The confrontation between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, in the Oval Office at the White House will be remembered as a turning point in history. This incident became a symbol of U.S. foreign policy, known as “America First,” which prioritizes American national interests over the collective interests of the Western bloc.
Zelensky’s public humiliation and the U.S. withdrawal from actively supporting Ukraine created new facts on the ground, unprecedented for European nations. This shift and the explicit American policy of reducing its financial contribution to Europe’s security forced NATO members to reconsider their strategic course. As a result, in early March, under the leadership of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, representatives from NATO countries, Ukraine, and the European Union gathered in London to reshape Europe’s security strategy against the Russian threat.
As a NATO member since 1952, Turkey, represented by its Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, participated in these discussions. Unlike other members, Turkey has refrained from taking hostile actions against Russia since the outbreak of the Ukraine war and has refused to impose sanctions on Moscow. However, it is essential to note that Turkey has not become a collaborator of Russia either. In reality, to maximize its interests, Ankara has adopted an ambivalent foreign policy—on the one hand, supplying Ukraine with Bayraktar drones to help them inflict losses on Russian forces, while on the other hand, refusing to impose aviation-related sanctions on Russia and even becoming a financial haven for Russian money laundering.
Until now, due to Turkey’s strategic importance and the fear of “losing” it to the opposing bloc, both NATO and Moscow have avoided punishing President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. On the contrary, in 2022, Turkey’s ambiguous stance allowed Erdoğan to become a key mediator between Russia and Ukraine. That same year, Ankara brokered a grain export deal from the war zone to external markets, proving that Russians and Ukrainians were willing to negotiate with it simultaneously.
However, contrary to its previous role, Turkey is now losing its status as a mediator to a new rival—Saudi Arabia. On February 18, about ten days before the Oval Office controversy, the U.S. and Russia met in Riyadh, not in Ankara or Istanbul. The message from the Trump administration, especially from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to Turkey, was clear: “You break it, you pay for it.” In other words, if Turkey takes an anti-American stance and adopts a critical, independent foreign policy against the U.S., such as on the Gaza issue, this time, unlike in the past, there will be consequences.
It now seems that the U.S. is elevating Saudi Arabia’s status on the global stage at Turkey’s expense and in an effort to expand the Abraham Accords. Washington is not only portraying Saudi Arabia as the leader of the moderate Sunni Muslim world but also turning it into a global player. In return for this upgraded status, Riyadh is expected to normalize relations with Israel once the Gaza war ends.
A Heavy Historical Burden with Russia
Looking at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that these developments contradict Turkish interests. With the Americans and Russians conducting key diplomatic moves in Saudi Arabia and Europeans gathering to determine NATO’s future, Ankara is acutely aware of the threats to its position more than ever. As Ankara loses its role as a mediator while witnessing NATO’s gradual decline, Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan himself admitted, “The genie is out of the bottle.”
Europe is openly discussing NATO’s uncertain future. As a long-standing member, Turkey is part of this conversation. Since the London summit, Erdoğan and his foreign minister have consistently repeated the same message on every possible platform: “Without Turkey, Europe’s security cannot be achieved.”
It is important to remember that despite being a NATO member, Ankara is not part of the European Union. This has led to serious concerns among Turks that the EU might establish a new unified army or an exclusive alliance open only to EU members. In other words, Turkey could find itself without any protective umbrella against Russia for the first time since the Cold War.
Despite Erdoğan’s efforts to cultivate closer ties with Russia over the past two decades, Turkey’s collective memory, shaped by historical baggage, cannot ignore its past defeats at the hands of the Russians. This mindset drove Turkey to do everything possible to join the Western bloc at the start of the Cold War. Back in 1950, even without being asked, Ankara actively participated in the Korean War and sent troops to the peninsula to prove its loyalty to the U.S. and the Western alliance. Consequently, in 1952, Turkey was admitted to NATO and received the alliance’s protective umbrella against Soviet threats, which included demands for military bases in the Turkish Straits and control over two northeastern Turkish provinces. In hindsight, Turkey benefited from its NATO membership, as Western deterrence worked, and Russia ultimately abandoned its demands from Ankara.
Today, despite extensive cooperation between Ankara and Moscow in various fields—including Russian gas exports via Turkey, the construction of Turkey’s first nuclear reactor under Moscow’s sponsorship, and mutual tourism and trade ties—Ankara remains deeply concerned about being left exposed, without any security umbrella against Russia. Thus, despite the political rhetoric in Turkey emphasizing its supposed independence from the West and its ability to pursue its foreign policy—thanks to successes in local military industry production—the real question remains: does Turkey genuinely want to stand alone?
Threatening to Become “Europe’s Headache”
Statements and reality do not always align. According to senior Turkish officials, Ankara is doing everything possible to become part of the emerging European military alliance. At this stage, the Turks leverage the momentum to push for EU membership by highlighting their military advantages. In other words, after failing to integrate into Europe based on shared values, Ankara is now attempting to enter through the back door using its military capabilities and strategic geographical position.
It remains uncertain whether NATO will dissolve, as Minister Fidan hinted, or if the Europeans will establish a “NATO 2.0” without the U.S. or a unified European army that excludes Turkey. One thing is clear: Turkey has already declared that if the Europeans choose to exclude it from the new military alliance they are forming, it intends to become the continent’s latest headache.
During a Ramadan iftar dinner for Turkish ambassadors on March 4, President Erdoğan praised the stability and cooperation between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean, stating that Europe’s security is unimaginable without Turkey. A closer reading of this statement reveals a direct threat to Europe, particularly to Greece: if Turkey finds itself outside the new European military alliance, the cooperation that Erdoğan boasts about—including in Cyprus—could end.
Such a scenario could push Turkey to take confrontational steps against Europe and escalate tensions in Cyprus, where Turkey is still considered—at least on paper—an occupying force on European soil. Turkey invaded northern Cyprus in 1974, and the Republic of Cyprus became an EU member in 2004. While the Turkish occupation predates Cyprus’ EU membership, the situation remains a severe violation of European sovereignty. If Turkey were to escalate the crisis, it would be interesting to see how long Brussels could remain silent without taking tangible measures against Ankara.
The Turkish Restraint Has Already Been Lifted
Given these dynamics, European nations—keen to avoid allocating additional resources to another geopolitical challenge—might choose to integrate Turkey into a new military alliance outside the EU framework. If so, it will be crucial for Europe to establish clear red lines for Turkey and any country that might act as a Trojan horse within the alliance. One of NATO’s most significant weaknesses today is the lack of a mechanism to expel member states. In the event of a new military alliance, European nations must develop an effective system to deal with rogue actors if necessary.
Over the past decade, Turkey has repeatedly caused headaches for the EU. At the height of the war in Ukraine and even before, Ankara blackmailed NATO by opposing the accession of new member states—Eastern European countries, Sweden, and Finland. While it eventually backed down, it successfully delayed critical processes for the alliance. Furthermore, by acquiring Russian S-400 missile systems, Turkey became the only NATO member subjected to U.S. military sanctions typically reserved for American adversaries.
If that wasn’t enough, Ankara recently sacrificed NATO’s vital interests in favor of its pro-Hamas foreign policy by blocking Israel’s participation in a NATO military exercise. This is particularly ironic given that Turkey benefited from Israeli humanitarian aid in the form of an IDF Home Front Command rescue team following the devastating earthquake on February 6, 2023. Yet today, Ankara is preventing cooperation between NATO and Israel in an exercise focused on “resilience and emergency preparedness.” This exercise enhances crisis management, cybersecurity, infrastructure protection, and civil-military coordination collaboration.
Conclusion
Turkey now finds itself in an increasingly precarious position regarding its role as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine and its status within NATO. Following the U.S.-Russia talks in Riyadh rather than Ankara, Turkey’s strategic standing appears to be eroding, and Ankara fears being left out of a new European military alliance. Consequently, Turkey is unlikely to surrender quickly and will fight for its place on Europe’s geopolitical chessboard.
To secure military backing from Europe, Ankara—aware that it cannot join the EU based on shared values—is instead attempting to entice the bloc with its military advantages. Accordingly, if Turkey is excluded from the new military alliance, there is a real risk that it will take hostile actions against Europe. In such a scenario, Greece and Cyprus could pay the price, and unsurprisingly, such escalation would also bolster the importance of the Israeli-Hellenic alliance and security ties with the EU.
In this context, like Cyprus and Greece, Israel must also prepare for a new Turkey—as a member of a future European military alliance—and recognize that, in such a case, unlike today, Erdoğan will no longer be subject to external restraint. It is also essential to acknowledge a harsh reality: given Turkey’s activities in Iraq, Syria, Cyprus, Libya, Qatar, Somalia, and the Sahel region of Central Africa, it seems that Ankara is already operating without restraint. It would be wise to start preparing for a future where this situation only worsens.
