【Text by Observer Net, Morgan】
At the end of November 2025, the U.S. Ambassador to Greece hinted that Greece should "reconsider" China's role in the Port of Piraeus and said that "if the port were to change hands, it might be better." Such remarks are far from ordinary diplomatic rhetoric; they reveal how deeply a European port has become entangled in the global competition between China and the United States.
China responded quickly and firmly. On November 19, the Chinese Embassy in Greece condemned the U.S. remarks as "malicious defamation of normal Sino-Greek commercial cooperation" and accused the United States of seriously interfering in Greek internal affairs.
However, behind this exchange lies a more significant struggle—concerning who will dominate the lifelines of global trade, who can influence the layout of future supply chains, and who will define the geopolitical order of the next era.
The Port of Piraeus is no longer just a port. It vividly demonstrates how infrastructure can be transformed into strategic assets, how economic cooperation can affect diplomatic relations, and how the boundaries between business and geopolitics become increasingly blurred in reality.
Photo: The city of Piraeus, Greece. COSCO Shipping owns the Port of Piraeus, making it a gateway for China to Europe. IC Photo
Decisions in Times of Crisis
To understand the current confrontation, we need to go back to 2016, even earlier.
In the mid-2010s, Greece was deep in a debt crisis, struggling to survive. The Port of Piraeus had long suffered from underinvestment, although it had a historical reputation, its operational efficiency continued to decline, and its ranking among European ports kept falling.
At that time, European governments were preoccupied with their own problems, and American capital had no interest in getting involved.
It was during this vacuum that China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company (COSCO) stepped in. This Chinese shipping giant acquired 67% of the shares of the Port of Piraeus Authority for 368.5 million euros and promised to invest over 600 million euros for upgrades. In the eyes of Western observers, this was not purely an act of charity but also a strategic move. However, at that time, it was the only major proposal Greece received.
If we talk about the effects, they were truly transformative. Before COSCO took over, the port's annual container throughput was less than one million TEU; after COSCO took charge, it modernized the docks, introduced digital systems, integrated the port into its global shipping network, and the throughput soared rapidly, surpassing five million TEU before the pandemic.
This growth is evident: In 2017, the Port of Piraeus surpassed Barcelona Port in Spain; in 2019, it also exceeded Valencia Port in Spain. Within a few years, the port became the largest in the Mediterranean and the fourth-largest in Europe, behind Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg.
This rapid rise, in the context of a long-standing stable European port landscape, is almost unprecedented.
And this is precisely why the port has become highly politically sensitive. For Greece, COSCO's investment was an economic lifeline. For China, the port became the European gateway of the Belt and Road Initiative, the intersection point between Asian manufacturing and the EU market. Greek officials emphasized that this outcome was no coincidence. Former Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis defended COSCO's investment at the 30th anniversary celebration of Sino-Greek economic and trade cooperation on November 20, stating, "In 2008, there was no other important international participant showing interest in this port." He emphasized that COSCO's arrival filled the void left by European and American investors who were unwilling to do so.
However, from the American perspective, this is no longer "just a port."
Video loading...
Europe's Contradictory Response
The economic benefits are clear. The revival of the port is widely recognized throughout Greece: employment increased, the scale of the logistics hub expanded, and the local economy was revitalized in ways that Greek or European investors had never achieved.
However, on the political level, attitudes within Greece have shown subtle divisions. The memories of the austerity era remain deeply rooted, and many Greeks still clearly remember that when the country needed help most, Europe proved powerless. To them, COSCO's investment was not a threat, but a lifeline.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis tried to take a middle path, stating that Greece could cooperate with the U.S., "but without questioning past investments, their investment arrangements need to be respected." The underlying message was: don't ask us to deny the investment that helped us out of the crisis.
Other figures in parliament maintained a cautious stance, believing that strategic assets must remain under the control of Greece and Europe. This caution is not surprising. The debate over Chinese investment in European ports has spread to places like Zeebrugge in the UK, Trieste in Italy, Valencia in Spain, and Rotterdam in the Netherlands, reflecting a broader sense of unease that did not exist when Western companies invested in these locations.
A clear double standard cannot be ignored: Western companies have controlled global ports for decades, often without triggering political backlash; only when the investor is China—a country labeled as a "geopolitical competitor"—does the focus shift rapidly from purely economic aspects to so-called "national security."
The result is that Europe's response has been passive, inconsistent, and highly politicized.
Why is the U.S. targeting Piraeus Port?
To understand the strategic value of the Port of Piraeus, the best way is to look at a map. Located north of the Suez Canal, which is the main artery connecting China, the manufacturing giant in Asia, to European consumers, the majority of goods traded between China and Europe pass through here.
This gives the port a unique role, allowing it to connect Asia and the European continent more quickly than most western European ports; it allows ships to unload cargo and directly connect to Central and Eastern Europe via rail; it is a natural chokepoint—logistical efficiency directly translates into geopolitical influence.
Even partial control of such a hub can gain access to usually invisible information: what goods are flowing, when they arrive, where they are going, and where the bottlenecks in the supply chain are. In modern geopolitics, this "logistical visibility" itself is a form of power.
In times of crisis, it determines who gets priority, who needs to wait, and who gains an advantage. The U.S. understands this well.
This is reflected in recent statements, as the U.S. strategy has begun to shift broadly: ports, once seen as purely commercial infrastructure nodes, are now viewed as tools of geopolitical competition. For China, the Port of Piraeus is just one link in its global network. Its purpose is not, as some critics claim, "control," but rather to shape logistics routes, reduce uncertainty, and ensure a reliable European route for Chinese manufacturing exports.
At this point, the Port of Piraeus is no longer just a symbol, but a fulcrum—where global logistics converge and great power politics engage in a game of chess.
Port of Piraeus throughput over the years (data from Lloyd's List)
Greece's Silence and Europe's Helplessness
The most fascinating part of the Piraeus story is Greece's silence.
Greece understands the strategic value of being contested by both the U.S. and China. The competition around the port actually enhances its bargaining position. In this situation, silence itself is a form of power.
But Greece is also quite cautious. The case of NXP Semiconductors in the Netherlands sent a clear warning to other small European countries.
This caution is also reflected in former Prime Minister Karamanlis's words, who pointed out, "The Port of Piraeus is now the eighth largest in the world and the first in the Mediterranean, which is the best proof of the success of the political choices made at that time." For Greece, this reminds people that the COSCO era is not just an economic arrangement, but also part of Greece's strategic path out of the crisis—a path that should not be rewritten by others.
By keeping silent, Greece can preserve the economic benefits from the port, maintain negotiation flexibility, and more importantly, avoid becoming a battleground for external agendas.
The Piraeus incident reveals how geopolitics operate in Europe today: subtle, indirect, relying on pressure rather than declarations. And its impact extends far beyond the scope of Greece alone.
Today's Greece is at the intersection of two competing supply chain systems. The U.S. aims to maintain a post-Cold War order, where global trade eventually flows through a system dominated or supervised by the U.S. China, on the other hand, is building a parallel network through ports, corridors, and new routes, aiming to reduce dependence on key U.S. nodes.
The Port of Piraeus is one of the clearest points of collision between these two visions. However, despite Europe being the world's largest market, it has not led this competition, but rather watched it unfold on its own soil. Greece's silence is not just a national strategy, but also reflects the困境 of Europe's inability to define the rules of the game.
Conclusion
The dispute over the Port of Piraeus may seem to be about ownership, but it actually reveals a new logic of the era:
Ports are no longer neutral infrastructure, but strategic assets; supply chains are no longer just technical systems, but tools for exerting influence; economic decisions often come with geopolitical consequences.
The Mediterranean, once seen merely as a shipping route, is now becoming the front line of the global competition between the U.S. and China. And the Port of Piraeus is the clearest witness to this new reality.
Here, Europe's economic needs and political caution collide.
Here, American pressure meets China's long-term strategy.
Here, this small country, Greece, finds itself holding an unexpected card.
Can Greece, or more broadly, Europe, navigate these contradictions? Will the Port of Piraeus become a new arena where others set the rules, or will it lead to mutual benefit? All of this remains an open question.
This article is an exclusive publication by Observer Net. The content is solely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Net WeChat account guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7577571440971481619/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and welcomes you to express your attitude through the [Up/Down] buttons below.