{
"authors": [
"Marc Pierini"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [
"Turkey’s Transformation",
"Transatlantic Cooperation"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "EP",
"programs": [
"Europe"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"Türkiye",
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Security",
"Political Reform"
]
}
Source: Getty
Turkey’s misguided economic policies and slide toward autocracy have exacerbated the country’s relationship with the West. Meanwhile, Ankara’s bipolar foreign policy largely escapes Western leaders and analysts.
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy
It has been common, in the past few years and especially the past few weeks, to say that Turkey’s relationship with the West, in particular with Europe, had become increasingly protracted. This may now be an understatement and ‘labyrinthine’ may be a better description.
Ankara’s choices on governance, economic policy, military operations abroad, missile defence, or most recently maritime boundaries have puzzled many of the country’s traditional partners. Even more than substance, it’s the methods and the words used by the leadership that have left most Western political leaders befuddled. Conversely, in reaction to Ankara’s latest initiatives in the Eastern Mediterranean, EU member states and the European Union itself have strongly opposed Turkey’s course of action.
Inevitably, trying to understand Turkey’s current policies is highly risky for a foreign observer. But, international relations being as much about perceptions as they are about substance, it is important to distinguish one from the other, especially in a situation where a Western ally turns aggressively against its partners.
This article is not academic in nature, but is rather an attempt to shed some light, from a Western standpoint, on where stakeholders collectively stand and where they might go from here.
This article was originally published by the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Europe’s interests in Syria extend beyond migration management, yet the EU trails behind other players in the country’s post-Assad reconstruction. To boost its influence in Damascus, the union must upgrade its commitment to ensuring regional stability.
Bianka Speidl, Hanga Horváth-Sántha
European democracy support strategy in 2025 prioritized protecting democratic norms within Europe. This signals the start of a structural recalibration of the EU’s approach to democracy support.
Richard Youngs, ed., Elena Viudes Egea, Zselyke Csaky, …
EU member states clash over how to boost the union’s competitiveness: Some want to favor European industries in public procurement, while others worry this could deter foreign investment. So, can the EU simultaneously attract global capital and reduce dependencies?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
Europe’s policy of subservience to the Trump administration has failed. For Washington to take the EU seriously, its leaders now need to combine engagement with robust pushback.
Stefan Lehne
Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.
Rym Momtaz