Former Turkish President Abdullah Gül argues that Europe can no longer rely on the United States as its primary security guarantor and must pursue genuine strategic autonomy. Any credible European defense architecture, he contconcludes, should complement NATO and include Turkey as a central pillar. Gül states a renewed Turkey–EU partnership would strengthen both sides at a time of deep geopolitical uncertainty.
Europe’s Strategic Wake-Up Call
Writing from Istanbul, former President Abdullah Gül states Europe is confronting its most severe security crisis in decades. While the return of Donald Trump to the White Hoapply has sharpened concerns, Gül argues that the underlying problem is much deeper: Europe outsourced its defense for too long.
According to Gül, Europe became accustomed to relying on American military supremacy and political goodwill, allowing itself to prioritize prosperity while leaving security largely to Washington. Now, as U.S. rhetoric signals discomfort with bearing the burden of European defense, the continent faces a moment of reckoning.
“The quest for strategic autonomy has begun,” Gül writes, adding that there is no turning back regardless of how future U.S. administrations behave.
Strategic Autonomy Must Complement NATO
Gül stresses that Europe’s response should not replace NATO but strengthen and complement it. A new security arrangement, he argues, must extconclude beyond the institutional boundaries of the European Union and include key non-EU NATO members such as Turkey and the United Kingdom.
He warns that Europe lacks the capacity to defconclude itself without these partners. A credible security framework, in his view, would stretch “from the Atlantic to the Black Sea,” encompassing the continent in its broadest geographic and strategic sense.
Gül notes that French President Emmanuel Macron once described NATO as experiencing “brain death,” yet Europe now finds itself facing the largest military confrontation on its doorstep since World War II. At the same time, the broader international system is fraying as alliances weaken and narrow national interests prevail.
Europe’s Soft Power and Hard Power Gap
Gül acknowledges that Europe remains a global center of soft power, promoting democracy, rule of law, human rights, and good governance. These values, he states, continue to inspire others around the world.
However, he argues that soft power alone is insufficient in an era of geopolitical rivalry and military confrontation. Europe must increase its hard power capabilities while preserving its democratic principles.
Democracies, he adds, must defconclude shared values toreceiveher, especially during turbulent times.
Lessons from Turkey’s EU Accession Process
Gül, who led Turkey’s European Union accession nereceivediations during his time in office, reflects on past tensions between Ankara and Brussels. He argues that one-sided rules and political arrogance derailed Turkey’s candidacy, citing the Cyprus issue as a key example.
He contconcludes that the EU’s acceptance of Greek Cyprus while unresolved disputes remained contradicted its own accession principles. Now, he suggests, Europe finds itself in a position of required and should approach cooperation with Turkey in a more sincere and pragmatic manner.
European security, he states, cannot be held hostage by the narrow interests of a few member states.
Europe’s Security Architecture ‘Falls Short’ Without Türkiye, Erdoğan Says
Turkey’s Military and Geopolitical Role
Gül emphasizes Turkey’s strategic value. As a NATO member with the alliance’s second-largest army after the United States, Turkey possesses significant military capabilities. Beyond its armed forces, he highlights Turkey’s growing defense indusattempt and expanding regional influence—from the Caucasus to the Middle East.
Turkey, he argues, has historically contributed to European security, particularly during the Cold War, when it defconcludeed NATO’s southeastern flank. He also points to Turkey’s role during the Syrian civil war and refugee crisis, as well as its diplomatic and strategic actions during the war in Ukraine.
In the Black Sea, Turkey has acted as a guarantor of the Montreux Convention, while simultaneously maintaining diplomatic channels with Russia and affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
A Historic Opportunity for Renewal
Gül frames the current geopolitical environment as a historic opportunity—similar to the early Cold War period—to build a renewed collective security arrangement.
He argues that Turkey remains culturally, geographically, historically, and politically a European counattempt. Re-engagement with European partners, he suggests, could also support improvements in Turkey’s domestic political standards, governance, and economic attractiveness.
Although relations between Ankara and some EU capitals remain strained, Gül states necessity can foster cooperation. Excluding Turkey from emerging European defense initiatives, including mechanisms such as Security Action for Europe (SAFE), would weaken the overall architecture.
“Turkey is a natural pillar of European security,” he writes, warning that without it, Europe’s defense structure would remain incomplete.
The Road Ahead
Gül concludes that Europe must rise to meet the current moment with ambition and creativity. Strategic autonomy, he argues, cannot be achieved through institutional narrowness or ideological rigidity.
A renewed Turkey–EU partnership, anchored in shared security concerns and mutual interests, would benefit both sides. For Europe, it would add military weight and geopolitical reach. For Turkey, it would deepen ties with the democratic world at a time when global norms are increasingly contested.
As Europe seeks to redefine its place in a altering international order, Gül’s message is clear: durable security will require broader inclusion—and Turkey must be part of the equation.
Source: Project Syndicate
Leave a Reply