New US engagement with Middle East: Is it possible?
Under the current circumstances, it seems impossible for the U.S. to discover a new kind of engagement that would contain Russia and China in the Middle East as well as address Iran’s problems with Israel and the Gulf. It is highly likely that the fresh diplomatic efforts by Washington, which cannot even appreciate Türkiye’s balancing and stabilizing/securing role, will prove to be a complete waste of time.
More
Clues to comprehend Turkish foreign policy
The Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to reshape the international balance of power. In this new era, Türkiye distinguishes itself thanks to its diplomatic activity. Indeed, the country has been so important that the Western media, which constantly refer to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as “the sultan,” cannot help but concede that cooperation with Türkiye is absolutely necessary. Surely enough, all eyes turned to Erdoğan when the world needed a broker between Russia and Ukraine, someone needed to create a "grain corridor" in the Black Sea and when Sweden and Finland applied for NATO membership.
More
Türkiye has done is stop blocking NATO's extension of an invitation to the countries. In other words, their accession process has just started, not ended.
The visit had global-level dynamics. On one hand, both countries want to decrease their respective dependencies on global powers and need to cooperate with one another. On the other hand, they want to increase their global autonomy. They have begun to instrumentalize a global power against the other.
Türkiye’s influence has been growing, globally and regionally, as a balancing power. In this sense, Ankara must refrain from becoming a party to regional polarization while remaining active in the region.
Türkiye emerges as a power that generates stability and security in its neighborhood – Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Middle East, the Gulf and North Africa.
NATO at the Crossroads
In this collection of essays, we discuss how NATO can overcome strategic challenges and recalibrate the strength of the alliance under the new geopolitical circumstances. The essays in this report focus on NATO’s transformations after the Ukraine war and attempt to understand Türkiye’s foreign policy alternatives within the context of its relations with the West, Russia, and NATO.
More
Making Sense of Türkiye’s Role in the Future of NATO
This paper consists of two main parts. In the first part, it explains the main priorities that NATO is focusing on by elaborating on the Russian attack on Ukraine, the China challenge, and the changing character of military and non-military threats. In the second part, the paper delivers a framework to make sense of why Türkiye particularly attaches unique significance to some issues. It concludes that Türkiye will continue to support NATO endeavors but the country expects its allies to cooperate on counterterrorism efforts and also expects calibrated and meaningful engagement in Greek-Turkish disagreements.
More
Ankara hopes to be a balancing factor in the region that generates security and stability.
Türkiye's reservations against Finland and Sweden's membership emanate from Ankara's long-standing frustration over Western tolerance and support for the PKK/YPG
The NATO allies need to make rational decisions to promote intra-alliance solidarity at the Madrid summit.
This analysis examines the reasons behind Greece’s policy of escalating tension and whether that policy has any legal ground.
Athens must restore the demilitarized status of the islands without further delay – unless it wants its sovereignty over the Eastern Aegean islands to be called into question.
The United States and the European Union had been exploiting the Middle Eastern context to prevent Turkey from following an assertive and autonomous foreign policy. After the changing dynamics in the world and the normalization process in the Middle East, most regional actors, including Turkey, have restructured their foreign relations in order to adjust their relations according to the new balances.
With his latest moves, Erdoğan is not starting a crisis but instead highlighting a framework for justice and a lasting alliance in Turkey’s relations with NATO, the U.S. and Greece
Considering Turkey’s geostrategic location and its military and political power, Western countries need to calculate the cost of alienating Ankara
Ankara's only condition is that Sweden, Finland and NATO members do not participate in campaigns that threaten Turkey's security, such as supporting PKK/YPG terrorists
Ankara does not oppose NATO’s expansion or the admission of Sweden and Finland categorically. It is perfectly normal, however, for Turkey to urge its allies to take into consideration its security concerns, which they have ignored countless times to date, at this particular time and to insist that they take action.
Ankara is not against NATO's expansion amid the Russia-Ukraine war but objects to Finland and Sweden's unacceptable policies on terrorist groups
There are five reasons why Turkey opposes the NATO bid of Sweden and Finland, the first of which is naturally both states' support for terrorism
The US decision to grant an exemption to India, which procured three times as many S-400 missile defense systems as Turkey, caused dismay in Ankara.
