When the idea of a European army resurfaces, Turkey often emerges as a potential partner. Its strategic location and military capabilities make it an attractive ally. Turkey’s democratic shortcomings have long blocked its EU membership bid, yet it might still play a key role in a new European defense framework. But is Erdoğan’s Turkey a reliable partner or a wildcard?
Turkey brings several advantages to the table. Its growing NATO-compatible defense industry can help Europe’ re-armament. Turkey also has extensive combat experience from decades of conflict with the PKK and military engagements in Syria, Libya, and Nagorno-Karabakh in recent years. In each of these conflicts, Russia was Turkey's main rival. Historically, Russia played a key role in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the Soviet threat pushed Turkey to join NATO during the Cold War. This historical rivalry supposedly makes Turkey a natural ally against Russia, and its inclusion in any European security framework could bolster the continent's defenses. Besides, its strategic location, at the crossroads of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East, is a crucial asset for any alliance. Its large, young population can sustain a sizable military. Yet, significant concerns remain about President Erdoğan's Turkey.
One major concern is Ankara's likely demands in exchange for committing to European defense. Turkey would probably seek concessions like visa-free travel for Turkish citizens in the Schengen area and a renegotiation of the customs union agreement. While these issues are manageable through diplomatic negotiations, deeper problems stem from Ankara's worldview. The Turkish government does not see itself as an inherently Western (or Eastern) power. Instead, it aspires to become a power center in its own right, pursuing an independent foreign and defense policy. This ambition explains Turkey's transactional approach to the U.S. and NATO. Rather than offering full commitment to European defense, Ankara would prefer a flexible partnership that allows it to maintain ties with countries like Russia and China.
Indeed, as a sign of its strategic autonomy, Turkey has not severed relations with Moscow despite providing strong political and military support for Ukraine. After the recent Trump-Zelensky altercation at the White House, Turkey remained silent while most European leaders expressed support for Ukraine. Moreover, Turkey sent its foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, rather than Erdoğan, to the subsequent Ukrainian summit in London. This cautious approach may reflect Turkey's desire to maintain a balancing act between major powers. Ankara positions itself as a neutral mediator, unwilling to alienate either Trump or Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Another challenge is Turkey's ambiguous stance on countering Russia. While Ankara and Moscow have clashed in Libya, Syria, and Nagorno-Karabakh, they have successfully compartmentalized these conflicts and maintained pragmatic cooperation where their interests align. This balancing act impresses many analysts in Europe, as both countries’ ambitions for regional influence put them at odds. Russia also views Erdoğan’s Islamist inclinations with suspicion. Yet, despite deep geopolitical and ideological divides, Turkey and Russia have managed to avoid full-scale confrontation. This complex relationship suggests that Turkey is not the unwavering opponent of Russia that Europe might hope for.
Furthermore, Turkey's security interests do not fully align with Europe's. Both sides support Ukrainian sovereignty. The existence of an independent Ukraine is strategic for Turkey’s own Black Sea security. Nevertheless, questions arise about broader commitments. Would Turkey be willing to defend the Baltic states or Poland if Russia posed a threat? Likewise, would European countries come to Turkey's aid in a crisis? Past incidents raise doubts. When Syria shot down a Turkish jet in 2012 and Turkey downed a Russian jet in 2015, Europe responded with calls for calm rather than concrete support. Given its proximity to multiple conflict zones, Turkey often pursues an assertive foreign policy which creates new concerns. While its ambitions currently focus on the Middle East, Africa, and the Caucasus, Ankara would expect reciprocal European commitments to its defense. Is Europe prepared for such an obligation?
Europe should also be wary of Turkey's tendency to leverage its membership rights for political gain. As many European countries have experienced within NATO, Turkey is a demanding ally. Ankara frequently uses its veto power to advance its domestic and foreign policy agendas. If decisions regarding a European army require unanimity, as in NATO, Turkey would have the same leverage. Thus, including Turkey in a European defense alliance would inevitably import these challenges.
Turkey is undoubtedly an important player that can contribute significantly to European security. Its military capabilities, strategic location, and experience in managing relations with Russia make it a valuable, if complicated, partner. Turkey has been one of Ukraine’s strongest backers since 2014 and has shown both cooperation and resistance in its dealings with Moscow. However, Europe must be clear-eyed about the risks. Erdoğan’s transactional approach to foreign policy, Ankara’s willingness to engage with Russia and China, and Turkey’s habit of leveraging its membership privileges could complicate any future defense partnership.
Europe should not exclude Turkey from its security plans, but it must fully understand the costs and conditions of bringing Ankara into the fold. The question is not just whether Turkey can strengthen Europe’s defense, but whether Europe is ready for the compromises that come with it.
.svg.png){kind=small}
