In the aforementioned crisis areas, Türkiye has adopted a position that differs significantly from that of many Western European states.
While many Western European states closely align their policies with those of Israel, Ankara has sought to orient itself towards fundamental principles of international law and established diplomatic traditions
It is precisely this combination of principled foreign policy, strategic flexibility, and diplomatic experience that has given Türkiye a comparatively strong and credible position.
Ankara has not only used this position to assert its strategic autonomy but has also employed it to resolve crises.
Türkiye rests on three key pillars: first, a consistent and comprehensible political stance; second, its historically developed diplomatic competence; and third, its increasing military strength and deterrent capability.
The success of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, held for the fifth time this year, represents the most visible manifestation of this development to date.
The high level of international participation, the breadth of topics covered, and the forum’s growing relevance demonstrate that Türkiye is increasingly establishing itself as an independent diplomatic hub.
It is a place where diverse perspectives converge, and global conflicts are renegotiated beyond traditional Western formats.
Europe in global diplomacy: shaper or spectator?
Most of the aforementioned crises directly affect Europe. The Russia-Ukraine war, Israel’s role in the erosion of international order and legal norms, the attacks on Iran, and the resulting renewed energy crisis directly undermine the interests and stability of European states.
Nevertheless, Europe’s overall record is sobering. Neither in resolving these crises nor in effectively limiting their consequences has Europe been able to develop an independent role.
The fact that Europe’s political weight at the negotiating table is dwindling and that its ability to act is severely limited without US support is now an openly acknowledged reality of European politics.
Against this backdrop, the question of strategic alternatives arises. A look at Europe’s geostrategic situation reveals the structural constraints within which the continent increasingly finds itself.
Caught between Russia as a security policy challenge and China as an economic power, Europe continues to lose autonomy. Under these conditions, the search for new partners becomes increasingly urgent.
Türkiye emerges as an obvious choice. Its geographical proximity, its political capacity for action, and its presence in key conflict regions offer Europe a concrete opportunity to regain lost room for manoeuvre.
It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that despite these interests, Europe continues to avoid deeper cooperation with Türkiye.
Instead of developing new strategic partnerships, Türkiye is increasingly being aligned with Europe’s geopolitical rivals such as Russia and China.
Recent statements by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen illustrate this stance: Europe is positioning Türkiye not alongside it, but in opposition.
Even though this statement was later qualified, it nevertheless reveals Europe’s fundamental attitude towards Türkiye.
This stance appears increasingly irrational in light of geopolitical realities. In a period of growing uncertainty and diminishing influence, an ideologically driven distance from Türkiye seems hardly comprehensible.
Europe must reassess its strategic priorities and expand its room for manoeuvre. Cooperation with Türkiye on an equal footing is not an option, but a necessity.
The time for this reorientation is limited. As the global order continues to shift, Europe’s room for manoeuvre shrinks further.
