Renewed frictions between Europe and Turkey are once again laying bare the underlying fragility of the so-called “Western bloc”.
Recent remarks by European CommissionPresident Ursula von der Leyen,equating Turkeywith Russia and China, triggered diplomatic unease and sharp reactions in Ankara. European actors increasingly perceive Turkey not as a partner, but rather as a problematic, quasi-adversarial force on the continent’s periphery.
To read this article in the following languages, click theTranslate Websitebutton below the author’s name.
Türkçe, Español, Hebrew, عربي, Farsi, Русский, Portugues, 中文,Français, Deutsch, Italiano, 日本語,한국어, Српски. And 40 more languages.
At the same time, disputes over Cyprus and maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean persist, further aggravating relations. European policymakers have hardened their tone toward Ankara, while Turkey’s leadership has responded in kind. As one analysis bluntlyputs it, Europe may be in the process of turning Turkey into a “zombie rival,” neither fully integrated nor openly antagonistic, but perpetually at odds with EU interests.
Yet the timing of this diplomatic deterioration is particularly striking or rather ironic in a way: it coincides with renewed discussions about Europe’s energy vulnerability and the need to diversify supply routes away from chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, amid thedisastrousIsraeli-American war with Iran. The International Energy Agency in any case has recentlycalledfor reviving the Iraq-Turkey pipeline as a strategic corridor that could bypass Hormuz and thereby enhance Europe’s energy security.
In other words, while Brussels questions Ankara’s geopolitical alignment, it simultaneously acknowledges Turkey’s potentially indispensable role as an energy transit hub – even though it is true that such a Turkish solution would be far from a panacea, for various reasons, includingtensionswith Iraq, regional instability, andsupply risks.
This contradiction is telling nonetheless: Europe appears unable to reconcile its strategic needs with its political instincts, so to speak. Ankara is not easily “sidelined”: Geography alone ensures its relevance, linking the Middle East, the Black Sea, and Europe itself. Turkey has long positioned itself as a bridge between regions, a role that has become even more critical amid shifting global supply chains and energy routes. However its aggressiveneo-Ottomanismremains an issue.
Be as it may, the growing fragmentation within the Western alliance is evident enough. The notion of a cohesive NATO or a unified transatlantic front has become increasingly difficult to sustain. Thus far, disagreements between Turkey and its NATO partners have ranged fromdefense procurement disputesto diverging policies inSyria,Libya, and theCaucasus. These are not minor policy disagreements; they point to fundamentally different strategic outlooks.
In June 2025, I argued that NATO riskedsidelining Turkey, thereby weakening its southeastern flank. Ankara has often been treated as a difficult ally, yet its geographic and military significance remains undeniable. Alienating Turkey does not make its influence disappear; it merely pushes it in directions less aligned with Western interests.
Source: Global Research
