Σε μια περίοδο γεμάτη γεωπολιτικές προκλήσεις, ο Στρατηγός απαντά για τις αλλαγές στο στράτευμα, το νέο δόγμα και τα κρίσιμα διδάγματα από τα μέτωπα σε Ουκρανία και Μέση Ανατολή.

Σε μια κρίσιμη διεθνή συγκυρία, με τα μέτωπα σε Ουκρανία και Μέση Ανατολή να παραμένουν ενεργά, ο Αρχηγός ΓΕΕΘΑ Στρατηγός Δημήτριος Χούπης, παραχώρησε συνέντευξη στο Star και τη Μάρα Ζαχαρέα και απάντησε για όλα: το νέο δόγμα, τις τεχνολογικές ανατροπές και τα διδάγματα από τις πρόσφατες συγκρούσεις στη «γειτονιά» μας.

Ο Στρατηγός Δ. Χούπης υποδέχθηκε τη Μ. Ζαχαρέα στο γραφείο του, στο ανακαινισμένο κτίριο του Υπουργείου Άμυνας. Όπως εξηγεί, οι πόλεμοι των τελευταίων ετών —και ειδικά ο πόλεμος στην Ουκρανία— ανέδειξαν δύο κρίσιμα στοιχεία:

«Τα drones και τα αντι- drones αποτελούν πλέον κομβικό στοιχείο. Η συμβολή τους στον πόλεμο της Ουκρανίας είναι καταλυτική», σημείωσε.

Τεχνολογία – Πληροφορία – Ταχύτητα

Τα διδάγματα που πήραν οι Ελληνικές Ένοπλες Δυνάμεις από τις συγκρούσεις στο Ισραήλ και αλλού είναι πολλά, τονίζει ο Αρχηγός ΓΕΕΘΑ.

Στο επίκεντρο:

• Η ενσωμάτωση νέων τεχνολογιών.
• Η ανάγκη για αστραπιαία ροή πληροφορίας.
• Η γρήγορη λήψη επιχειρησιακών αποφάσεων.

«Η πληροφορία ταξιδεύει πια πολύ γρήγορα μέσα από τα κοινωνικά δίκτυα. Η απόφαση από τους επιχειρησιακούς διοικητές πρέπει να είναι άμεση» επισημαίνει.

Οι πόλεμοι αλλάζουν: Απόλυτη ακρίβεια σε στρατηγικό βάθος

Στην ερώτηση αν οι πολεμικές συγκρούσεις έχουν αλλάξει σε σχέση με το παρελθόν, ο Στρατηγός είναι ξεκάθαρος:

«Η δυνατότητα πλήγματος σε στρατηγικό βάθος με μεγάλη ακρίβεια —είτε σε υποδομές, είτε σε στρατιωτικούς στόχους— επιβάλλει να μπορούμε να πραγματοποιούμε προληπτικά χτυπήματα στρατηγικού χαρακτήρα, ώστε να διασφαλίσουμε την αποτροπή μέσω ισχύος».

Για την Τουρκία: Επιδίωξη η ειρήνη – Προετοιμασία για κάθε εξέλιξη

Ο Στρατηγός Χούπης τονίζει σχετικά με την Τουρκία πως η Ελλάδα επιδιώκει την ειρήνη «με όλους τους τρόπους». Ωστόσο, η χώρα οφείλει να είναι έτοιμη:

«Τη μία και μοναδική στιγμή που θα χρειαστεί, το αποτέλεσμα δεν μπορεί να είναι οτιδήποτε άλλο από νικηφόρο. Γι’ αυτό και προετοιμαζόμαστε και για την πιο αρνητική εξέλιξη. Και αυτό δεν γίνεται χωρίς ισχύ».

The European Commission’s persistent refusal to release the Election Expert Mission (EEM) report on Pakistan’s 2024 elections has intensified scrutiny over the European Union’s adherence to its professed values of democracy and transparency.¹ This decision comes at a critical juncture, as an EU delegation is currently in Pakistan assessing compliance with the Generalized Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), a trade regime contingent on upholding 27 international conventions covering human rights, labor standards, and governance.² With ongoing concerns about the safety and conditions of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in detention, the EU’s opacity appears to prioritize diplomatic relations with Islamabad over accountability, potentially signaling tacit support for the current regime.​

The EEM, dispatched by the EU’s European External Action Service (EEAS) to monitor Pakistan’s February 2024 general elections, marked a departure from precedent; unlike previous missions, including the 2018 observation that critiqued the then-government, this report has never been made public. Multiple freedom of information requests by EU citizens, documented on platforms like AsktheEU.org, were rebuffed by the EEAS, which argued that disclosure even partial would “undermine the public interest as regards international relations” and strain ties with Pakistan. The European Ombudsman reviewed one such case involving the request for the “Election Expert Mission report for Pakistan 2024,” underscoring the EEAS’s firm resistance to releasing any portion of the document.³ This stance echoes broader criticisms of EU institutional transparency, as seen in recent Ombudsman findings on the Commission’s handling of urgent proposals without adequate justification.​

Compounding the issue, the Commonwealth of Nations similarly suppressed its own observer group report on the same elections, creating an unprecedented scenario where both major international monitors withheld findings. Leaked details from the Commonwealth document reveal allegations of electoral irregularities, including communication blackouts, discrepancies in vote tallies, and measures that disproportionately hampered Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, potentially leading to candidates being “unlawfully returned.”⁴ While the EU report remains sealed, its non-publication aligns with patterns of external pressure on Khan’s PTI, which faced bans on party symbols, candidate independency mandates, and reported arrests of supporters actions that limited a level playing field. EU diplomats have historically expressed unease with Khan, particularly over his neutral stance on the Ukraine conflict, which may explain the reluctance to spotlight election flaws that could bolster his narrative.​

As the EU delegation engages Pakistani officials, civil society, and stakeholders in Islamabad for the GSP+ review delayed from June due to regional tensions, the timing of the EEM suppression raises profound questions. GSP+ grants Pakistan duty-free access to the EU market for two-thirds of its exports, valued at billions annually, but requires verifiable progress on core rights, including freedom of expression, assembly, and protection from arbitrary detention. Ambassador Raimundas Karoblis recently emphasized that Pakistan must “do more” on issues like enforced disappearances, minority protections, blasphemy laws, and women’s rights, with the mission set to produce a detailed report for Brussels. Yet, by shielding the EEM findings, the EU risks perceptions of inconsistency of how can it credibly evaluate Islamabad’s democratic compliance while concealing its own expert assessment of the electoral process.

Imran Khan’s plight further amplifies these concerns. Imprisoned since 2023 on charges widely viewed as politically motivated, Khan faces heightened health worries, with his party demanding prison access amid rumors of isolation and inadequate care rumors dismissed by authorities but echoed in UN calls for safeguards. PTI leaders have highlighted denied visits despite his former premier status, framing it as a human rights lapse under GSP+ scrutiny. The EU’s earlier statement on Khan’s 2023 arrest urged restraint and rule-of-law dialogue, yet its current silence on the EEM and GSP context suggests a pragmatic tilt toward stability over confrontation. International observers note that such opacity erodes the EU’s moral authority, especially as Pakistan navigates counter-terrorism pressures and climate challenges that the regime cites as compliance hurdles.​​

This episode is not isolated within EU practices. The Ombudsman has repeatedly flagged maladministration in document access, from sustainability proposals to impact assessments, where urgency or relations trump public scrutiny. In Pakistan’s case, the EEAS’s invocation of bilateral sensitivities mirrors refusals in other high-stakes contexts, but it starkly contrasts the EU’s promotion of good governance via GSP+. Releasing redacted EEM excerpts such as summaries or conclusions could align with transparency norms without fully compromising diplomacy, as partial disclosures have precedent elsewhere. Instead, the blanket withholding fuels narratives of EU complicity in overlooking authoritarian drifts, particularly when trade incentives are at stake.​

Its GSP+ mission offers leverage to press for electoral reforms, Khan’s due process, and civil liberties, yet the EEM’s burial undermines that credibility. True commitment to democracy demands more than assessments behind closed doors; it requires sunlight on past failings to inform future compliance. By persisting in secrecy, the EU not only questions its transparency pledge but risks alienating stakeholders who view GSP+ as a tool for genuine reform rather than regime validation. As the delegation’s report shapes Pakistan’s trade fate, Brussels must reckon with whether shielding critiques serves long-term stability or perpetuates cycles of doubt in its democratic advocacy.​