Physical Address
Indirizzo: Via Mario Greco 60, Buttigliera Alta, 10090, Torino, Italy
In international relations, alliances are generally based not on shared values, but on shared threat perceptions. However, the way you perceive these threats is just as crucial in determining the nature of your relations. Türkiye’s relations with the two major European actors, the United Kingdom and Germany, constitute a striking example of this difference.
Today, Ankara pursues a more flexible, security-based and pragmatic relationship with London, while maintaining a normative, economic, yet politically tense dialogue with Berlin. This situation stems not only from the two countries’ perspectives on Türkiye but also from the fact that Europe is no longer a single center for foreign policy.
This landscape also reflects Türkiye’s way of adapting to the multipolar world order: a multi-axis foreign policy that establishes relations at different levels with different countries.
London: Realist flexibility
Post-Brexit, the U.K. has stepped out of the European Union, adopting a more realist and flexible orientation in its foreign policy. The “Global Britain” vision envisions London forging new alliances not only across the Atlantic but also in the Mediterranean and Eurasia. Within this vision, Türkiye has become one of the key actors, standing out in terms of both geographical access and security capacity.
In this framework, the Ankara-London relations are founded on congruence of interests rather than the normative cooperation dictated by institutional ties. Both countries are seeking autonomy within the international system. This shared motivation is leading to coordinated steps in the fields of security and defense. Türkiye’s procurement process for the Eurofighter Typhoon is not just an arms deal but also a strategic step toward the integration of the two countries’ defense ecosystems. In this process, the U.K. is not merely a technology provider but a geopolitical partner in Türkiye’s defense modernization.
From Türkiye’s perspective, the Eurofighter issue is not solely a defense industry project, but also a part of the quest for strategic autonomy within the West. With this cooperation, Ankara aims both to continue its contribution to NATO’s collective defense system and to secure a more flexible position within the Western alliance. Defense technology collaborations developed with the U.K. also support Türkiye’s vision for technological independence.
Ankara-London relations, eventually, bear the potential to evolve into a “special relationship.” This is an interest-based rapprochement centered around shared threat perceptions such as European security, terrorism and energy security. However, this relationship also points to a security partnership supported by permanent institutional ties within the NATO framework.
A notable element in London’s approach to Türkiye is pragmatism devoid of ideological judgments. The U.K. regards Türkiye not as a “problematic” but as a “necessary” actor in Europe. This stance ensures the stable progress of bilateral relations because British foreign policy comes from a tradition that prioritizes interest diplomacy over the classic “values diplomacy” of the West (especially Europe). British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent visit and the way he positioned the Eurofighter sale for the British economy and politics is the latest concrete example of this pragmatism.
In this framework, the Ankara-London axis can today be considered one of the prototypes of the era of flexible alliances. This alliance can be defined as security-prioritized, economically complementary, politically independent and technologically integrated.
Berlin: Limits of normativity
Türkiye-Germany relations are much older, deep-rooted, but also have a more complex structure. Beyond the diplomatic ties spanning over a century, the population of more than 3 million people of Turkish origin living in Germany has elevated the relations to the level of “people-based diplomacy.” However, despite this intensity, Ankara-Berlin relations today are defined by normative tensions rather than strategic ones.
Germany’s foreign policy has historically been identified with the concept of “European normative power.” This approach places values, rule of law principles and human rights at the center of foreign policy. When it comes to Türkiye, Berlin often takes a position based on these values. However, this situation limits the potential for strategic cooperation between the two countries. The support Türkiye expected from Germany in defense procurement, such as the most recent example of the Eurofighter acquisition process, is a concrete reflection of Berlin’s normative approach.
Nevertheless, Germany also knows that Türkiye is indispensable for European security. Migration management, energy supply, the Black Sea balance and crises in the Middle East compel Berlin to continue cooperation with Ankara. Berlin often attempts to balance this strategic reality with domestic political sensitivities. The Turkish diaspora, domestic politics, human rights rhetoric and commitment to the EU framework narrow Germany’s flexibility in relations with Ankara.
Therefore, Türkiye-Germany relations have become a “political paradox” where interdependence is high but strategic depth is limited. Berlin views Türkiye not as a partner, but as a file that needs to be managed; while Ankara defines Germany as a compulsory partner. The path the German government finds most advantageous for aligning these conditions with Berlin’s politics is for Türkiye to build common norms by deepening its relations with the EU. This will allow the relations to gain strategic depth. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s emphasis on the EU process and strategic relations during his Ankara visit should also be evaluated in this manner.
Türkiye in new European reality
Europe is no longer a monolithic whole; it is evolving toward a multipolar and multicentric structure. With different countries like France, Italy and even Poland having different expectations, Germany continues to maintain economic caution, while the U.K. keeps alive its claim to be a global actor again. This situation also affects how Türkiye redefines its relations with the West. Ankara now rejects the “either in the EU or out” dilemma; instead, it pursues a “fragmented yet complementary European policy” by forging partnerships of different depths with various capitals. This both increases strategic diversity and allows Türkiye to secure a flexible position within the European security architecture.
For Ankara, relations with the U.K. offer an orientation complementary, not an alternative, to the West in NATO and defense spheres. Relations with Germany, on the other hand, provide institutional legitimacy for sustaining economic and political engagements within the EU. The differentiation in Türkiye’s relations with the U.K. and Germany, while seemingly a diplomatic diversification on the surface, is actually an indicator of a deeper transformation: Ankara is now constructing a multicentric strategic identity instead of a monocentric foreign policy.
This new identity makes Türkiye an indispensable element of both European security and Eurasian stability. Strategic innovation with the U.K. and economic continuity with Germany; one supports Türkiye’s global reach, the other its internal stability. At the intersection of these two lines, Türkiye is shifting from an actor that “establishes balance” to one that “produces balance.”
In this context, Türkiye is gaining a hybrid actor identity that combines the U.K.’s “realist flexibility” in security and Germany’s “institutional stability” in the economy, moving from the periphery of Europe to its center. And this transformation is deep enough to compel not only Türkiye but also Europe to redefine its own strategic autonomy in the future.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance, values or position of Daily Sabah. The newspaper provides space for diverse perspectives as part of its commitment to open and informed public discussion.
