The statement “We must complete the European continent so that it does not fall under Russian, Turkish or Chinese influence” uttered by European Commission PresidentUrsula von der Leyen, who took office not by direct popular vote, but with the proposal of the member states and the approval of the European Parliament, in her speech in Hamburg on April 19, 2026, cannot be passed off as a simple slip of the tongue. These words are the expression of a deeper approach to the mentality of the European Union.

To read this article in the following languages, click theTranslate Websitebutton below the author’s name.

Türkçe, Farsi, Русский, Español, Portugues, عربي, Hebrew, 中文,Français, Deutsch, Italiano, 日本語,한국어, Српски. And 40 more languages.

On the other hand, French President Macron told Greece at the European Council summit “If your sovereignty is threatened, do what is necessary, we are with you.” For Southern Cyprus, it goes further and uses the phrase “an attack on Cyprus is an attack on Europe”. France openly threatens Türkiye at the presidential level. It openly confirms that it will help the rogue state of Southern Cyprus to destroy Türkiye’s rights and interests in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. In the midst of this confusion, Türkiye and the UK, which is not a member of the EU, are exactly the 106th anniversary of our April 23 Sovereignty gain. On the anniversary, the Türkiye-United Kingdom Strategic Partnership Framework Document is signed in London. It’s almost like a serious joke of history!

In this context, for the first time, Türkiye is openly presented as a systemic threat to the European public opinion together with Russia and China by the highest level of the EU. France, a nuclear power in two areas (Cyprus and the Aegean/Eastern Mediterranean) that have vital geopolitical interests in Türkiye, also openly declared hostility to Türkiye on the same days. The timing of these discourses is also remarkable. This statement coincides with a period when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is known for genocide and war crimes, is hardening his anti-Türkiye line while an aggressive war with an eschatological and imperial character is going on in the other side of the Mediterranean in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. The emerging picture shows that Huntington’slogic of the “clash of civilizations“ has gained strength in European politics to surface it subconsciously when it has the opportunity. Although official spokespersons in Brussels try to soften these statements as directed at the Western Balkans, the reality that emerges does not change. The European Union no longer sees Türkiye only as a candidate country or ally, but also as a potential geopolitical rival and a power that needs to be controlled. This approach also reveals the essence of the union’s enlargement strategy. The inclusion of 6 countries in the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) in the EU means not only an economic and political integration process, but also the limitation of the Turkish and Russian sphere of influence on the continent and the exclusion of external actors from the system as uncivilized actors. How can a superior European come under Turkish, Russian and Chinese influence? This is the mindset!

As a matter of fact, just a few days after this statement, the European Parliament rejected the proposal to suspend the European Union’s association agreement with Israel, submitted by Slovenia, Spain and Ireland, citing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank. This decision once again revealed the contradiction between Europe’s discourse of values and its geopolitical preferences. This mentality is a current reflection of Europe’s strategic subconscious. Only 3 states out of 27 countries can oppose Israel, which committed a crime similar to the genocide in the Second World War, or a 106-billion-euro aid package for the Banderaist neo-Nazi structure in Ukraine to fight the Russians until the last Ukrainian can be approved on the same days. (Hungary blocked this package during Orban’s time, now this blockade has been lifted with Magyar.)

In order to analyze this approach correctly, it is necessary to look at the historical background of European thought. The idea of the other is not new in Europe. The Crusades, which started from the 11th century, opened the door for the Turks to be positioned as the “other” and “enemy” in the European mind. With the conquest of Istanbul in 1453, the main distribution center of the Spice and Silk Road, which was under the control of Christian Europe, fell into the hands of the Ottomans, leading Europe to search for alternatives and triggering the Age of Discoveries. In this process, transportation to Indian and Chinese civilizations was moved to the seas, and transoceanic expeditions led European states to establish more control over nature, that is, the oceans. The great accumulation of wealth achieved accelerated economic and technological development; With the Reform, then the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, the colonial capitalist and then imperialist leadership in the global system passed into the hands of the West. In this context, the Turks became the other of Europe for a long time, especially after they came to the gates of Vienna, and then Russia was included in the same category, first during the Napoleonic period and then after the Communist revolution in 1917.

The idea of achieving unity within Europe by marginalizing the outside finds its roots in a long historical continuity dating back to the Holy Roman Germanic Empire period. This mentality was shaped by the idea that Europe needed an ‘’other’’ while defining its internal integrity. By the 17th century, this approach gained a more systematic framework.The early European Union designs developed by Maximilien de Béthune (Sully), the minister of Henri IV, positioned the Ottoman Empire as a non-European power and aimed to establish intra-continental peace and balance through this exclusionary framework. Thus, the idea of unity in Europe emerged not only as a product of internal consensus, but also as a product of taking a common position against the outside.

Although the European Union was first established as the Coal and Steel Union to balance and prevent competition between Germany and France, it is an organization that implements the neoliberal economic paradigm that continues its existence today with anti-Russian sentiment. Neoliberalism is not only an economic model, but also part of an Atlantic-centered geopolitical ideology. It was carried out together with free market discourse, military alliances, the dollar system and interventionist security policies. Instabilities from the disintegration of Yugoslavia to West Asian wars serving Israeli geopolitics (Zionism), from proxy conflicts to mass migration waves are the product of these geopolitics. The European Union was shaped as a structure dependent on the USA in security and strategy. In the post-Cold War period, the neoliberal model based on the free market, financialization and globalization has grown the European Union economically but weakened it strategically. After 2025, a new era has entered with Trump’s distancing from Europe. Today, although the EU is a large market economically, it has turned into a fragile core in the military, energy, manufacturing, demographic and political fields. With the Russia-Ukraine War and the 2nd Trump era, fragility has now turned into collapse. Trump has left the UK and Europe. Even contractual arms sales to European countries are suspended.

The Russia-Ukraine war, on the other hand, paved the way for Europe to weaken by moving it away from cheap energy and then from production. The pandemics, energy crises, supply chain breaks and the re-escalation of great power competition have collapsed the EU. The EU is now about to lose its position at the global power table.

Source: Global Research