Apostolos Tomaras
The government’s decision to avoid responding to concerns and questions about the Republic of Cyprus’ energy plans is deepening the uncertainty surrounding them. It is also lending weight to claims that Nicosia is attempting to change course on major energy projects, including the electricity interconnection between Cyprus and Europe through Greece.
The government has remained silent even in the face of reports that the Cypriot side no longer views the Great Sea Interconnector favorably. This has prompted opposition parties, including AKEL, to take the lead and give the issue a political dimension, demanding an official government briefing on several matters that have also been raised by the media.
According to Kathimerini’s information, this possibility appears to have concerned the other parties involved long before certain issues became visible.
Judging by public statements so far, the government will be forced to provide answers both to the letter AKEL sent to Finance Minister Makis Keravnos and before Parliament, where representatives of the Energy and Finance ministries have been invited to brief lawmakers.
However, as the issue surrounding the cable develops, and based on new information obtained by Kathimerini, the government’s chosen strategy of silence is raising legitimate concerns about a chain of possible consequences. These extend to fundamental questions, including Cyprus’ future and position in the major energy project intended to integrate the Eastern Mediterranean into Europe’s interconnected electricity grid.
The government’s approach is even bringing extreme scenarios to the surface, scenarios in which Cyprus faces a serious risk of missing the region’s geopolitical train in energy. This comes as Turkey attempts to insert itself into the picture and gain control over energy flows, while Israel seeks at all costs to strengthen its energy security, including through Europe.
The signs
The government’s failure to respond to Kathimerini’s front-page report last Sunday did not go unnoticed only within journalistic circles. It also caused a stir at political and diplomatic levels, reinforcing the view that Nicosia may be trying to build a narrative that would allow it to reposition itself in relation to the electricity interconnector.
The most worrying development currently emerging, at least at the journalistic level, is the possibility that preparations or contingency plans are being considered in case the Republic of Cyprus, for the reasons it has cited, is no longer one of the parties to the project. In other words, that Cyprus may remove itself from GSI.
According to Kathimerini’s information, this possibility appears to have concerned the other parties involved long before certain issues became visible. These include Cyprus’ absence from the transfer of the majority stake in GSI to France’s Meridiam and Nicosia’s delayed verbal response to that development.
What remains unclear is the level at which these concerns have been discussed and whether they have gone beyond a simple exchange of views and developed into something more substantial.
The fallback options
To understand the impact of Cyprus’ glaring absence from the signing of the agreement through which Meridiam acquired a majority stake in GSI, it is worth recalling the atmosphere surrounding the project’s previous change of hands.
In the summer of 2024, Greece’s Independent Power Transmission Operator, or IPTO, took over the project from EuroAsia Interconnector. At the time, Nicosia was at the center of developments, taking initiatives both publicly and behind the scenes that prevented what appeared to be the project’s certain collapse.
This time, Cyprus was absent. That absence did not appear to create any difficulties for the other three parties involved: Greece, France and the European Commission.
What raises serious questions is how Cyprus, the country with the most immediate interest in the project, could remain invisible without it becoming known: first, whether it had been informed about the agreement; second, if it had been informed, why it did not attend the signing; and third, whether the agreement took Nicosia by surprise because it had not been notified.
Whatever the reason, the development can be interpreted in several ways. It also lends credibility to the ideas and concerns now quietly emerging behind the scenes about a project in which Cyprus would no longer hold a central place.
Is bypassing Cyprus merely an idea?
Regardless of what the Cypriot side ultimately decides, the agreement between Athens and France’s Meridiam shows that the electricity interconnector project will proceed, with or without Cyprus, despite the difficulties arising from the necessary surveys.
That was the message sent in the Greek capital. It is also what is causing the greatest concern about possible moves that could emerge in the future.
The first reported discussions appear to be based on this logic. What is being said behind the scenes suggests that alternative options have been considered that would not cancel the project but would overcome Cyprus’ hesitation.
Put simply, they would leave Cyprus out.
According to the information available to us, two options appear to be the leading possibilities if developments eventually require the project to be redesigned.
Both would serve the cable’s second objective, beyond ending the Republic of Cyprus’ energy isolation, which is to strengthen Israel’s energy supply and security. They would also enhance Greece’s geopolitical importance and help reduce the European Union’s dependence on Russian energy.
The first option would have the electricity cable bypass Cyprus, connecting Israel directly with Crete rather than making a “stop” on the island.
The second would involve laying a cable from Israel and connecting it at a point beneath the sea with the other major regional energy project, the GREGY Egypt-Greece electricity interconnector.
If developments lead to such a change, the project’s official status would also have to be altered.
Reliable sources told Kathimerini that it would be removed from the European Commission’s list of Projects of Common Interest, where it has been included since 2013 as a project involving EU member states, and would instead be classified as a Project of Mutual Interest.
