But currently Iran is not much of a counterweight to Turkey, with a GDP 1/3 of Turkey, isolated by sanctions and faced with internal dissent.
In the longer term, if the Islamic Republic is replaced by a pro Western regime like the Shah's, then Iran will become a much more powerful counterweight to Turkey than the Ayatollahs ever were. Iran will once again have massive oil revenues, access to the best US and Israeli technology and a better educated population.
Well said. Israel destroyed the Syrian military, but Erdogan put the boots on the ground that pushed Russia out and now controls Syria. He will do the same with Iran. Turkish speaking Azerbaijanis are the main minority group in Iran. Erdogan has been cultivating them to use as his proxy. And the Iranian President is himself a Turkish speaking man of Azerbaijani descent, with pre existing close ties to Erdogan. When the dust settles, Turkey will control Iran and its oil.
This article sounds like a paid for infomercial. Turkey has made remarkable strides in economic development, state capacity and industry - but it's not so remarkable unless you're using a very below average metric. Japan and South Korea managed in one generation what it has taken Turkey five, to become a newly industrialized state. They fully industrialized and modernized in two generations, and on current trends it will take Turkey at least another three. So Turkey is doing OK for a Muslim nation, it's doing well for a Middle Eastern nation without oil, but nowhere best in class. The Balkan countries, despite being at the back of the European bus, have higher levels of human development and income.
Turkey is a country in a desperate RUSH against time and the demographic realities: (1) it will get old before it gets rich, as it is still a middle income country and its demographic transition to below-replacement is happening faster than its economic development; (2) disaggregating its "replacement level" demographics are challenging realities - its the 30-40% of the population that is Kurdish that is grown, not the Sunni Turkish bit, and the Arab minority that was about 3-5 million is now approaching 10 million with migration. Trying to take over northern Syria & Iraq means more Arabs. The unifying logic of the white-Turk Kemalist Turkish state ( there are only Turks here, nothing else!, lucky is he who is a Turk) is over, but the constitution and socially immature politics are NOT prepared to function as a multi-ethnic state. Sunni Turks are no longer a majority, but a plurality that hasn't comes to terms with the implications. Traditionally it was conservative Islam that acted as the Ottoman "binding agent", and it seems there's a return to that. Finally (3) it has a HUGE economic dependency ratio, as a huge number of people are young and not in the workforce, women have low workforce participation, and there is a desperate need to increase trade to absorb this wave of young workers who could destabilize politics or otherwise brain-drain emigrate, which is what 60% of them desire according to polls.
This growth imperative points to one a key point: Turkey is also stuck in the middle income trap: it's economy doesn't make enough high-quality, high value added products that are price inelastic, but neither can it compete with China in middle and lower end products. It has found a niche in being the "final assembly line", using Chinese parts, Russian energy and an EU customs union to make thin margins but Turkey is too big to be niche. This arrangement allows it to build scale for exports it's trying to force into other markets, but it is orienting too much R&D on vanity military projects (Korea, by comparison, didn't start exporting military gear until it build civilian heavy industry to leverage off of). And as we have seen lately, the traditional exporters of military gear are ruthlessly aggressive against competitors.
A final thought: this ruthless, flip-flopping grand-bazar transnationalism and extortion approach to negotiations means Turkey lacks the credibility of a long term partner, they lack rule of law protections and are not agreement-capable. No-one will be inspire to be dependent on Turkey for critical transit or security if they can avoid it. It is relevant that once the Ottomans captured the western end of the Silk Route that Europeans set off to find the western passage to India.
If I though Turkey were a peaceful country I would wish it good luck, but Turkey is neo-imperialist, Islamofascist, violently anti-Christian and deeply destabilizing (much, much more than Iran). So instead I wish Turkey Karmic returns.
That’s a very long post built on some pretty questionable claims.
First, comparing Turkey’s development path to Japan or South Korea makes little sense. Both countries industrialised under extraordinary Cold War security and economic patronage from the United States. Turkey developed in a far more difficult geopolitical environment surrounded by conflict, instability and hostile neighbours. Pretending those contexts are comparable is simply not serious analysis.
Second, the claim that Balkan countries are broadly ahead of Turkey economically is outdated. Turkey’s HDI and income levels are already higher than several Balkan states such as Albania and North Macedonia, and not dramatically behind EU members like Bulgaria or Romania. A quick look at the data would make that clear.
But the most baffling part is the demographics. You claim Kurds make up 30–40% of the population and then add another ~10 million Arabs. If those numbers were remotely accurate. The Kurds should go ahead and declare a state now. According to your data Turks are the minority.
Turkey has plenty of challenges, like any large middle-income country, but posts like this read less like analysis and more like a collection of recycled talking points and exaggerated statistics.
Criticism is fine. Making things up to support it is not.
I find it interesting that you are challenging my points with very narrowly selected snippets of information. First, Japanese industrialization: it happened at the end of the 19th century after the Meiji reforms (which came 30 years after the Tanzimat reforms). Japanese RECONSTRUCTION happened during the cold war, and Turkey was also protected under the NATO umbrella. Main point stands: Turkey's accomplishment is underwhelming by Asian standards.
Secondly, they are unremarkable by Balkan standards, where Turkey still compares unfavorably. Most of the Balkans were trapped in communism, but from the end of WW1 until WW2 all the countries exceeded Turkey's development levels, with Albania being comparable. You have chosen the HDI levels of two of the least developed Balkan countries as a benchmark, instead of Slovenia, Croatia, Greece or even Bulgaria. The better benchmark for Turkey would be its middle east neighbors: Iraq, Iran & Syria where (prior to the Gulf wars and post-Shah sanctions) Turkey was middle of the pack.
Finally, accurate demographic statistics in Turkey are difficult to come by - every time Turkstat reports inflation it's Comedy Hour at Bloomberg. Of course the demographic census is not performed with the genuine intent to of finding the true number of minorities, everyone knows what happens to minorities in Turkey if they dare to ask for their rights (pogroms against Christians, burning Alewis alive, mass repression of Kurds). What can be pieced together are directionally correct estimates: Kurks have been "estimated at 15-20% of the population for two generations, despite having birthrates 2-3 times that of Sunni Turks. Arabs in Hatay and the southeast were estimated at 3-4 million BEFORE Turkey decided to intervene in Syria to remove Assad (and they cried for help with the refugees this resulted in, commonly estimated to be between 5-7 million). Even if the question were asked "Are you a Kurd/Arab", many minority citizens are weary to answer honestly and play along to stay alive.
The talking points that I do not accept, as they are propaganda points, is that Turkey is a miracle economy, bring peace and stability. It's a violent, deeply fascist, Islamofascist & irridentist state full of contradictions that it's running out of time to fix.
"This article is objective and evidence-based. While your comments remain unsubstantiated, the report’s findings are backed by proven facts. Although I find your comment very amusing, I unfortunately have to disappoint you: just because you wish for something and make a claim, that wishful thinking will not become reality.
Normally, I don’t pay attention to the ignorant, let alone go to the trouble of responding. In your case, however, I am making an exception. I recognize a pattern in your claims—a pattern that is nothing more than a virus designed to blind you.
I do not know who you are or what faith you belong to, but you cannot be a Muslim. In Islam, the pursuit of truth and knowledge is a sacred duty. It is written that the first creation was the Pen, and the very first commandment of the Quran is: 'Read, in the name of your Creator.' A true believer does not spread falsehoods or ignore evidence; they honor the Pen by seeking the truth, not by being blinded by a virus of misinformation.
Let me give you a piece of advice: The truth is not found in the surface of 'how it is,' but in the depth of 'why it is.' If you refuse to see the reason behind the facts, you will remain forever blinded by the very pattern you have chosen to follow."
So I am intellectually incompetent and metaphysically defective for challenging the "objective evidence" that Turkey is an Islamofascist state, and that Islamic majority countries are at the bottom of world development? No one has nation has killed more Christians than Turks throughout history, and it's also one of the top countries in killing Muslims (Kurds, Arabs) since WW2.
"It is fascinating how quickly you resort to putting words in my mouth. I never called you incompetent; I pointed out that your arguments lack a factual basis and are driven by a clear ideological bias.
If Turks were truly the 'enemies of Christianity' you claim, how do you explain that after 500 years of Ottoman rule, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Romanians maintained their faith, their languages, and their cultures? A truly 'eliminationist' power would not have allowed them to exist for five centuries. If you honestly ask yourself this question, you must realize that your narrative of pure hostility is flawed.
To understand the development of nations, one needs more than just emotional labels. It requires a deep understanding of the global 'stage' on which states act. I suggest you study concepts like 'Theatrum Mundi' and 'Theatrum Politicum' to understand how power is staged. Perhaps then you would grasp the role of the 'Mendacium necessarium' (the necessary lie) in the propaganda you are currently consuming.
You must realize that a glass can be half full and half empty at the same time. Depending on your vantage point, you represent a position that serves a specific goal. The same applies to information. Every piece of information is created by humans and often shaped to serve a national political will or a personal bias. It is a duty to verify whether information is truly objective or merely a construction designed to influence you.
Since you seem more interested in venting hostility than in a serious, evidence-based exchange, I will leave you to your 'Karmic returns.' There is no point in debating someone who refuses to see the depth of 'why' things are the way they are."
Interesting take, we’ll see how it all plays out. The “playing both sides against the middle”game has been the same for Turkey/the Ottomans since at least the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca and Erdogan is very good at it, I agree. Imo his real challenge is reigning in his ambition and not letting his ego (juiced up with dreams of Ottoman Imperial glory and Pan-Turanian fantasies) write checks his rear end can’t cash.
Great article. Puts a different perspective on NATO.
Turkey’s influence in NATO is shaped by a combination of geography, military weight, diplomatic leverage, and its increasingly independent foreign policy. Its role is both indispensable and often complicated for the Alliance, creating a mix of strategic value and internal friction.
Strategic Geography and Regional Access
Turkey occupies one of the most important geostrategic positions in NATO. It controls the Bosporus and Dardanelles, the maritime chokepoints that regulate naval access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. This gives Ankara a decisive role in shaping Russian naval movement, especially under the Montreux Convention, which Turkey has upheld during the war in Ukraine. Its territory also borders the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Black Sea, making it a frontline state for crises involving Russia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Military Weight and Defense Capabilities
Turkey possesses NATO’s second‑largest military, providing mass, manpower, and a growing domestic defense industry. Its forces are not as uniformly professionalized as some Western militaries, but their size and regional deployment capacity give NATO significant operational depth. Turkish-made systems—such as the Bayraktar TB2 drone—have proven effective and cost‑efficient in conflicts from Ukraine to Libya, enhancing Turkey’s value as a defense producer within the Alliance.
Counterterrorism and Regional Security Role
Turkey has long been a frontline state against terrorism, facing threats from ISIS, the PKK, and other non‑state actors. NATO has recognized terrorism as a core challenge since the 1990s, and Turkey’s experience and geographic proximity make it central to the Alliance’s counterterrorism posture. Its contributions extend from intelligence cooperation to deployments in unstable regions.
Complications: Strategic Autonomy and Russia
Under President Erdoğan, Turkey has increasingly pursued strategic autonomy, acting unilaterally in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. These interventions often reflect national priorities—especially countering Kurdish groups—that do not always align with NATO’s collective objectives. Turkey’s deepening ties with Russia, including defense and energy cooperation, have created friction and raised concerns about NATO cohesion.
Diplomatic Leverage Inside NATO
Turkey frequently uses its position within NATO to extract concessions or shape outcomes. Examples include delaying coordinated action in Libya (2011) and holding up Finland and Sweden’s accession processes. While this transactional approach frustrates allies, Turkey has generally honored agreements once reached, and its core geopolitical interests remain aligned with NATO’s long‑term stability.
Contributions to Ukraine and Euro‑Atlantic Security
Despite tensions with Russia, Turkey has supported Ukraine through military aid and by restricting Russian naval movements. Its balancing act—maintaining dialogue with Moscow while supporting NATO’s strategic aims—illustrates both its complexity and its importance to the Alliance’s broader posture.
Overall Assessment
Turkey’s influence in NATO rests on four pillars:
• Geography: control of key waterways and proximity to conflict zones
• Military strength: the Alliance’s second‑largest army and a growing defense industry
• Counterterrorism experience: long-term engagement with regional threats
• Diplomatic leverage: the ability to shape or slow NATO decisions
This combination makes Turkey both a critical asset and a challenging partner, but its strategic value to NATO remains substantial.
Erdogan will calculate—but the key point the article leaves out the point is that under Peace Through Price, Trump has already priced Turkey’s ambitions. Instead of confronting Ankara directly, Washington has begun shaping the economic and logistical architecture around it. The Board of Peace framework turns post-war stabilization into a governed economic space, limiting unilateral leverage. The Armenia–Azerbaijan corridor (“Trump Passage” / TRIPP) restructures Caucasus transit routes under U.S.-anchored rules, pricing the geography that historically amplified Turkish influence. And the expanding C5+1 engagement with Central Asian republics inserts American investment, trade, and supply-chain logic into the same Turkic arc Ankara seeks to dominate. In other words, Turkey is not being opposed—it is being priced into a system where cooperation becomes cheaper than strategic freelancing. The same logic quietly applies to other regional actors as well: in Peace Through Price, influence flows not from speeches or ideology, but from who sets the corridors, insurance, contracts, and transaction costs that everyone else must live with.
Will the U.S. seize this opportunity to use NATO as the backbone of U.S. global power projection
NATO provides the legal, logistical, and geographic infrastructure that allows the U.S. to operate worldwide. Bases across Europe serve as forward hubs for operations in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. Without NATO, the U.S. would need dozens of separate agreements, each subject to local politics and “rent” payments. NATO gives the U.S. a stable, unified framework for global reach.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. can respond to crises faster, sustain operations longer, and deter adversaries more effectively.
2. Drive credible burden-sharing to strengthen deterrence
The U.S. remains the indispensable leader, but it cannot—and should not—carry the entire load. Washington’s leverage is strongest when it pushes allies toward real defense spending and real capabilities, not symbolic commitments. Analysts recommend setting spending targets at 3.5% of GDP across the Alliance to close capability gaps and ensure Europe can handle most conventional deterrence while the U.S. focuses on China.
Strategic payoff: Europe becomes a stronger pillar, freeing U.S. resources for the Indo‑Pacific without weakening deterrence against Russia.
3. Use NATO to contain Russia at low cost to the U.S.
NATO keeps Russia boxed in strategically. European allies provide the geography, the forward presence, and much of the day‑to‑day deterrence. The U.S. supplies the nuclear umbrella, high‑end capabilities, and command structure. This division of labor is efficient: the U.S. gets maximum deterrence for minimal incremental cost.
Strategic payoff: Russia remains deterred without requiring massive new U.S. deployments.
4. Shape NATO’s emerging China strategy
NATO is increasingly recognizing China as a systemic challenge. The U.S. can leverage the Alliance to:
• coordinate technology and supply‑chain security
• counter Chinese influence in Europe
• align Indo‑Pacific and Euro‑Atlantic strategies
• prevent China from splitting Europe from the U.S.
This is already a priority for U.S. leadership heading into upcoming NATO summits.
Strategic payoff: China faces a united transatlantic front rather than a divided West.
5. Maintain leadership of NATO’s command structure
The U.S. traditionally holds the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)—the most powerful military role in the Alliance. This gives Washington operational control in crisis and war, ensuring U.S. doctrine, planning, and priorities shape NATO’s actions. Upcoming appointments are strategically important for reinforcing U.S. leadership.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. sets the tempo, strategy, and operational framework for the entire Alliance.
6. Use NATO to stabilize Europe so the U.S. can focus on the Indo‑Pacific
A strong NATO reduces the likelihood of major conflict in Europe, allowing the U.S. to shift resources toward the Indo‑Pacific—where China poses the most significant long‑term challenge. This is a central theme in current U.S. strategy.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. avoids a two‑front crisis and preserves freedom of action.
7. Reinforce NATO as an economic and technological coalition
NATO is increasingly a platform for:
• cybersecurity
• critical infrastructure protection
• energy security
• technology standards
• countering economic coercion
These areas directly affect U.S. prosperity and resilience. NATO’s collective weight amplifies U.S. influence in global economic competition.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. shapes the rules of the global economy with
The game in especially the Northern Middle East has always been about who is most prepared for when new opportunities come, because they come. With Saddam’s Iraq gone, in stepped Iran. Now with Iran gone, it could be Turkey. And Turkey will not go.
That’s a very long post built on some pretty questionable claims.
First, comparing Turkey’s development path to Japan or South Korea makes little sense. Both countries industrialised under extraordinary Cold War security and economic patronage from the United States. Turkey developed in a far more difficult geopolitical environment surrounded by conflict, instability and hostile neighbours. Pretending those contexts are comparable is simply not serious analysis.
Second, the claim that Balkan countries are broadly ahead of Turkey economically is outdated. Turkey’s HDI and income levels are already higher than several Balkan states such as Albania and North Macedonia, and not dramatically behind EU members like Bulgaria or Romania. A quick look at the data would make that clear.
But the most baffling part is the demographics. You claim Kurds make up 30–40% of the population and then add another ~10 million Arabs. If those numbers were remotely accurate, Turks would Turkey. Heck the Kurds should go ahead and declare a state now. According to your data Turks are the minority.
Turkey has plenty of challenges, like any large middle-income country, but posts like this read less like analysis and more like a collection of recycled talking points and exaggerated statistics.
Criticism is fine. Making things up to support it is not.
Dreams and hope rhetoric. You hate your own people for the ideologies of others. It is not beyond ideology, it is bathing and rejoicing in ideology that you should title your substack!!!!
I guess the real question is what will Turkey do with all this power and influence? Will it stand up to apartheid Israel? Power comes with responsibility. For all its flaws, at least Iran tried to help the Palestinians and Lebanese defend themselves. Hopefully Turkey will use its new power for good.
Great article as always Zineb!
But currently Iran is not much of a counterweight to Turkey, with a GDP 1/3 of Turkey, isolated by sanctions and faced with internal dissent.
In the longer term, if the Islamic Republic is replaced by a pro Western regime like the Shah's, then Iran will become a much more powerful counterweight to Turkey than the Ayatollahs ever were. Iran will once again have massive oil revenues, access to the best US and Israeli technology and a better educated population.
Well said. Israel destroyed the Syrian military, but Erdogan put the boots on the ground that pushed Russia out and now controls Syria. He will do the same with Iran. Turkish speaking Azerbaijanis are the main minority group in Iran. Erdogan has been cultivating them to use as his proxy. And the Iranian President is himself a Turkish speaking man of Azerbaijani descent, with pre existing close ties to Erdogan. When the dust settles, Turkey will control Iran and its oil.
This article sounds like a paid for infomercial. Turkey has made remarkable strides in economic development, state capacity and industry - but it's not so remarkable unless you're using a very below average metric. Japan and South Korea managed in one generation what it has taken Turkey five, to become a newly industrialized state. They fully industrialized and modernized in two generations, and on current trends it will take Turkey at least another three. So Turkey is doing OK for a Muslim nation, it's doing well for a Middle Eastern nation without oil, but nowhere best in class. The Balkan countries, despite being at the back of the European bus, have higher levels of human development and income.
Turkey is a country in a desperate RUSH against time and the demographic realities: (1) it will get old before it gets rich, as it is still a middle income country and its demographic transition to below-replacement is happening faster than its economic development; (2) disaggregating its "replacement level" demographics are challenging realities - its the 30-40% of the population that is Kurdish that is grown, not the Sunni Turkish bit, and the Arab minority that was about 3-5 million is now approaching 10 million with migration. Trying to take over northern Syria & Iraq means more Arabs. The unifying logic of the white-Turk Kemalist Turkish state ( there are only Turks here, nothing else!, lucky is he who is a Turk) is over, but the constitution and socially immature politics are NOT prepared to function as a multi-ethnic state. Sunni Turks are no longer a majority, but a plurality that hasn't comes to terms with the implications. Traditionally it was conservative Islam that acted as the Ottoman "binding agent", and it seems there's a return to that. Finally (3) it has a HUGE economic dependency ratio, as a huge number of people are young and not in the workforce, women have low workforce participation, and there is a desperate need to increase trade to absorb this wave of young workers who could destabilize politics or otherwise brain-drain emigrate, which is what 60% of them desire according to polls.
This growth imperative points to one a key point: Turkey is also stuck in the middle income trap: it's economy doesn't make enough high-quality, high value added products that are price inelastic, but neither can it compete with China in middle and lower end products. It has found a niche in being the "final assembly line", using Chinese parts, Russian energy and an EU customs union to make thin margins but Turkey is too big to be niche. This arrangement allows it to build scale for exports it's trying to force into other markets, but it is orienting too much R&D on vanity military projects (Korea, by comparison, didn't start exporting military gear until it build civilian heavy industry to leverage off of). And as we have seen lately, the traditional exporters of military gear are ruthlessly aggressive against competitors.
A final thought: this ruthless, flip-flopping grand-bazar transnationalism and extortion approach to negotiations means Turkey lacks the credibility of a long term partner, they lack rule of law protections and are not agreement-capable. No-one will be inspire to be dependent on Turkey for critical transit or security if they can avoid it. It is relevant that once the Ottomans captured the western end of the Silk Route that Europeans set off to find the western passage to India.
If I though Turkey were a peaceful country I would wish it good luck, but Turkey is neo-imperialist, Islamofascist, violently anti-Christian and deeply destabilizing (much, much more than Iran). So instead I wish Turkey Karmic returns.
That’s a very long post built on some pretty questionable claims.
First, comparing Turkey’s development path to Japan or South Korea makes little sense. Both countries industrialised under extraordinary Cold War security and economic patronage from the United States. Turkey developed in a far more difficult geopolitical environment surrounded by conflict, instability and hostile neighbours. Pretending those contexts are comparable is simply not serious analysis.
Second, the claim that Balkan countries are broadly ahead of Turkey economically is outdated. Turkey’s HDI and income levels are already higher than several Balkan states such as Albania and North Macedonia, and not dramatically behind EU members like Bulgaria or Romania. A quick look at the data would make that clear.
But the most baffling part is the demographics. You claim Kurds make up 30–40% of the population and then add another ~10 million Arabs. If those numbers were remotely accurate. The Kurds should go ahead and declare a state now. According to your data Turks are the minority.
Turkey has plenty of challenges, like any large middle-income country, but posts like this read less like analysis and more like a collection of recycled talking points and exaggerated statistics.
Criticism is fine. Making things up to support it is not.
I find it interesting that you are challenging my points with very narrowly selected snippets of information. First, Japanese industrialization: it happened at the end of the 19th century after the Meiji reforms (which came 30 years after the Tanzimat reforms). Japanese RECONSTRUCTION happened during the cold war, and Turkey was also protected under the NATO umbrella. Main point stands: Turkey's accomplishment is underwhelming by Asian standards.
Secondly, they are unremarkable by Balkan standards, where Turkey still compares unfavorably. Most of the Balkans were trapped in communism, but from the end of WW1 until WW2 all the countries exceeded Turkey's development levels, with Albania being comparable. You have chosen the HDI levels of two of the least developed Balkan countries as a benchmark, instead of Slovenia, Croatia, Greece or even Bulgaria. The better benchmark for Turkey would be its middle east neighbors: Iraq, Iran & Syria where (prior to the Gulf wars and post-Shah sanctions) Turkey was middle of the pack.
Finally, accurate demographic statistics in Turkey are difficult to come by - every time Turkstat reports inflation it's Comedy Hour at Bloomberg. Of course the demographic census is not performed with the genuine intent to of finding the true number of minorities, everyone knows what happens to minorities in Turkey if they dare to ask for their rights (pogroms against Christians, burning Alewis alive, mass repression of Kurds). What can be pieced together are directionally correct estimates: Kurks have been "estimated at 15-20% of the population for two generations, despite having birthrates 2-3 times that of Sunni Turks. Arabs in Hatay and the southeast were estimated at 3-4 million BEFORE Turkey decided to intervene in Syria to remove Assad (and they cried for help with the refugees this resulted in, commonly estimated to be between 5-7 million). Even if the question were asked "Are you a Kurd/Arab", many minority citizens are weary to answer honestly and play along to stay alive.
The talking points that I do not accept, as they are propaganda points, is that Turkey is a miracle economy, bring peace and stability. It's a violent, deeply fascist, Islamofascist & irridentist state full of contradictions that it's running out of time to fix.
"This article is objective and evidence-based. While your comments remain unsubstantiated, the report’s findings are backed by proven facts. Although I find your comment very amusing, I unfortunately have to disappoint you: just because you wish for something and make a claim, that wishful thinking will not become reality.
Normally, I don’t pay attention to the ignorant, let alone go to the trouble of responding. In your case, however, I am making an exception. I recognize a pattern in your claims—a pattern that is nothing more than a virus designed to blind you.
I do not know who you are or what faith you belong to, but you cannot be a Muslim. In Islam, the pursuit of truth and knowledge is a sacred duty. It is written that the first creation was the Pen, and the very first commandment of the Quran is: 'Read, in the name of your Creator.' A true believer does not spread falsehoods or ignore evidence; they honor the Pen by seeking the truth, not by being blinded by a virus of misinformation.
Let me give you a piece of advice: The truth is not found in the surface of 'how it is,' but in the depth of 'why it is.' If you refuse to see the reason behind the facts, you will remain forever blinded by the very pattern you have chosen to follow."
So I am intellectually incompetent and metaphysically defective for challenging the "objective evidence" that Turkey is an Islamofascist state, and that Islamic majority countries are at the bottom of world development? No one has nation has killed more Christians than Turks throughout history, and it's also one of the top countries in killing Muslims (Kurds, Arabs) since WW2.
"It is fascinating how quickly you resort to putting words in my mouth. I never called you incompetent; I pointed out that your arguments lack a factual basis and are driven by a clear ideological bias.
If Turks were truly the 'enemies of Christianity' you claim, how do you explain that after 500 years of Ottoman rule, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Romanians maintained their faith, their languages, and their cultures? A truly 'eliminationist' power would not have allowed them to exist for five centuries. If you honestly ask yourself this question, you must realize that your narrative of pure hostility is flawed.
To understand the development of nations, one needs more than just emotional labels. It requires a deep understanding of the global 'stage' on which states act. I suggest you study concepts like 'Theatrum Mundi' and 'Theatrum Politicum' to understand how power is staged. Perhaps then you would grasp the role of the 'Mendacium necessarium' (the necessary lie) in the propaganda you are currently consuming.
You must realize that a glass can be half full and half empty at the same time. Depending on your vantage point, you represent a position that serves a specific goal. The same applies to information. Every piece of information is created by humans and often shaped to serve a national political will or a personal bias. It is a duty to verify whether information is truly objective or merely a construction designed to influence you.
Since you seem more interested in venting hostility than in a serious, evidence-based exchange, I will leave you to your 'Karmic returns.' There is no point in debating someone who refuses to see the depth of 'why' things are the way they are."
Interesting take, we’ll see how it all plays out. The “playing both sides against the middle”game has been the same for Turkey/the Ottomans since at least the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca and Erdogan is very good at it, I agree. Imo his real challenge is reigning in his ambition and not letting his ego (juiced up with dreams of Ottoman Imperial glory and Pan-Turanian fantasies) write checks his rear end can’t cash.
You guys are insane if you think Iranians will let Turks control anything in Iran
That wasn’t even suggested in this article.
Turks are distrusted as ancient colonial masters in every part of the Near East.
Distrusted by some; especially those who fear a rise of the “Brotherhood” who might threaten their own corrupt dominance.
I was replying to a comment not the article
Great article. Puts a different perspective on NATO.
Turkey’s influence in NATO is shaped by a combination of geography, military weight, diplomatic leverage, and its increasingly independent foreign policy. Its role is both indispensable and often complicated for the Alliance, creating a mix of strategic value and internal friction.
Strategic Geography and Regional Access
Turkey occupies one of the most important geostrategic positions in NATO. It controls the Bosporus and Dardanelles, the maritime chokepoints that regulate naval access between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. This gives Ankara a decisive role in shaping Russian naval movement, especially under the Montreux Convention, which Turkey has upheld during the war in Ukraine. Its territory also borders the Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Black Sea, making it a frontline state for crises involving Russia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Military Weight and Defense Capabilities
Turkey possesses NATO’s second‑largest military, providing mass, manpower, and a growing domestic defense industry. Its forces are not as uniformly professionalized as some Western militaries, but their size and regional deployment capacity give NATO significant operational depth. Turkish-made systems—such as the Bayraktar TB2 drone—have proven effective and cost‑efficient in conflicts from Ukraine to Libya, enhancing Turkey’s value as a defense producer within the Alliance.
Counterterrorism and Regional Security Role
Turkey has long been a frontline state against terrorism, facing threats from ISIS, the PKK, and other non‑state actors. NATO has recognized terrorism as a core challenge since the 1990s, and Turkey’s experience and geographic proximity make it central to the Alliance’s counterterrorism posture. Its contributions extend from intelligence cooperation to deployments in unstable regions.
Complications: Strategic Autonomy and Russia
Under President Erdoğan, Turkey has increasingly pursued strategic autonomy, acting unilaterally in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. These interventions often reflect national priorities—especially countering Kurdish groups—that do not always align with NATO’s collective objectives. Turkey’s deepening ties with Russia, including defense and energy cooperation, have created friction and raised concerns about NATO cohesion.
Diplomatic Leverage Inside NATO
Turkey frequently uses its position within NATO to extract concessions or shape outcomes. Examples include delaying coordinated action in Libya (2011) and holding up Finland and Sweden’s accession processes. While this transactional approach frustrates allies, Turkey has generally honored agreements once reached, and its core geopolitical interests remain aligned with NATO’s long‑term stability.
Contributions to Ukraine and Euro‑Atlantic Security
Despite tensions with Russia, Turkey has supported Ukraine through military aid and by restricting Russian naval movements. Its balancing act—maintaining dialogue with Moscow while supporting NATO’s strategic aims—illustrates both its complexity and its importance to the Alliance’s broader posture.
Overall Assessment
Turkey’s influence in NATO rests on four pillars:
• Geography: control of key waterways and proximity to conflict zones
• Military strength: the Alliance’s second‑largest army and a growing defense industry
• Counterterrorism experience: long-term engagement with regional threats
• Diplomatic leverage: the ability to shape or slow NATO decisions
This combination makes Turkey both a critical asset and a challenging partner, but its strategic value to NATO remains substantial.
Erdogan will calculate—but the key point the article leaves out the point is that under Peace Through Price, Trump has already priced Turkey’s ambitions. Instead of confronting Ankara directly, Washington has begun shaping the economic and logistical architecture around it. The Board of Peace framework turns post-war stabilization into a governed economic space, limiting unilateral leverage. The Armenia–Azerbaijan corridor (“Trump Passage” / TRIPP) restructures Caucasus transit routes under U.S.-anchored rules, pricing the geography that historically amplified Turkish influence. And the expanding C5+1 engagement with Central Asian republics inserts American investment, trade, and supply-chain logic into the same Turkic arc Ankara seeks to dominate. In other words, Turkey is not being opposed—it is being priced into a system where cooperation becomes cheaper than strategic freelancing. The same logic quietly applies to other regional actors as well: in Peace Through Price, influence flows not from speeches or ideology, but from who sets the corridors, insurance, contracts, and transaction costs that everyone else must live with.
Will the U.S. seize this opportunity to use NATO as the backbone of U.S. global power projection
NATO provides the legal, logistical, and geographic infrastructure that allows the U.S. to operate worldwide. Bases across Europe serve as forward hubs for operations in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. Without NATO, the U.S. would need dozens of separate agreements, each subject to local politics and “rent” payments. NATO gives the U.S. a stable, unified framework for global reach.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. can respond to crises faster, sustain operations longer, and deter adversaries more effectively.
2. Drive credible burden-sharing to strengthen deterrence
The U.S. remains the indispensable leader, but it cannot—and should not—carry the entire load. Washington’s leverage is strongest when it pushes allies toward real defense spending and real capabilities, not symbolic commitments. Analysts recommend setting spending targets at 3.5% of GDP across the Alliance to close capability gaps and ensure Europe can handle most conventional deterrence while the U.S. focuses on China.
Strategic payoff: Europe becomes a stronger pillar, freeing U.S. resources for the Indo‑Pacific without weakening deterrence against Russia.
3. Use NATO to contain Russia at low cost to the U.S.
NATO keeps Russia boxed in strategically. European allies provide the geography, the forward presence, and much of the day‑to‑day deterrence. The U.S. supplies the nuclear umbrella, high‑end capabilities, and command structure. This division of labor is efficient: the U.S. gets maximum deterrence for minimal incremental cost.
Strategic payoff: Russia remains deterred without requiring massive new U.S. deployments.
4. Shape NATO’s emerging China strategy
NATO is increasingly recognizing China as a systemic challenge. The U.S. can leverage the Alliance to:
• coordinate technology and supply‑chain security
• counter Chinese influence in Europe
• align Indo‑Pacific and Euro‑Atlantic strategies
• prevent China from splitting Europe from the U.S.
This is already a priority for U.S. leadership heading into upcoming NATO summits.
Strategic payoff: China faces a united transatlantic front rather than a divided West.
5. Maintain leadership of NATO’s command structure
The U.S. traditionally holds the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)—the most powerful military role in the Alliance. This gives Washington operational control in crisis and war, ensuring U.S. doctrine, planning, and priorities shape NATO’s actions. Upcoming appointments are strategically important for reinforcing U.S. leadership.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. sets the tempo, strategy, and operational framework for the entire Alliance.
6. Use NATO to stabilize Europe so the U.S. can focus on the Indo‑Pacific
A strong NATO reduces the likelihood of major conflict in Europe, allowing the U.S. to shift resources toward the Indo‑Pacific—where China poses the most significant long‑term challenge. This is a central theme in current U.S. strategy.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. avoids a two‑front crisis and preserves freedom of action.
7. Reinforce NATO as an economic and technological coalition
NATO is increasingly a platform for:
• cybersecurity
• critical infrastructure protection
• energy security
• technology standards
• countering economic coercion
These areas directly affect U.S. prosperity and resilience. NATO’s collective weight amplifies U.S. influence in global economic competition.
Strategic payoff: The U.S. shapes the rules of the global economy with
Fingers crossed for a new Middle Eastern order upheld by Turkey, Israel, the UAE, and a democratic, post-Islamist Iran
Turkey created Dracula. Just saying.
The game in especially the Northern Middle East has always been about who is most prepared for when new opportunities come, because they come. With Saddam’s Iraq gone, in stepped Iran. Now with Iran gone, it could be Turkey. And Turkey will not go.
Very interesting times.
That’s a very long post built on some pretty questionable claims.
First, comparing Turkey’s development path to Japan or South Korea makes little sense. Both countries industrialised under extraordinary Cold War security and economic patronage from the United States. Turkey developed in a far more difficult geopolitical environment surrounded by conflict, instability and hostile neighbours. Pretending those contexts are comparable is simply not serious analysis.
Second, the claim that Balkan countries are broadly ahead of Turkey economically is outdated. Turkey’s HDI and income levels are already higher than several Balkan states such as Albania and North Macedonia, and not dramatically behind EU members like Bulgaria or Romania. A quick look at the data would make that clear.
But the most baffling part is the demographics. You claim Kurds make up 30–40% of the population and then add another ~10 million Arabs. If those numbers were remotely accurate, Turks would Turkey. Heck the Kurds should go ahead and declare a state now. According to your data Turks are the minority.
Turkey has plenty of challenges, like any large middle-income country, but posts like this read less like analysis and more like a collection of recycled talking points and exaggerated statistics.
Criticism is fine. Making things up to support it is not.
An enlightening analysis.
If only all these old men despots would just DIE and give younger generations a chance and a "say" in their futures.
Dreams and hope rhetoric. You hate your own people for the ideologies of others. It is not beyond ideology, it is bathing and rejoicing in ideology that you should title your substack!!!!
I guess the real question is what will Turkey do with all this power and influence? Will it stand up to apartheid Israel? Power comes with responsibility. For all its flaws, at least Iran tried to help the Palestinians and Lebanese defend themselves. Hopefully Turkey will use its new power for good.