The Ankara Summit: A Stage for Leverage
Excluded from parts of Europe's emerging defense-industrial initiatives while possessing one of NATO's largest armed forces and a rapidly expanding defense industry, Ankara has used the summit to press for greater inclusion, recognition, and political influence. Rather than arriving as a partner seeking consensus, Erdoğan arrives as a negotiator determined to raise Turkey's price.
By hosting the summit, Erdoğan also succeeds in shifting the international narrative. Instead of discussions centering on democratic backsliding, political repression, or deteriorating rule of law inside Turkey, allied leaders find themselves emphasizing Turkey's strategic importance, Black Sea access, migration management, and military capabilities. Strategic necessity once again eclipses democratic principles.
The West is continously turning a blind eye to repeated public outcries: “There’s no freedom of thought, separation of power, or independence of courts in Turkey. We want freedom of thought before we can talk…” said once the Turkish Nobel laureate novelist Orhan Pamuk, who confirmed that a Damocles sword hangs over you every time you exercise the freedom of speech.
The silence surrounding Turkey's domestic trajectory is therefore not accidental. It reflects an uncomfortable calculation: many NATO governments conclude that confronting Ankara carries greater immediate costs than accommodating it.
A Long Record
This summit is not an exception but another chapter in a well-established pattern. Erdoğan has repeatedly demonstrated that he views NATO membership less as a collective commitment than as an instrument of national bargaining.
The Nordic Accession Veto (2022–2024)
Turkey delayed Sweden's and Finland's NATO accession for nearly two years, using its veto to demand changes to counterterrorism legislation, extradition requests, and progress on long-delayed American F-16 sales.
Whether every Turkish security concern was legitimate is almost beside the point. What became unmistakable was that NATO enlargement had become leverage in a broader negotiation extending well beyond collective defense.
The S-400 Purchase
The acquisition of Russia's S-400 missile defense system marked one of the most serious breaches of NATO interoperability in the Alliance's history.
Despite repeated warnings from Washington and other allies, Erdoğan proceeded with the purchase, fully aware that it would trigger sanctions and Turkey's removal from the F-35 fighter program. Rather than reconsidering the decision, Ankara portrayed itself as the aggrieved party while demanding compensation from its allies.
The message was clear: Turkish strategic autonomy would take precedence over Alliance cohesion whenever Erdoğan judged it politically advantageous.
The Aftermath of the 2016 Coup Attempt
Following the failed coup, thousands of officers—including many with extensive NATO experience—were dismissed or imprisoned.
At the same time, Erdoğan increasingly portrayed Western governments as unsympathetic, and at times even complicit, in Turkey's internal security challenges. The result was a profound erosion of trust between Turkey and many of its NATO partners that has never been fully repaired.
Playing Both Sides
Perhaps the defining feature of Erdoğan's foreign policy is strategic ambiguity.
Turkey remains firmly inside NATO while simultaneously cultivating relationships that often run directly against broader Western objectives.
It has refused to participate in Western sanctions against Russia, maintaining extensive commercial, financial, tourism, and energy ties with Moscow even after Russia's invasion to Ukraine.
It has pursued closer engagement with BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, presenting itself as an independent Eurasian power rather than a committed member of the Western political community.
It has simultaneously supplied military equipment to Ukraine while preserving close diplomatic channels with the Kremlin, allowing Ankara to portray itself as indispensable to both sides.
Control of the Turkish Straits under the Montreux Convention, combined with its expanding defense industry and geographic position, gives Ankara considerable leverage. Erdoğan has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to use that leverage whenever it advances Turkish interests.
Erdoğan's Own Words
This behavior should surprise no one. For years Erdoğan has argued that NATO has failed to demonstrate sufficient solidarity with Turkey while insisting that Ankara must pursue an independent foreign policy regardless of Western objections.
- He has repeatedly criticized allies for supporting Kurdish groups that Turkey considers terrorist organizations.
- He has accused Western governments of hypocrisy over democracy and human rights.
- He has argued that Turkey should never be forced to choose between Russia and the West.
- He has insisted that Turkish sovereignty comes before Alliance expectations.
Taken individually, such statements may be defensible as expressions of national interest. Taken together, they reveal a consistent philosophy: NATO is valuable insofar as it advances Turkish objectives, not because it embodies shared political values or enduring strategic solidarity.
Why Does the West Continue to Accept This?
The answer is not that Western governments fail to recognize the pattern. They recognize it all too well. They simply judge the alternatives to be worse.
- Turkey hosts critical military infrastructure, including Incirlik Air Base.
- It possesses NATO's second-largest military.
- It controls access to the Black Sea through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles.
- It remains central to migration management between the Middle East and Europe.
In short, Turkey is too important to isolate. As the United States increasingly prioritizes competition with China, Washington has become even more dependent on capable regional powers to secure Europe's southern flank. This inevitably increases Ankara's bargaining power.
Meanwhile, many European governments have grown accustomed to Erdoğan's recurring brinkmanship. Rather than confronting every dispute, they often choose accommodation, hoping to preserve broader Alliance unity. The consequence is a cycle in which every successful act of political leverage encourages the next one.
Conclusion
The Ankara Summit ultimately reveals less about NATO's strength than about its internal vulnerabilities. Turkey is increasingly behavy as a transactional partner rather than a consistently reliable one. Alliance solidarity has frequently given way to hard bargaining, strategic ambiguity, and calculated obstruction whenever these serve Ankara's interests.
This does not mean Turkey is "pro-Russian," nor does it mean Ankara seeks to leave NATO. Quite the opposite. Erdoğan appears to understand that remaining inside the Alliance while resisting many of its political expectations maximizes Turkey's influence.
That strategy has worked remarkably well;
Every veto increases Turkey's leverage.
Every crisis raises its strategic value.
Every Western concession reinforces the belief that NATO ultimately needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO.
Perhaps that is the most remarkable aspect of the Ankara Summit. The performance has been repeated for years. Everyone in the audience knows the script. Yet they continue applauding anyway.
How is it that so few are willing to acknowledge the Turkish theater unfolding in Ankara?
.png)
