In January 2017, relations between Greece and Turkey were under severe strain when warships from both sides engaged in a brief standoff near a pair of uninhabited Greek 'islets' in the Aegean, whose sovereignty is disputed by Turkey. Theoretically informed by the literature of foreign policy analysis, we examine how the Greek diplomats, military officers and political analysts interpreted Turkey's behaviour at that particular time. The article considers the following research question: which factors, from a Greek point of view, explain Turkey's foreign policy in the Aegean in January 2017? Our theoretical expectation is that, in the aftermath of the coup attempt in Turkey, Greek diplomats, military officers and political analysts would ascribe domestic calculations into Turkey's activities. We employed Q-methodology to uncover socially shared perspectives on this topic. Based on our findings, we uncovered two viewpoints: (1) Turkey's diachronic strategy in the Aegean and (2) the strongman style. According to the former and most widely shared viewpoint, a consistent 'rationalist' strategy to change the status quo in the Aegean explains Turkey's behaviour. According to the second one, the belief system of Turkey's leadership legitimises the use of force in the conduct of foreign policy. ARTICLE HISTORY

The research question that this article attempts to address is: what are the main policy paradigms that guide the opinion leaders throughout energy security matters within protracted conflict environments? Using the de facto divided island of Cyprus as our single case study, we will deliberately follow grounded theory in order to create conceptual definitions out of rudimentary "working ideas" that involve "protracted conflict environment", "energy security" and stakes in "decision making". This research enterprise involves openended interviews with the opinion-makers on the Island and "political discourse analysis" that identifies the quintessential aspects of the recently emerged energy debate. Drawing upon the work of Correlje and van der Linde (2006), we highlight two main paradigms: "markets and institutions" and "regions and empire". In the first one, the business logic prevails upon political expediencies and geopolitical calculations, while in the second one, national and security concerns outweigh the business logic and the potential international economic integration. Through their interaction, we seek to explore how they drive the debate on energy security within the realm of a conflict environment.

In February 2014, Nikos Anastasiades, the President of the Republic of Cyprus and Dervis Eroglu, the Turkish-Cypriot leader, signed a Joint Declaration that established certain “ground-rules” upon which the then stalled peace talks -aiming at the island’s reunification- could be revived. The main stimulant prompting this evolution was the discovery of new energy sources in the Eastern Mediterranean, and especially offshore the RoC. In October 2014, Turkish navigational warning notified mariners that Turkey would soon perform its seismic surveys in sea areas that encroach on Cyprus’s EEZ, raising concerns on the escalation of the intractable and protracted Cyprus conflict. Aim of this research project is to provide readers with an insight on how the flow between energy and power politics is played out in the Eastern Mediterranean. Suggesting that the existing tensions extend beyond the struggle over the existing material energy assets in the seabed of the Levant Basin, the project casts light upon the notion of energy security by setting forth the indicators it is composed of. While scrutinizing the statements of the leaders on these events and seeking to highlight the security discourses they are coming up with, the project resorts to discourse analysis.

No abstract