει τις προοπτικές της ελληνικής οικονομίας, τις θετικές εκτιμήσεις για την ανάπτυξη και τις προκλήσεις της επόμενης ημέρας, αναδεικνύοντας τη σημασία των επενδύσεων, της ανταγωνιστικότητας και των μεταρρυθμίσεων για μια βιώσιμη οικονομική πορεία. 11/10/2026