NATO’s Ankara Summit: Türkiye’s Policy Pivot
Türkiye’s growing strategic value within NATO reflects its geographic position, military capacity, and ability to operate across fragmented regional conflicts, elevating Ankara from peripheral ally to indispensable security actor. Despite persistent tensions over democratic backsliding and policy divergence, shifting global security pressures are driving NATO to deepen reliance on Türkiye’s autonomous but alliance-compatible foreign policy.
Hosting a NATO summit goes beyond ceremonial precedent; it represents a strategic statement of priorities. For Türkiye, welcoming fellow allied leaders to Ankara at the alliance’s most critical moment in decades represents Ankara’s growing importance within the increasingly fragmented Euro-Atlantic security order. Against the background of the Russia-Ukraine war, instability in West Asia, and uncertainty over American hegemony in the transatlantic region, Türkiye has become a force NATO cannot risk jeopardising, given the nation’s geostrategic proximity to existing conflicts and its military capacity. Within the intensifying security climate, the bridge between Europe and Asia has become a security nucleus where international relationships enter a new age of diplomacy and defence (Besch et al., 2026).
Türkiye’s Positioning within the Alliance
Türkiye joined the alliance in 1952, almost twenty years into its establishment as a fledgling republic, abolishing the Ottoman caliphate’s legacy of the 600-year sultanate (BBC News, 2019). Since then, the nation has secured NATO’s reach into the Middle East, specifically the alliance’s south-eastern flank. In deploying forces for deterrence and defence initiatives, the state has shown support for operations and missions beyond its borders, contributing to the deployment of troops, ships, jets and tanks for the alliance’s regional security (NATO, 2026). Its position as NATO’s second-largest military after the US makes the nation a desirable ally.
In the years following its membership, Türkiye’s security has been recently impacted because of its geographical position and longstanding ties with neighbouring countries. (NATO, 2026) In previously acting as a Western security barrier, the nation has undergone a gradual foreign policy transformation, evolving into an autonomous regional actor with a penchant for flexibility in its alliances (NATO, 2026). Despite NATO’s growing reliance on Türkiye, Ankara remains adaptable to the evolving security landscape, specifically the reordering of the Middle East. Hosting the summit at the capital is a reflection of the alliance’s growing expectations (Besch et al., 2026).
The Gradual Evolution of Foreign Policy
Türkiye’s foreign policy transformation was a result of a convergence of regional instability, declining confidence in traditional Western partners, and Ankara’s pursuit of strategic autonomy. Whilst institutional membership remained, the changing geopolitical environment throughout the Cold War and Arab Spring encouraged Ankara to pursue newfound diplomatic independence and adopt an activist foreign policy approach. The collapse of the established regional order through the Arab Spring created newfound security dilemmas for Türkiye through the influx of refugees, increased terrorist activity and the emergence of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) along its Eastern borders (International Crisis Group, 2024).
Ankara came to perceive that sole reliance on Western partners was insufficient to safeguard its national interests, particularly as its security priorities began to diverge from those of its allies. The gradual reduction of US involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts created space for the emergence of a regional mediator, a role that Türkiye rapidly assumed. Since then, its pursuit of greater autonomy through military, economic, and diplomatic means has become increasingly evident.
The expansion of unilateral military operations in Syria, Libya, and Iraq has provided the principal arena in which Turkish independence has extended beyond traditional NATO frameworks (Çevik and Müggler, 2025). Türkiye’s adoption of a supplementary security strategy, in which alliances are maintained alongside independent initiatives, represents an effort to maximise strategic flexibility and protect its national interests within an increasingly multipolar international system.
Ankara’s Adoption of Flexible Diplomacy
Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan remains sceptical that any country, including Türkiye, can conduct its national security policy through a single alliance. In recent discussions surrounding NATO’s Article 5, Fidan argued that Türkiye’s membership of NATO does not restrict its willingness to develop flexible and multilateral security relationships (Ergin, 2026).
This position reflects a broader shift in Turkish foreign policy. Although NATO remains a central pillar of Türkiye’s national security, Ankara increasingly rejects the idea that reliance on a single strategic partnership is sufficient within an increasingly fragmented international system.
This approach is better understood as strategic autonomy rather than strategic withdrawal. While Türkiye continues to benefit from NATO’s collective-defence commitments, it has simultaneously expanded its cooperation with non-Western actors. Its efforts to maintain dialogue with Russia, despite providing military assistance to Ukraine through Bayraktar drones, demonstrate Ankara’s attempt to preserve influence across competing political spheres (Péria-Peigné, 2023). This has allowed Türkiye to position itself as a diplomatic intermediary, particularly during negotiations surrounding the Black Sea Grain Initiative (Çevik and Müggler, 2025). Talks between Ukrainian and Russian representatives have also been conducted in Istanbul, with Turkish diplomats acting as intermediaries between the two sides. By refusing to align itself fully with either Russia or the West, Türkiye has pursued a careful strategic balancing act, enabling it to retain diplomatic leverage as a crucial intermediary between opposing parties.
The Gaza conflict has further demonstrated Türkiye’s foreign-policy activism. Ankara’s outspoken position on the conflict, combined with diplomatic initiatives led by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and his membership of the Gaza Executive Board, has strengthened the country’s position as a mediator, diplomatic manager, and defender of regional interests (Genç, 2026). Despite its lack of neutrality, this approach has reinforced both domestic and international perceptions of the Turkish government as an influential actor in the Middle East. It serves a dual purpose: externally, foreign-policy activism expands Türkiye’s influence and negotiating power; domestically, it reinforces narratives of governmental competence and national sovereignty, supporting the country’s growing status as an intermediary (Genç, 2026).
Türkiye’s foreign-policy transformation reflects a wider emerging trend within NATO’s security architecture. The alliance is entering a phase of complementary arrangements, where members are seeking diversified partnerships and national autonomy due to the uncertainty of evolving threats, questions regarding long-term US engagement in European security, and the potential shared military burden if Article 5 is invoked. Commitments from allies to increase defence spending in ‘Trump Trillions’ (Lungescu, 2026) are evidence of the new age of supplementation and US appeasement in the wider scheme of greater national responsibility (Besch et al., 2026). Flexible and autonomous policies are growing in favour instead of the traditional practices of interdependence. This is not a substitute for NATO’s systems but an effort to supplement safeguards for contemporary security. Ankara’s own flexibility is not an abandonment of its allies but an attempt to maximise its strategic autonomy in an evolving global environment.
NATO’s Strategic Dependence
Türkiye’s growing influence can be understood not only through its evolving foreign policy but also through the wider strategic context in which it operates. The changing international environment confronting NATO has elevated Ankara’s status from that of a regional ally to that of a key member. Geography remains Türkiye’s most enduring strategic asset, and as conflicts emerge in its immediate neighbourhood, the country has become an increasingly important pillar of NATO’s collective-security architecture.
Few NATO members can replicate Türkiye’s geographical position. Situated at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Black Sea, Ankara possesses considerable diplomatic and strategic influence. Monopoly of the Turkish Straits under the Montreux Convention provides the nation with considerable influence over naval access between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, a role that has assumed renewed importance following Russia’s advances in Ukraine. Türkiye’s neighbours, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, remain principal security concerns to NATO, in which Ankara contributes through its deterrence tactics and crisis-response capabilities.
Türkiye’s advancing military capabilities further reinforce its strategic relevance. Possessing NATO’s second-largest standing armed forces (NATO, 2026), Ankara provides substantial military capacity for regional deployments, supported by decades of counterterrorism experience. With 1.9 per cent of its total investment allocated to its armed forces (SIPRI, 2016), Türkiye recorded approximately $30 billion in military expenditure in 2025. Data published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute indicate that Türkiye increased its military spending by 7.2 per cent in 2025 compared with 2024. Its defence expenditure has gradually increased by 94 per cent, compared with a global average of 41 per cent (Kenez, 2026). These figures demonstrate Türkiye’s sustained military investment over the past two decades.
This investment has significantly expanded domestic defence production, reducing Türkiye’s dependence on foreign suppliers and strengthening its position as a defence exporter. The international recognition of Turkish weapons systems, particularly unmanned aerial vehicles, further enhances the country’s strategic relevance by demonstrating its technological and industrial capabilities (SIPRI, 2026; Péria-Peigné, 2023).
The Consequences of Domestic Disorder
The re-emergence of Türkiye’s relevance comes at an opportune time for President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Domestically, his government continues to face growing economic pressures, declining public confidence, and an increasingly assertive opposition led by the Republican People’s Party (CHP) under Özgür Özel. Over the past decade, the nation has faced heavy turbulence, including a coup d’état in 2016, fractioning domestic parties, paired with accusations of authoritarianism. Investigations by Freedom House have reported a decrease in democratic principles through implementing constitutional changes and by imprisoning political opponents, independent journalists and members of civil society (Freedom House, 2025). The management of Türkiye has drawn significant condemnation from allies for violations surrounding the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and abuse of the state of emergency (European External Action Service, 2018). However, the successful suppression of dissent has grasped the reins of influence through limiting public and international discourse (European Commission, 2024).
The Dilemma of the Alliance
Due to persistent policy misalignments and political disagreements built up over the past two decades with its European and American allies (Besch et al., 2026), NATO has approached Türkiye with caution. These sentiments have accompanied concerns surrounding Türkiye’s shift eastwards, accompanied by its increasing intimacy with Russia, evidenced by the purchase of Russian S-400 systems in 2017. Growing defence and energy cooperation with Moscow reinforces concerns that Türkiye was distancing itself from the alliance’s strategic consensus. (Besch et al., 2026). Meanwhile, negotiations surrounding European Union membership have been abandoned, reflecting broader political and institutional disagreements between Ankara and Brussels (European Commission, 2024). Yet Brussels has continued to maintain relations with Ankara, although the foundation of trust between NATO and Türkiye remains both strained yet strengthened.
However, the international security scene has reordered NATO’s strategic priorities. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Middle Eastern conflict fragmentation, and uncertainty surrounding American leadership in NATO’s future have elevated Türkiye’s geopolitical standing beyond previous expectations. Rather than condemning Erdoğan for democratic backsliding or policy disputes, the alliance is recognising that few states can serve the same diplomatic, military and regional advantages Türkiye possesses (NATO, 2026; SIPRI, 2026). Erdoğan has sought to capitalise the international climate by positioning himself as an arbitrator who has experienced complicated NATO ties personally (Besch et al., 2026). Trump and Erdoğan’s personal rapport works to NATO’s advantage, as Türkiye takes on the role of a diplomatic intermediary throughout strained negotiations. Trump’s renewed emphasis on reducing American commitments and increasing burden-sharing towards European security due to region’s ‘unhealthy dependence’ (Lungescu, 2026) further reinforces Türkiye’s strategic relevance in the future of the alliance’s security. As Europe braces for greater independence due to Washington’s persistence, Ankara’s military capability, expanding defence industry, and activist foreign policy are being employed in NATO’s long-term security infrastructure. (Lungescu, 2026).
Despite its domestic unrest, the international environment is shifting in Türkiye’s favour, and the Ankara Summit is evidence of the implementation of NATO’s new priorities. The alliance continues to be wary of Türkiye’s domestic affairs, yet immediate security concerns overshadow them, altering the significance of NATO’s Turkish concerns. In this sense, geopolitical necessity has not eliminated political disagreement but has reordered the alliance, which now depends on Ankara’s capacity to project, deter and manage regional crises in the midst of the shifting security landscape. Contemporary conflict has created a knock-on effect on emerging security relationships, which Türkiye knows how to navigate better than any other member. In applying its activist foreign policy, the country manages to engage actors with whom many Western governments have limited and strained dialogues. All recent developments indicate that Ankara is committed to its position within NATO and to reinstating itself as the bridge between Europe and Asia, as a versatile arbitrator.
Bibliography
BBC News (2019) Turkey profile – Timeline. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17994865 (Accessed: 8 July 2026)
Besch, S., Coşkun, A., Reynolds, N. and Wertheim, S. (2026) Ahead of the Ankara Summit, NATO’s Mood Has Changed. Emissary, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/07/nato-summit-ankara-united-states-europe-turkey-ukraine-alliance (Accessed: 7 July 2026).
Çevik, S. and Müggler, M. (2025) Visualising Turkey’s Foreign Policy Activism (Update). Centre for Applied Turkey Studies (CATS), 10 December. Available at: https://www.cats-network.eu/visualisations/visualising-turkeys-foreign-policy-activism-2025 (Accessed: 8 July 2026).
European Commission (2024) Türkiye 2024 Report. Available at: https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8010c4db-6ef8-4c85-aa06-814408921c89_en?filename=T%C3%BCrkiye%20Report%202024.pdf
European External Action Service (2018) EU-Turkey relations. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/32135_en (Accessed: 9 July 2026).
Ergin, S. (2026) ‘Milli Savunma Bakanı Yaşar Güler, Oksijen’in sorularını yanıtladı: “Milli güvenliğimizi tek ittifaka bağlı planlamıyoruz” [Minister of National Defence Yaşar Güler answers Oksijen’s questions: “We do not base our national security planning on a single alliance”]’, Gazete Oksijen, 30 January. Available at: https://gazeteoksijen.com/yazarlar/sedat-ergin/milli-savunma-bakani-yasar-guler-oksijenin-sorularini-yanitladi-milli-guvenligimizi-tek-ittifaka-bagli-planlamiyoruz-264005 (Accessed: 7 July 2026).
Freedom House (2025) Freedom in the World 2025: Turkey. Available at:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkey/freedom-world/2025
Genç, Ö. (2026) ‘Türkiye’s Foreign Policy Success Is Reshaping Politics at Home’, Afkār, Middle East Council on Global Affairs, 6 July. Available at: https://mecouncil.org/blog_posts/turkiyes-foreign-policy-success-is-reshaping-politics-at-home/ (Accessed: 8 July 2026).
International Crisis Group (2024) Turkey Reports. Available at: https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe/western-europemediterranean/turkiye
Kenez, L. (2026) Turkey’s military spending tops all neighbors combined as economic pressures test sustainability. Nordic Monitor, 1 May. Available at: https://nordicmonitor.com/2026/05/turkeys-military-spending-tops-all-neighbors-combined-as-economic-pressures-test-sustainability/ (Accessed: 9 July 2026).
Lungescu, O. (2026) NATO 3.0 to emerge at Ankara Summit amid fragile unity. Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), 6 July. Available at: https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/nato-30-emerge-ankara-summit-amid-fragile-unity (Accessed: 8 July 2026).
NATO (2026) Notes on the host: Türkiye and NATO over the years. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/nato-stories/2026/07/01/notes-on-the-host-turkiye-and-nato-over-the-years (Accessed: 8 July 2026).
Péria-Peigné, L. (2023) TB2 Bayraktar: Big Strategy for a Little Drone. Paris: French Institute of International Relations (Ifri). Available at: https://www.ifri.org/en/memos/tb2-bayraktar-big-strategy-little-drone (Accessed: 8 July 2026).
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) (2026) SIPRI Military Expenditure Database. Available at: https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex (Accessed: 8 July 2026).
