The ongoing Israeli offensive in Gaza, resulting in the tragic loss of more than 7,000 lives, has the potential to mark a significant turning point in Middle East geopolitics. Israel’s contemplated ground offensive introduces a range of dynamics that suggest the conflict between Israel and Hamas will extend beyond Gaza. Historically, these conflicts followed a familiar pattern: Hamas attacks against Israel, Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, a cease-fire, and a return to the status quo. However, the events of Oct. 7 strongly indicate a departure from this pattern, with Israel possibly establishing a lasting presence in at least the northern sector of Gaza, thereby altering the status quo.

US backing Israel with weapons, aircraft carriers, consultants and more, according to experts

The Turkish media reported two major developments with the potential to cause a stir in domestic politics. First, Sabah reported that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) was going to host a pro-Palestinian event, the “Great Gathering for Palestine,” outside its provincial headquarters in Istanbul and that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and fellow leaders of the People’s Alliance would attend it. Secondly, the Directorate of Communications announced that President Erdoğan had signed Sweden’s NATO accession protocol and sent it to the Turkish Parliament.

The non-Western world viewed U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel as unconditional support for that country’s heavy bombardment and blockade of the Gaza Strip. Blaming Hamas – “the other team” – for the killing of more than 500 Palestinians at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital, the U.S. President neither shared any evidence nor talked about forming an international committee to investigate what happened.

I am in New York City, where the heart of diplomacy is beating, with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for the 78th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. This year’s general debate theme, which takes place after the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) expansion and the G-20 summit in New Delhi, India, will be “rebuilding trust and reigniting global solidarity.”

Russia’s suspension of the Black Sea grain deal continues to capture the global media’s attention as that decision disproportionately hurts African nations. Having hosted 17 African heads of state and government last week, the Kremlin used the discourse of “opposing new Western colonialism together” at the Russia-Africa Summit – where Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged free grains to Africa.

Russia declaring the end of the grain agreement, the Prigozhin uprising, and the post-Vilnius Summit show that it wants the cards to be reshuffled. The Prigozhin uprising exposed weaknesses and rifts in the Russian military, resulting in a loss of political reputation for Putin. It has become clear that Russia cannot achieve a clear victory on the front lines in the near future. However, the slow progress of its counteroffensive indicates that Ukraine also cannot achieve a quick resolution. This balance situation indicates that the war could potentially extend over years, unless Putin makes a sudden decision to withdraw. It is known that the Russian military faces significant manpower and logistical challenges. In this scenario where military superiority is not attainable, we observe the use of asymmetric advantages such as the cancellation of the grain agreement.

The Vilnius Summit is taking place at a time when the NATO alliance is beginning to overcome the strategic ambiguity it has experienced since the Cold War. Following the United States' declaration of a "war on global terrorism" after the September 11 attacks, NATO became involved in Afghanistan, but the alliance was unable to develop a strategy that aligned with the changing international security system. NATO's 2010 Strategic Concept document mentioned cooperation with Russia but made no reference to the threat posed by China. Failing to provide a strong response to the annexation of Crimea, the alliance suddenly found itself facing the risk of nuclear war in Europe with Russia's attempted occupation of Ukraine. This development served as a reminder of NATO's core mission and highlighted the need for a complete reassessment of Europe's security. The alliance attempted to present a comprehensive vision against Russia, China, and other global threats in its 2022 Strategic Concept document.

Last weekend's historic events in Russia have sparked discussions on the role and preferences of the United States and its allies. The main motivation of Prigozhin, one of Putin's closest associates, was to preserve the power and autonomy of Wagner. However, there have been frequent speculations that he may have been "encouraged" by the West. Putin accuses Prigozhin of betraying him, while the Kremlin suggests the involvement of "external forces." It is worth noting that these comments and insinuations are politically driven and difficult to substantiate. However, an important question arises regarding whether American policy seeks Putin's removal from power. Given the strained relationship with the West due to the Ukraine occupation and the economic costs faced by Moscow, it can be argued that they may prefer a weakened Russia at the negotiating table rather than pushing it into chaos.

The West's inability to gain support from the global South, its military capacity being weakened, concerns about its inability to handle China's intervention in Taiwan, and the lack of probability of taking back Donbas and Crimea, strengthens the arguments that support for Ukraine should be proportional to a political objective.

The ongoing turmoil within the opposition bloc on picking a presidential candidate suggests that a possible victory by their candidate could trigger widespread political unrest in Türkiye

What is the background and significance of the Turkish foreign minister’s visit to Washington? What are the differences and similarities between the two countries’ Ukraine policies? Will the U.S. sell F-16s to Türkiye? What is Türkiye’s position on Finland and Sweden’s NATO membership? What is Washington’s view on Türkiye’s engagement with the Syrian regime?

Experts discussed ongoing Russia's war in Ukraine and shared their expectations over the course of the war as part of a session of the Turkish national broadcaster TRT's World Forum on Saturday.

Obviously, the Turkish president has been the world’s best hope for peace as the only NATO leader in touch with the Russian head of state and for engaging in active and peaceful diplomacy amid the latest crisis. Indeed, it was Türkiye that made possible the grain deal and the exchange of 200 prisoners of war.

A power struggle is ramping up between the leaders of the country's two rival governments

'Turkish foreign policy is a quest for independence in the national context, a quest for a leadership role in the regional context and a quest for autonomous status in the global context'

Many media outlets accuse Türkiye of opportunism even though it successfully engaged with both Russia and Ukraine, something European leaders have failed to achieve