Ravi Agrawal Prime Minister, good to see you again.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Thank you for having me, Ravi.
Ravi Agrawal: I have to start with the transatlantic relationship. US President Donald Trump seems to have pulled back from his recent demands to buy Greenland. How much has that incident, that drama that we all saw in Davos last month, how much has that hurt the relationship between Europe and the United States?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all Ravi, let me point out, as we discussed again a couple of years ago, that President Trump was right when he pointed out that Europe was not contributing its fair share when it came to defence spending, and that we had essentially outsourced the security of our continent to the United States.
Now, I think you were also right to point out in your introduction that Greece was an exception to this rule. We’ve been spending more than 2% of our GDP for many years due to our peculiar geographic and geopolitical challenges. We’re now above 3%, but most of the continent only woke up to the realisation that we need to take our strategic autonomy more seriously since President Trump was reelected to the White House.
I think in that sense, this ‘rude awakening’was necessary in order for us to take our own security seriously. We have made significant progress and commitments to spend significantly more within NATO, but also a general understanding that regardless of what happens in NATO, Europe as a whole needs to develop its own defence architecture. I’ve been calling for more European defence spending for quite some time, and I’m quite happy that most European leaders have realised, maybe slightly later than I would want to, that this is now becoming an indispensable necessity for Europe.
Ravi Agrawal: I completely agree on the defence component of that. In a few minutes, I’m going to come back to you and ask you how to make that happen. But just to beat more on the general issue of Greenland and the broader international climate around that. I mean, Stephen Miller, the President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, has called international law “international niceties”. The United States, of course, has also overstepped when it comes to international law on Venezuela, for example. How does all of that resonate in a place like Greece?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Well, Greece has been a firm believer in international law ever since the post-war, World War, international security and defence arrangement was put into place. We are a non-permanent member of the Security Council. When it comes to our regional geopolitical disputes, we always put forward the fundamental premise that they can only be resolved by reference to international law, and in particular the Law of the Seas.
But at the same time, we’re not naive. We do understand that in these turbulent times, it is important to build our own defence and security capabilities. Without changing our fundamental premise, we do recognise that international relations have become, in a sense, more transactional and that we need to build our own strength. Speaking for my country, our own economic strength, our own defence strength, our own soft power strength in terms of completely rebranding a country that was hit very harshly from the financial crisis.
We will continue to maintain that the rules-based international order is in our broader interest while not being naive about a changing world, which, frankly, as a medium-sized European country, we cannot really influence.
Ravi Agrawal: Well, I was going to come to that because the other component of doing everything in your power to be more autonomous, strategically, as you’ve been saying for many years now, there’s a reason why Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos, it seems to resonate so much globally in his broader point that there’s a rupture in the world order and that we’re entering a world in which might is right.
He cited Thucydides, of course, which I imagine is popular in Greece. What is your sense of a world that moves more in that direction, where might is right, where size matters, and of course, Canada is a bigger economy than, for example, Greece is. How does a country like Greece think about that scenario?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Well, first of all, let me point out that I’ve not given up on the transatlantic relationship. I do believe that the bonds that connect us and that have essentially established the post-World War II order are still – they may be weaker – but they’re still there, especially when you look at NATO and how instrumental the US still is in terms of providing critical capabilities to Europe, one would be naive to argue right now that Europe can all of a sudden defend itself without relying on our US partners.
I do also need to point out that Greece has a privileged strategic partnership with the United States. We have a very strong security and defence arrangement. We may talk a little bit about energy because I think it is playing a critical role in the new geopolitical and geo-economic landscape. I speak as a proud Greek, a proud European, but also as someone who will continue to work to mend the rifts and the tension in the transatlantic relationship.
I’m not yet ready to call the post-World War II order dead. I will continue to engage constructively with the US to also explain to my US friends and our US partners that at the end of the day, if you look at the global landscape, it is in the interest of the United States to have a strong economic security defence relationship with Europe.
There are ways to find the win-win solutions when it comes to Greenland. I think Europe made it very, very clear, and I think it was important that there are red lines which simply cannot be crossed. But we need to do that, I’d say, in a non-dramatic manner, a non-escalatory manner, and to also convince the United States that its legitimate security concerns in the Arctic can be addressed without crossing these red lines. My sense is that when it comes to Greenland, that we’re moving in that direction.
Ravi Agrawal: When you said a couple of minutes ago that Europe cannot take care of itself right away, it can’t suddenly do without the United States. There’s an implication there that 10 years from now, it would like to get there. Let’s talk a little bit about what Europe needs to do to up its defence spending and where the money comes from given the continent’s history with overshooting its fiscal balance sheets and then having problems with austerity.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Well, let me point out that the US is also not in a very enviable fiscal position, but the US is the US and it can afford to fund its own deficits.
Let me start by saying that the flip side of a robust defence is a robust economy. So this whole discussion around European competitiveness, which is again coming to the forefront, how will we establish higher growth rates, how can we be more competitive, is necessary not only to create more jobs, to improve disposable income, but also to create the fiscal space within our national balance sheets to fund an increased spending in defence, which is going to come from public money, potentially European money, but it is also going to come from private investments.
We will have an absolutely critical European Council, which is going to take place in a week from now, and competitiveness is going to be the sole issue that we will discuss. Mario Draghi produced an excellent report a year ago. Have we implemented it? Not really. We have not really moved in that direction at the speed that I would like.
This is a time to really increase our speed, shift gears, because if I look at the example of Greece, we’re spending more than 3% of our GDP on defence, but we are producing surpluses. We’re also bringing down our debt at the same time. We still have enough fiscal space to also cut taxes. Why can we do that? Because we have a high growth rate.
What we have been doing in Greece, we need to replicate at the European level. If our growth rates are stuck at around 1%, and if our leading economies are going under 1%, it will be difficult to finance the investments that we need to create a European defence market.
We need to change the competition rules in Europe. We need to allow for more mergers. We need to nurture the defence ecosystem. We have amazing startups in Greece. This is not just about the big platforms, the ships, the aeroplanes, it’s also about innovation. Europe, and Greece for that matter, has incredible talent in which we would like to invest.
But we will not reach our defence targets if we cannot agree on how we will fund our defence spending. Improving our competitiveness and strengthening our fiscal position is an absolute prerequisite to do that.
Ravi Agrawal: Let’s just move this one step further. Talk to me a little bit more about how countries agree on creating that base of defence spending and funding. Then related to that, there is a theory that the money has to come from somewhere. Europe, of course, over the last 80 years, has built this great welfare state, but it’s come at the price of relying on the United States for its defence, relying on Russia for its energy, for example. As those things are taken away, there’s a theory that the money has to come from somewhere. This is essentially, at its heart, a tough conversation that leaders need to have with their citizens. How do you have that conversation?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Very much so. Well, first of all in Greece, this dilemma was not really that relevant because of the fact that we had our own security concerns with Turkey. There was a generally accepted social contract that we need to spend more on defence. What I’m doing is not just spending more on defence, but also nurturing a Greek defence ecosystem so that we don’t just buy weapons and systems from abroad, but we also have significant domestic contribution. In other European countries, it’s more difficult. If you don’t face a direct threat, that discussion becomes more complicated.
But I would look at what we did after COVID. We created a big pot of money. We borrowed at the European level €750 billion to address the COVID crisis. I think it was a very successful project. I do still believe that there are European projects of common interest, let’s say, missile defence, where we could imagine creating a dedicated European defence facility that would benefit all countries. This is the ultimate European common good, after all, and it would benefit the entire continent. Why not create a special instrument that will allow us to borrow at the European level to fund these types of projects?
I do sense we’re not there yet, but I do sense that there’s more interest in having this discussion at the European level because you’re right to point out, our budgets are stretched, our citizens demand that we maintain our welfare state.
In Greece, I do need to point out that we’ve made the difficult reforms that other European countries have not yet made. Our retirement age, for example, is already at 67 years old. We know that we can fund our social state through our own budgets. Other European countries are still struggling to do that.
But these sort of discussions need to take place. I would also add one more point, and this relates to European sort of collective defence arrangement. We have a clause in our European treaties. It’s Article 42, paragraph 7. This is the equivalent of Article 5 in the European Union. It’s a mutual assistance clause, actually phrased even more strongly than Article 5.
We talk very little about it in Europe. The time has come to really put it at the forefront and to say, “look, regardless of what happens with NATO, we in Europe have agreed that if a member state, under any circumstance, is attacked, we have our own collective mutual assistance clause”.
All this, not at the expense of NATO, because I think NATO is going to become stronger if we take our defence more seriously, and the US is going to take us more seriously if we start upping our game and spending more on defence and taking our collective European security more seriously.
Ravi Agrawal: There are, of course, fissures within Europe. It’s not a monolith. There are fissures within NATO as well, also not a monolith. You mentioned Turkey here. You’re meeting President Erdoğan later this month. Erdoğan is a leader, I’ll remind our viewers and listeners who, I think four years ago said, he no longer even recognises your existence. What are you hoping to get out of this meeting?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: I’ll be visiting Ankara next Wednesday, leading a high-level Greek delegation. We have a G2G format which we have created.
Of course, we’ve had our differences with Turkey. The one major difference that we recognise in Greece is the delimitation of our maritime zones in the Aegean and the Eastern Med. I mean, this difference goes back decades.
But I think we’ve worked constructively over the past years to diffuse tensions and to recognise that even if we cannot solve this major problem, which hasn’t been resolved for many decades, we can still have a working relationship, a constructive relationship on certain fronts.
Certainly, I’ll be going to Ankara, making our very clear points with regards to our main difference, but also trying to build upon the progress that we have made over the past years.
Ravi Agrawal: You know, a lot of our subscribers from around the world wanted me to put to you a question about Turkey. It was along the lines of how much of an escalation risk you see, the Aegean Sea or just relations with Turkey. Where do you see things potentially going wrong?
If you zoom out, we’re in a world right now where there is more conflict. And part of the backdrop to that is countries sensing that there is a shift in the world order, that there is a relative amount of impunity that wasn’t there 10 or 20 years ago. So what are the escalation risks you’re seeing with Ankara?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: I don’t see significant escalation risks, to be honest. And if you look at where we were four or five years ago, we were in a much more complicated situation than we are now. And I think we’re both experienced leaders. We recognise, I’m speaking about myself and President Erdoğan. We recognise that there are enough problems in our region. We don’t need to add to the broader complexity.
But frankly, my main goal has also been to strengthen Greece’s deterrence position. Our armed forces are much stronger now than they were six years ago. We are, by nature, a defensive power. But we also need to project credible deterrence. I think we’ve achieved that.
I really see no significant escalation risks. We have open channels of communication. Whenever there’s a crisis I think there are ways to diffuse it. I would assure your viewers that I don’t think that they would see another source of instability in terms of our bilateral issue.
Of course, it takes two to tango. But again, we can manage our differences in a way that takes into account our geography. We’re destined to live side by side.
Let me just give you an example of what a constructive relationship means. We give our Turkish friends the possibility to travel to the islands of the Eastern Aegean, essentially without a visa. They get a visa on the spot. We’ve had tens of thousands of Turkish visitors come and visit our islands over the past couple of years since we put this scheme into place. We’re working together on migration, and we want to make sure that we crack down on the smugglers who traffic on people’s desperation.
We had a horrible incident a couple of days ago in the Aegean where 15 people lost their lives. Our Coast Guard saved 25 people.
I mean, these boats should never leave the Turkish Coast. We can work with the Turkish authorities to ensure that we don’t put more lives at risk and crack down on the smugglers. At the end of the day, the smugglers cannot decide who comes into your territory.
Ravi Agrawal: I was going to bring up that tragedy from earlier this week, as you pointed out, 15 migrants died in the Aegean Sea. Do you have a clear account of what actually happened? Of course, the Coast Guard vessel collided with the boat, and then that boat capsized.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Well, let me say that, it’s my obligation. It’s a tragedy. We need a full investigation. My preliminary, and I stress this, information is that essentially our Coast Guard ship was rammed by a much smaller boat. We don’t know why this happened. People found themselves in the sea. People died. People were rescued. But I do expect a full investigation, and I will leave it up to the competent authorities to determine exactly what happened.
But this is a situation that happens quite frequently in the Aegean. You have smugglers putting people, people without life vests, let me point that out; you have like 40 people crammed in a 30-foot boat with very strong engines. The sole purpose is to get to a Greek island.
The Coast Guard is not a welcoming committee. Our job is to protect our borders, but our job is also to save people whose lives are at threat. If it were not, I can tell you, for the Coast Guard, we would have had right now more people die after this accident.
Ravi Agrawal: But Prime Minister, if I may, part of the job is also transparency. I have to ask, will any video that emerges from the government side, will that be released? I bring this up because at least in 2023, there was a much bigger tragedy where hundreds of migrants died, and then videos later emerged of the Coast Guard attempting to bump into a trawler, not the other way around. So if there is any official video, will that be released?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Let me point out that the incident you were referring to, it was not under my watch. It was at the time we had a provisional government in power. There’s, again, a full investigation. If there is any video footage, I make a full commitment that this investigation will take place with full transparency.
Ravi Agrawal: That’s good to hear. If I zoom out from the tragedy of this week for a minute, I want to ask you more broadly about the concept of asylum and where immigration is today. We are going through, not just in your country, but country after country, including the United States where I am, a real backlash against immigration.
And your own policies of being tougher on illegal immigration seems to be quite popular, even when you face criticism from rights groups. Talk to us a little bit about how you think about what is the right thing for a country to do.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Well, first of all, let me point out that back in 2020, Greece was the first country to suffer from essentially a hybrid operation where migrants were pushed in an organised manner to breach our land borders and to enter into European territory. At the time, we said: ‘This is not going to happen’. We protected our borders. My approach is very simple. Tough on illegal migration, make it very, very difficult for people to come into the country illegally, but also be generous and offer legal pathways to migration.
And of course, for those people who do enter and who are entitled to asylum, these people can stay in Greece. And we have numerous examples that we take care of these people. We try to integrate them. But if you enter into Greece illegally and you’re not entitled to asylum, I will do whatever I can to send you back, either to the country of origin or to the country of transit.
You can use an analogy by an important US journalist, Tom Friedman, a big fence and a big door. I don’t want you to come in illegally.
But look at my situation. When I came into power, unemployment was at 18%. Now it’s dipped under 8%. We have labour shortages. We need skilled and unskilled labour. We would like to welcome people from abroad to work and live in Greece, but we want to do it on our own terms. I want these people to come legally and safely. I want them to come with a plane, with a work permit. I don’t want them to spend $5,000 to a despicable smuggler and risk their lives in the Aegean or the Mediterranean.
The tougher you make it for these people to come into Greece and into European territory, the more you break their business model. If you explain to people that it’s not going to be easy to enter, then they will think twice about spending this money, and they will contemplate alternative routes. We’re open to that.
We have agreements with Egypt, for example, to bring in labour. We want to do a mobility agreement with India. We can do mobility agreements with other countries. I think it’s a very balanced approach. I’m glad that when I spoke about this, Ravi, in 2020, and I’m a moderate centre-right, I would say, liberal politician. I got a lot of heat in Europe at the time.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Now Europe has shifted its approach. I’m happy that what I describe now is probably the European mainstream and frankly, rightly so. I think this is the right approach. In that sense, there may be some similarities between what’s happening in the US and what’s happening in Europe.
But we need to protect our European borders. In that sense, any priority on proper border management on my side is welcome.
Ravi Agrawal: You’ve certainly been ahead of the curve. Let’s talk about energy. Your energy minister actually published a piece in Foreign Policy, our magazine, this week.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Yeah, I have it here in front of me. It was very good.
Ravi Agrawal: Excellent. It’s on the screen as well. I’m sure your office approved it. But tell me, what is Greece’s broader energy strategy? I mean, obviously, it’s become a hub for US liquefied natural gas.
I’m curious, if you zoom out what the bigger picture looks like to you amid the rise of data centres, the need for more power. Are you thinking about nuclear, for example?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: I think that’s a very good question. Let me first of all point out that Greece is a country, we’re one of the leaders in terms of bringing down our greenhouse gas emissions over the past couple of decades. We actually moved away from coal some years ago. And renewables produce more than 50% of our electricity. I’m talking about wind, solar, and a little bit of hydro. We’ve proven actually that the more renewables you can have, the cheaper the price is actually for the end consumer. We’ve become, from a net importer, a net exporter of electricity.
But we know that renewables on its own cannot do the trick yet. Maybe down the road, they can provide, they can cover almost all of our energy needs. But in the meantime, in the foreseeable future, we will need natural gas. We’ve made a strategic bet. We spoke to our US partners and we said, ‘Look at our infrastructure. We are in a position where we can import LNG, and then we can send it up north through what we call the vertical corridor. We can serve up to 100 million customers.
From a country that was at the periphery of the European map, I would say that we are becoming a co-architect of Europe’s new energy security map. If you look at LNG, 60% of European LNG was from the US. So, why not route this LNG through Greece, not just to cover our own needs, but also to cover the needs of our neighbours? We become energy security providers for our Balkan friends.
What I’m saying is that energy is becoming, it’s not just a tradable commodity, it’s becoming a strategic geopolitical asset. We want to leverage that position, and in that sense, also strengthen our transatlantic bonds. We do both renewables and we’re starting exploration for hydrocarbons. I need to know if there’s natural gas within our waters. Both Chevron and Exxon are present. It will be a boom, instead of importing gas, if we can produce our own gas, it will also be good for Europe.
Of course, when it comes to nuclear, Greece is not a nuclear country, but I’m very interested in the new developments around nuclear energy. I do think that if you look at our global energy needs, that nuclear has to be part of the mix. I’ve set up a working group to look at these developments to make sure that at least we are in the loop. No decisions, of course, have been made yet because these technologies are not yet competitive. But I want to at least be sure that I’m aware of what’s happening in the international energy space.
Of course, investing in grids is becoming very important. Bringing down the electricity prices for Europe as a whole, this is important because, again, we’re at the periphery of Europe. If you look at data centres, we will need more electricity, that’s for certain, because of electrification, be it cars or heat pumps or data centres.
We’re also investing in our national champion, which is the Public Power Corporation, the Greek state controls 35% of it. When I came into power, it was almost bankrupt. Now it’s becoming a national champion with a strong regional presence. We also need to invest in the company to ensure that it has the assets to deploy more investments into both production and distribution.
Ravi Agrawal: But you know with energy, there’s a trade-off we haven’t mentioned here, and that is security. What I’m thinking about here is, for example, Canada in the last month, it dramatically reduced tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, in part because they’re very good, but in part, I think it’s also trying to balance against the United States.
Linked to this is the fact that even if it sees Chinese electric vehicles as a security risk, and these are giant smartphones on wheels after all, it seems to be willing to trade that off for cheaper cars, for a more diversified source of good technology when it comes to cars, and then also cheaper batteries. We haven’t talked about China so far. How are you thinking about how much Greece is going to diversify its energy sourcing?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all, when it comes to our energy sourcing, of course, we still are importing, for example, piped gas from Azerbaijan, and we’re very happy with the fact that we import a significant proportion of our LNG from the US. I do not consider the US to be a security threat for Greece. So I’m open to further strengthening this partnership, and I’m very…
Ravi Agrawal: Do you consider China to be a security threat?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Well, we’re not importing any energy from China, so that’s not an issue for us. The Chinese control the Port of Piraeus, but they invested in the Port of Piraeus almost 20 years ago. We respect the contracts that were signed by previous governments.
When it comes to cars, it’s a very interesting question. I think it’s more related to the competitiveness of the European car industry than to national security per se. Of course, you can look at it from two vantage points. One is the future of the European car industry. The second is, how can we give our consumers access to the cheapest possible products if we’re going to encourage more people to buy electric cars?
I think right now, the understanding, and I share it, is that we do need some protective measures because it’s clear that we’ve seen unfair trade practices when it comes to cars.
But at the end of the day, the European car industry also needs to get its act together. I don’t have skin in the game because we’re not part of the value chain. But these are very serious companies, the European car companies. I think they need maybe some degree of tariffs to ensure that they make the necessary investments to establish a level of a playing field in order to offer our consumers quality products at a reasonable price.
Of course, when it comes to trade, I’m a big proponent of the fact that the European Union is looking to expand its free trade agreements. I’m a believer in the overall benefits of free trade. Both the Mercosur Agreement is important, the India Agreement is probably even more important. We’re more interested in India. Look at our geographic position. We’re the closest continental country to India. We’ve seen significant flow of Indian investments into Greece. We have now direct airline connections, GMR is building the second largest airport on the island of Crete. I see tremendous potential, both for Europe, but in particular for Greece.
One final point on this, you mentioned it, we are the leading shipping nation, when it comes to LNG, but also trade in general. 90% of global trade is transported through ships. By the way, shipping contributes less than 3% of global emissions, but transports 90% of global trade. We also need to be careful in terms of the path regarding shipping decarbonization because there are no clear and obvious solutions when it comes to decarbonizing shipping. We don’t want to make trade more expensive by setting very ambitious targets. Eventually, the customers will pay the price.
Ravi Agrawal: Let me bring up one last region of the world in this discussion, and that is the Middle East. President Trump recently proposed a Board of Peace for the Future of Gaza. You were one of many European leaders to reject that invitation. Why is that?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Well, first of all, let me point out that I was present at Sharm El Sheikh when the announcements regarding the Gaza Peace Plan were made. We’re very happy about the fact that we are moving from what was a horrible situation to a more stable situation. But of course, we need to move now from phase one to phase two and phase three.
Let me also point out that Greece is a country that has a strategic partnership with Israel, but it is also very well respected by the Palestinian Authority. I visited Ramallah a couple of months ago. So we have a role to play when it comes to the future of Gaza and the future of the region.
We did not join the Board of Peace also for legal reasons, voicing some concerns which were shared by other European partners. But my proposal to the US and to my European partners was very straightforward. Let’s find a way for those European countries that are interested in Gaza to find a way to opt in to the Board of Peace, but only for Gaza, because what was presented as a Board of Peace was not just about Gaza. It was a new organisation. That made us sceptical because the initial UN resolution was just about Gaza.
If there’s a way to opt in this structure, but only for Gaza in a time defined manner and under the auspices of a UN Security Council resolution, I’d be happy to do that. I think many other European countries would be happy to do that as well.
Ravi Agrawal: Have you heard back from the United States having voiced those concerns?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: No, not yet, but I think it’s a work in progress.
Ravi Agrawal: I’m going to zoom out and go back to where we began this interview, and that is the United States, especially under President Trump in his second term. Prime Minister, you’re incredibly diplomatic. You seem to have figured out a way to work with the United States on energy and security. It’s very clear to me as well that you are hedging your bets for the future of the continent. What is the right way to deal with the Trump administration right now?
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: First of all, again, I wear two hats. I’m a national leader, and again, I cherish the relationship with the US. I’m going to make sure that it’s as constructive as possible, but I’m also a European leader who will stand firm when it comes to making sure we hold the European line when at times things get dodgy in our relationship. But I guess being honest and being also transparent and making sure that we set clear boundaries and limits in terms of what can be accepted and what cannot be accepted, seems to me to be the best path forward.
Again, I’m one of the few European leaders who worked with President Trump during his first administration, and I had a very constructive relationship with him.
Ravi Agrawal: But if I may, by all accounts, analysts like me have pointed out, Trump I is very different from Trump II.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: To a certain extent that’s true, although I’ve not met him in person in the current term. But again, as Europe, we need to be very clear in terms of what will happen if things were to escalate out of control, if tariffs were to be imposed, for example, as threats were made, this would not be productive because it would elicit a reaction from you.
I think the moment we made that very clear, I think it became also obvious to the administration that there’s more to lose than to win in terms of pursuing this path of action. Again, setting our boundaries, being very clear, being engaging, certainly being non-escalatory in terms of not provoking a fight with the US. This is the path we are taking.
When it comes to the bilateral relationship, making sure that we find good deals, win-win deals like the energy deal, which work for both countries. But again, not just for both countries, but also for Europe as a whole. If we have made a decision to move away from Russian gas, we need to replace it with something. I’m quite happy to replace it with American LNG.
Ravi Agrawal: We’ll have to leave it there, Prime Minister Mitsotakis. Thank you so much for your time.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis: Thanks for having me.
