Can Turkey be friendly?

I remember a conversation I had a few years back with an old college buddy, Mark, who’d just returned from a business trip that took him through Istanbul. He was utterly captivated by the city’s beauty, the incredible food, and the warmth of the people he met in the bazaars and tea houses. Yet, when the topic turned to Turkey’s role on the global stage, his expression clouded. “It’s a beautiful place, absolutely,” he mused, “but their politics, man, it just feels like they’re always at odds with… well, everyone. Can Turkey *really* be friendly, in the sense of a reliable, predictable partner?”

It’s a question that echoes in the halls of power in Washington D.C., Brussels, and beyond. And the quick, precise answer is: Yes, Turkey certainly can be friendly, but it’s a friendship often defined by pragmatism, national interest, and a complex web of historical grievances and geopolitical aspirations rather than unwavering ideological alignment. Its friendliness is highly conditional and frequently transactional, presenting both opportunities and significant challenges for its allies and neighbors.

My own professional journey, observing international relations for years, has taught me that “friendliness” in geopolitics rarely mirrors the straightforward relationships we have in our personal lives. Nations don’t have best friends; they have interests. And Turkey, positioned at the crossroads of continents, cultures, and conflicts, embodies this reality perhaps more vividly than any other country. Understanding its capacity for friendship requires digging deep into its past, present, and the powerful forces shaping its trajectory.

Understanding Turkey’s Geopolitical Chessboard

To truly grasp whether Turkey can be friendly, we have to appreciate its unique, often precarious, perch on the world stage. It’s not just a country; it’s a bridge, a historical pivot, and a melting pot of influences. From the grandeur of the Ottoman Empire, which once stretched across three continents, to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s radical vision of a secular, Western-oriented republic, Turkey has always been a state of immense strategic importance.

Today, this importance is magnified. Turkey borders the tumultuous Middle East, shares a maritime boundary with Russia in the Black Sea, stands as NATO’s southeastern flank, and gazes longingly towards European Union membership, however distant that dream may seem now. This unique positioning isn’t just a geographic fact; it’s the crucible in which its foreign policy is forged, dictating a need for a multi-directional, often contradictory, diplomatic approach.

A Legacy of Empire and Nation-Building

Turkey’s historical identity profoundly shapes its current foreign policy and, by extension, its capacity for international “friendship.” The memory of the Ottoman Empire, not just as a territorial entity but as a cultural and political force, still resonates. While Atatürk sought to shed this imperial past for a modern, secular Turkish identity, elements of pan-Turkism and a revived interest in “Ottoman legacy” have re-emerged in recent decades, influencing how Ankara perceives its role in regions like the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Middle East.

This duality—a modern republic with deep historical roots—creates a tension. On one hand, there’s a desire for integration with Western institutions and norms. On the other, there’s a strong pull towards asserting its own distinct identity and influence, sometimes at odds with those same Western partners. It’s a national identity that feels both European and distinctly non-European, both Western and distinctly Middle Eastern, both secular and increasingly pious in public discourse.

Modern Challenges and Regional Turbulence

Turkey doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Its immediate neighborhood is arguably one of the most volatile regions on Earth. Syria’s decade-long civil war, the ongoing instability in Iraq, the complex dynamics of the Eastern Mediterranean, and the perennial great power competition with Russia all directly impact Turkey’s security and economic interests.

Consider the Syrian crisis, for instance. Turkey has faced an influx of millions of refugees, a resurgent Kurdish threat along its southern border, and a complex proxy war involving global and regional powers. This isn’t just a distant geopolitical game; it’s a matter of immediate national security for Ankara. Its actions, often seen as aggressive or uncooperative by its Western allies, are frequently framed within Turkey as necessary measures for self-preservation in a hostile environment.

Moreover, the discovery of significant natural gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean has ignited new geopolitical rivalries, particularly with Greece and Cyprus, drawing in other regional and European powers. This scramble for resources adds another layer of complexity, turning what might otherwise be purely economic discussions into high-stakes diplomatic standoffs.

The Many Faces of Turkish Diplomacy

When we ask if Turkey can be friendly, we’re really asking: friendly to whom, and under what circumstances? Because Turkey presents different faces to different actors on the global stage, its diplomacy is less about unwavering loyalty and more about strategic maneuvering.

A Reliable NATO Ally? A Complicated Question

For decades, Turkey was considered a cornerstone of NATO, a crucial bulwark against Soviet expansion during the Cold War. Its strategic location, large military, and commitment to the alliance were undeniable. However, in recent years, this traditional view has been severely tested.

• The S-400 Missile Crisis: Perhaps the most glaring example of friction with the West was Turkey’s decision to purchase the S-400 Russian air defense system. From Washington’s perspective, this was a direct threat to NATO interoperability and the security of advanced Western military technology, particularly the F-35 fighter jets, from which Turkey was subsequently excluded. For Ankara, it was about acquiring a necessary defense system when Western alternatives were either unavailable or politically conditioned. This wasn’t just a weapons deal; it was a symbol of Turkey’s increasing willingness to chart its own course, even if it meant alienating long-standing allies.
• Sweden and Finland’s NATO Membership: Turkey’s initial objections to Sweden and Finland joining NATO highlighted another dimension of its transactional approach. While eventually consenting, Ankara leveraged its position to extract concessions related to Kurdish groups it considers terrorist organizations. This demonstrated a willingness to use its veto power within the alliance to advance its national security interests, even if it caused delays and frustration among other members.
• Diverging Agendas in Syria: In Syria, Turkey’s military operations against Kurdish groups, particularly the YPG (which the US supported in the fight against ISIS), created significant tension with the United States. While both nations are NATO allies, their priorities in Syria often clashed, illustrating that shared alliance membership doesn’t always translate into shared operational objectives or a “friendly” approach.

So, while Turkey remains a critical member of NATO, its “friendliness” within the alliance is increasingly contingent on its perception of its own national interests aligning with, or at least not being undermined by, the alliance’s collective goals. It’s a partner that demands respect for its sovereignty and security concerns, even when those concerns diverge from the consensus.

Complicated Dance with the West: US & EU

Beyond NATO, Turkey’s relationships with the United States and the European Union are a perpetual roller coaster, marked by periods of cooperation, mutual suspicion, and outright antagonism.

Strained Relations with the United States

My observation is that the U.S.-Turkey relationship often feels like a marriage where both partners are deeply frustrated but can’t quite bring themselves to divorce. The list of grievances is long:

• Fethullah Gülen’s Extradition: Turkey’s persistent demand for the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, whom it accuses of orchestrating the 2016 coup attempt, remains a major irritant. The U.S. insists on due process and concrete evidence, leading to deep distrust from Ankara.
• The Kurdish Question: As mentioned, U.S. support for Kurdish forces in Syria is a red line for Turkey, which views these groups as extensions of the PKK, a designated terrorist organization.
• Human Rights and Democracy: U.S. concerns over human rights, freedom of speech, and democratic backsliding in Turkey often draw sharp rebukes from Ankara, which views such commentary as unwarranted interference in its internal affairs.

Despite these tensions, the two countries share strategic interests, particularly in counter-terrorism, regional stability, and energy security. The relationship is often characterized by a pragmatic, transactional dialogue rather than warm camaraderie. It’s a functional, albeit often fractious, partnership.

The Perennial EU Accession Saga

Turkey’s dream of full membership in the European Union has largely withered on the vine. What began as an exciting prospect in the early 2000s has devolved into mutual recrimination and disappointment.

• Broken Promises: From Turkey’s perspective, the EU has moved the goalposts, constantly adding new conditions and displaying a lack of genuine commitment to its membership.
• Democratic Backsliding: From the EU’s side, concerns about democratic standards, rule of law, and human rights in Turkey have grown substantially, making full membership politically untenable for many European leaders.
• Cyprus and Greece: Long-standing disputes, particularly over Cyprus and maritime boundaries in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, remain major obstacles.

While the full membership prospect seems dead, economic ties remain robust, and cooperation on issues like migration control and trade continues. Turkey is still a crucial economic partner for Europe. So, the relationship isn’t one of friendship in the conventional sense, but rather a functional, often testy, co-dependency driven by economic realities and geographic proximity.

Navigating the Volatile Middle East

Turkey’s engagement in the Middle East is perhaps where its “friendliness” is most fluid and strategically opportunistic. Its foreign policy here often reflects a blend of historical ambition, security imperatives, and ideological affinity.

• Syria: Turkey’s involvement has been driven by several factors: supporting the Syrian opposition, containing Kurdish ambitions, and managing the refugee crisis. Its actions have often put it at odds with Damascus, Washington, and even Moscow at various points.
• Libya: Turkey’s military intervention in support of the UN-recognized government in Tripoli significantly altered the balance of power in the Libyan civil war. This move was driven by a desire to secure maritime claims in the Eastern Mediterranean and project influence.
• Israel: Relations with Israel have swung wildly, from close strategic partnership in the 1990s to periods of deep animosity, particularly during the Gaza conflicts. More recently, there’s been a cautious rapprochement, largely driven by energy interests and regional realignments.
• Gulf States: Relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt have also seen dramatic shifts, from periods of tension (often linked to Turkey’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its alignment with Qatar) to recent efforts at reconciliation, again, largely driven by economic imperatives and a desire to de-escalate regional rivalries.

In this complex arena, Turkey is less a consistent friend and more a shrewd player, forging alliances of convenience and shifting allegiances as its perceived national interests dictate. This makes it a powerful, but often unpredictable, actor.

The Russian Conundrum: A Pragmatic Partnership

Perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of modern Turkish foreign policy is its intricate relationship with Russia. Despite centuries of historical rivalry and opposing interests in several regional conflicts (Syria, Libya, Ukraine), Moscow and Ankara have forged a highly pragmatic partnership.

• Energy Dependence: Turkey is heavily reliant on Russian natural gas and nuclear technology. This creates a powerful economic bond that transcends political differences.
• Military Cooperation: The S-400 deal symbolizes a willingness to engage militarily, despite being a NATO member.
• Shared Interests: In certain contexts, like managing the Syrian conflict, Russia and Turkey have found common ground to de-escalate tensions and carve out spheres of influence.
• Balancing Act: For Turkey, cultivating ties with Russia offers leverage against the West and diversifies its international partnerships. For Russia, Turkey is a crucial partner in the Black Sea and the Middle East, and a way to sow discord within NATO.

This is a relationship built on mutual necessity and transactional benefits, not on shared values or genuine friendship. It’s a calculated risk for both sides, constantly managed to prevent escalation into open conflict, particularly concerning the war in Ukraine where Turkey has tried to maintain a delicate balance, condemning the invasion while refusing to fully sanction Russia.

The Turkic World and Soft Power

Beyond its immediate neighborhood, Turkey has actively sought to expand its influence in the Turkic-speaking world of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Through cultural diplomacy, economic investment, and shared linguistic heritage, Ankara aims to foster closer ties.

• Economic Cooperation: Investments in infrastructure, energy, and trade are key components.
• Cultural and Educational Programs: Promotion of Turkish language and culture, scholarships, and religious ties.
• Geopolitical Alignment: Seeking to counterbalance Russian and Chinese influence, and solidify a “Turkic corridor.”

This effort represents a softer, more culturally-driven aspect of Turkish foreign policy, where the notion of “friendship” is cultivated through shared heritage and mutual benefit, rather than purely security-focused alliances.

Domestic Drivers of Foreign Policy

A nation’s foreign policy is rarely a purely rational calculation of external threats and opportunities. It’s deeply intertwined with domestic politics, economic realities, and the prevailing ideology of its leadership. Turkey is no exception.

Leadership and Ideology: Erdoğan’s Vision

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has undergone a significant transformation. His vision, often described as “neo-Ottomanist” or a more assertive, independent foreign policy, has steered Turkey away from its strict Atatürkist alignment with the West and towards a more multi-vector approach.

• Nationalist Sentiments: Erdoğan’s rhetoric often taps into deep-seated Turkish nationalism, emphasizing sovereignty and rejecting external interference. This resonates with a significant portion of the electorate, particularly when facing criticism from the West.
• Islamic Identity: While not a theocracy, Erdoğan’s government has embraced a more prominent role for religion in public life, which subtly influences relations with Islamic countries and creates ideological distance from secular Western partners.
• Strong Leadership: Erdoğan’s centralized decision-making style means that foreign policy is often a direct reflection of his personal vision and strategic calculus, rather than a broad consensus. This can lead to rapid shifts and unexpected moves on the international stage.

Economic Imperatives

No country can ignore its economic health, and Turkey is no different. Its economy, while robust in many sectors, faces challenges from inflation, currency depreciation, and the need for foreign investment. This often dictates its foreign policy choices:

• Energy Security: Turkey is heavily reliant on imported energy, making stable relations with energy suppliers (Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and potentially Eastern Mediterranean producers) crucial.
• Trade and Investment: Maintaining strong trade relationships with Europe, the Middle East, and increasingly Asia, is vital for economic growth and job creation. Rapprochement with Gulf states, for example, is often driven by the need for fresh capital.
• Tourism: The tourism sector is a significant revenue generator, making regional stability and good international relations important for attracting visitors.

Economic considerations, therefore, can often temper ideological differences or security concerns, driving Ankara towards “friendlier” relations with nations that offer economic benefits, regardless of political alignment.

Public Opinion and Internal Security

Public sentiment in Turkey plays a more significant role than sometimes acknowledged. A populace that has experienced military coups, terrorist attacks, and cross-border conflicts is highly sensitive to issues of national security and sovereignty. Political leaders, including Erdoğan, often reflect and amplify these sentiments:

• Anti-Western Sentiment: Perceptions of Western double standards, particularly regarding Kurdish groups or the 2016 coup attempt, have fueled significant anti-Western sentiment among parts of the Turkish public, making it politically advantageous for leaders to adopt an independent, sometimes confrontational, stance.
• Nationalism: Turkish nationalism is a potent force, particularly concerning issues like territorial integrity, Cyprus, and the rights of ethnic Turks abroad. This limits the government’s flexibility in negotiating certain foreign policy issues.
• Refugee Crisis: The presence of millions of Syrian refugees has created significant social and economic pressures, leading to public demands for strong action on Turkey’s southern border and influencing its policy towards Syria and the EU (regarding refugee burden-sharing).

Defining “Friendliness” in Geopolitics

This brings us back to Mark’s initial question and the core of this discussion: what does “friendly” even mean for a country like Turkey? In international relations, it rarely means unconditional affection or unwavering loyalty. Instead, it typically implies:

• Shared Interests: A convergence of strategic goals or economic benefits.
• Predictability: A nation whose actions are generally understandable and don’t routinely surprise or undermine partners.
• Reliability: A partner that upholds commitments and operates within established norms.
• Mutual Respect: An acknowledgement of sovereignty and legitimate security concerns.

Based on these definitions, Turkey often acts as a friendly partner when its interests align with others, or when it perceives a transactional benefit. It can be a highly cooperative and valuable ally, particularly in areas like intelligence sharing or humanitarian aid. However, its pursuit of an independent foreign policy, driven by its complex domestic and regional pressures, often makes it an unpredictable and sometimes challenging partner for countries accustomed to more conventional alliances.

“Turkey is too big, too strategically important, and too proud to be merely a junior partner. It will always seek its own path, even if that path sometimes veers away from its traditional allies.” – A sentiment often heard in diplomatic circles.

Pathways to Enhanced Friendliness

Despite the complexities, there are certainly pathways for Turkey to foster more consistent and predictable “friendly” relations with the West and its neighbors. It’s a two-way street, requiring effort from all sides.

1. Dialogue and De-escalation: Consistent, high-level diplomatic engagement is crucial to manage expectations, address grievances, and prevent misunderstandings from spiraling into crises. Establishing clear communication channels and mechanisms for conflict resolution is vital.
2. Respect for International Norms: Adhering more consistently to international law, human rights conventions, and the principles of non-interference would significantly build trust and predictability, particularly with Western partners and the EU.
3. Addressing Human Rights Concerns: For Western nations, concerns about rule of law, freedom of expression, and democratic standards in Turkey are not just moral issues but also indicators of internal stability and predictability. Progress on these fronts would undoubtedly improve relations.
4. Finding Common Ground on Regional Stability: Despite differing approaches, many regional and global powers share a common interest in de-escalating conflicts in Syria, Libya, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Collaborative efforts based on mutual respect and burden-sharing could yield positive results.
5. Economic Cooperation and Diversification: Expanding economic ties beyond traditional partners and sectors, fostering greater transparency, and ensuring a stable investment environment would benefit Turkey and strengthen its relationships with various countries.

Checklist: Indicators of Turkey’s Friendship Potential

When assessing Turkey’s potential as a friendly nation, I often look for these key indicators:

• Internal Political Stability: A stable domestic political environment, ideally with robust democratic institutions, often translates to more predictable and reliable foreign policy.
• Commitment to Democratic Norms: Respect for rule of law, human rights, and pluralism are strong signals of shared values with Western democracies.
• Alignment on Key International Issues: A willingness to align with international consensus on critical issues like territorial integrity, non-proliferation, and counter-terrorism, rather than consistently charting a divergent course.
• Predictability in Foreign Policy: Less sudden policy shifts and more consistent adherence to diplomatic protocols and agreements.
• Respect for Alliance Obligations: Upholding commitments within alliances like NATO, including interoperability and burden-sharing, without leveraging them for unrelated gains.
• Transparent and Open Dialogue: A willingness to engage in open, honest, and sometimes difficult conversations with partners, rather than resorting to accusatory rhetoric.

Frequently Asked Questions About Turkey’s International Relations

Given the complexity, it’s natural for people to have a lot of questions about Turkey’s standing in the world. Here are some of the most common ones I encounter:

Is Turkey still a reliable NATO ally?

This is arguably the most pertinent question regarding Turkey’s “friendliness” within its primary alliance. The answer, unfortunately, isn’t a simple yes or no; it’s nuanced. Turkey remains a member of NATO, participating in missions and contributing significantly to the alliance’s collective defense, particularly as a vital bulwark on its southern flank. Its military is large and capable, and its geographic position is strategically invaluable.

However, Ankara’s pursuit of an independent foreign policy, including its purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems, its sometimes contentious relationship with Greece, and its initial resistance to Sweden’s NATO membership, has undeniably strained trust. Many within NATO view Turkey as a challenging partner, one that prioritizes its national interests even when they diverge from alliance consensus. So, while Turkey is a NATO ally, its reliability in the traditional, unquestioning sense has been diminished, necessitating constant diplomatic efforts to manage expectations and find common ground.

What is Turkey’s biggest foreign policy challenge?

Turkey faces a multitude of foreign policy challenges, but arguably its biggest is the intricate balancing act between its historical, economic, and security interests with the West (predominantly the U.S. and EU) on one hand, and its equally critical engagement with Russia and various Middle Eastern actors on the other. This isn’t just about managing two sets of relationships; it’s about navigating a global landscape where these spheres often clash.

For example, in Syria, Turkey has had to reconcile its anti-Kurdish objectives with U.S. support for Kurdish forces, while simultaneously coordinating with Russia, which backs the Assad regime. This constant need to maneuver, often leading to seemingly contradictory actions, creates unpredictability and can alienate partners. Maintaining this precarious balance while advancing its own national security and economic imperatives without fully alienating any major power bloc is an immense, ongoing challenge that defines much of Turkey’s current foreign policy.

How do human rights issues impact Turkey’s international relations?

Human rights issues significantly impact Turkey’s international relations, particularly with its Western partners and the European Union. Concerns over freedom of speech, press freedom, judicial independence, and the rule of law are frequently raised by the U.S. State Department, the European Parliament, and various international bodies. These concerns are not merely rhetorical; they have tangible consequences.

For the European Union, the deterioration of human rights and democratic standards has been a primary factor in the freezing of Turkey’s EU accession talks. With the United States, such concerns often color congressional sentiment, influencing decisions on arms sales, economic cooperation, and even diplomatic engagement. While Turkey often dismisses these criticisms as internal affairs or external interference, they erode trust, make it harder to build common cause on other issues, and ultimately limit Turkey’s ability to forge deeper, more values-based friendships with Western democracies.

Can Turkey balance its relations with Russia and the West?

Turkey has demonstrated a remarkable, albeit precarious, ability to balance its relations with Russia and the West, but this balancing act is fraught with inherent tensions and risks. On one side, Turkey is a NATO member, reliant on Western trade and investment, and often shares security concerns with the U.S. and EU, particularly regarding regional stability and counter-terrorism. On the other, it has cultivated a pragmatic partnership with Russia, driven by energy dependence, shared interests in certain regional conflicts (like Syria), and a desire to diversify its diplomatic options.

This balancing act allows Turkey to maintain a degree of strategic autonomy and leverage, preventing it from becoming fully beholden to either side. However, it also means Turkey sometimes acts in ways that conflict with its NATO obligations or Western values, as seen with the S-400 purchase or its nuanced stance on the war in Ukraine. This approach ensures it has multiple avenues for influence but also makes it a less predictable and sometimes frustrating partner for both Moscow and Washington, constantly walking a tightrope between great powers.

What role does Turkey play in the Syrian conflict?

Turkey has played a multifaceted, significant, and often controversial role in the Syrian conflict since its outset in 2011. Initially, Ankara strongly supported the Syrian opposition, hoping for the swift overthrow of the Assad regime. This evolved into direct military interventions, primarily targeting Kurdish forces (which Turkey views as an extension of the PKK terrorist group) along its southern border, as well as remnants of ISIS.

Turkey’s primary concerns in Syria include preventing the establishment of an autonomous Kurdish region on its border, managing the immense influx of Syrian refugees (currently millions reside in Turkey), and creating “safe zones” for their potential return. Its presence has created a complex web of alliances and antagonisms: it operates in areas alongside U.S.-backed forces, yet clashes with Kurdish groups supported by the U.S.; it engages in de-escalation efforts with Russia and Iran (the Astana Process) while opposing the Assad regime they support; and it has deployed troops and supported proxy forces within Syria. Turkey’s role is therefore one of a major regional power deeply invested in shaping the conflict’s outcome to protect its national security interests and project influence.

So, can Turkey be friendly? Absolutely, but it requires a deep understanding of its complex motivations, its historical legacy, and the immediate pressures it faces. For those willing to engage with nuance and embrace a transactional rather than purely ideological partnership, Turkey remains a powerful and indispensable actor on the world stage.