Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: A Turkish Perspective on the NATO Summit in Ankara - journalist Ilker Sezer writes on Turkiye Today

12 July 2026

Last week, commonspace.eu covered extensively the NATO summit in Ankara, held on 7-8 July. The summit was a success for Turkiye but not so much for anyone else. We are republishing in full the article of Turkish jounalist, Ilker Sezer, the Managing Editor of Turkiye Today, that sums up the Turkish perspective.

 

"Watching Trump live in the press room felt strange. You can’t just change the TV channel like you do at home,” said an experienced Turkish journalist after Trump ended his press conference in Ankara. 

During the presser, Trump called a journalist insecure for eagerly waiting for the microphone and told a female reporter she was working for a failing network. Witnessing it all live feels different. Trump showed little empathy in how he handled both exchanges, a pattern some argue is better for a therapist’s couch than a press briefing. 

The foreign policy subjects he touched on are difficult to analyze with any certainty, given how quickly he can change his mind overnight. Some people call it strategic ambiguity, but there might be some simpler explanations for it. 

Overall, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte designed the summit to please Trump. The steps he took and called revolutionary were not really that. They replaced American equipment with European alternatives rather than genuinely strengthening NATO’s defense capabilities. This was about keeping Trump happy, not about advancing NATO’s defense capabilities.  

Almost 20 minutes after Trump concluded his remarks on the second day of the NATO summit, President Erdogan stepped before the press in the same room, and his mood was notably upbeat. He cracked jokes, made fun of a Greek reporter, and he was pleased because all the questions were too repetitive to tire him. He dodged two questions, including a straight, yes-or-no question on the “casus belli” issue with Greece. 

Erdogan sounded intent on avoiding escalation, inviting the Greek side to the table rather than entertaining any sort of military tension. He was careful not to disturb the mood that the NATO summit had created, one that arguably cemented Türkiye’s role as a strong peace advocate, and a nation that deters but leads with diplomacy. 

Erdogan certainly enjoys the current geopolitics. Foreign leaders who were once vocal about “democratic backsliding” and “Türkiye’s aggressive foreign policy steps” are not so concerned anymore. Rutte is not very much concerned either, he dodged a question on that quickly. But the question that visibly unsettled him was more pointed: whether he was losing “self-respect” by staying silent when Trump attacked every NATO ally sitting next to him. His face said what his words did not. 

Yet, there is a bigger aspect. If you think Erdogan is politically cornered and will be beaten easily in the next presidential elections, consider changing your friend circle. Sitting too much in Beyoglu cafe or attending an international conference in Istanbul will not really teach you much about Turkish domestic politics. 

Erdogan still enjoys broad support among his traditional voter base, and the fact that he kept the country safe while the south and the north were a fireball boosts his chances. And this is all despite the economic crisis, and imprisonment of major political figures. Erdogan does not need Trump’s support for international legitimacy or to take steps he wants in Turkish politics. I can mention countless examples where he did not care about international reactions in both cases. However, the international support, especially what he sees from Trump, is a game changer in Türkiye's regional rivalry with Israel which Türkiye started to deem existential. 

While Erdogan’s domestic standing is largely insulated, his military and diplomatic wishlist is very real—and sitting at the top is the unresolved F-35 fighter jet issue. So, what did Trump actually say on the matter before leaving Ankara? True to form, he didn't offer a signed contract, but he left the door wide open. During the summit, Trump stopped short of explicitly overriding congressional opposition but publicly acknowledged that selling the stealth jets to Türkiye "made sense." He openly mused to the press, "Why wouldn't we do that?" and stated it was "certainly something we will consider." For a highly transactional leader like Trump, framing the potential sale as a logical move rather than a geopolitical concession is a massive rhetorical shift. 

I briefly interviewed U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham in Ankara who said he is open to such a sale, but he recognized that there might be some difficulties in the Congress. He kept praising Türkiye as being the only Muslim nation in NATO, but he ignored my last question when I asked why Türkiye’s Muslim identity would be an important factor in a defense alliance. 

Erdogan expertly played with Trump's ego, implying that “Mr. Trump always keeps his word.” There are five Turkish F-35s rotting in U.S. military bases, and Erdogan requires a quick solution on them to break the ice to acquire more in the future. Even if the F-35s remain stuck in bureaucratic limbo for now, the prospect of lifting sanctions or securing U.S.-made engines for Türkiye’s indigenous KAAN fighter aircraft serves as a significant diplomatic victory. It signals to domestic audiences and regional rivals alike that Ankara is back in Washington’s good graces through direct leader-to-leader chemistry. 

Beyond bilateral hardware deals, the broader takeaway from the Ankara summit was how the alliance handled the most explosive issue on the table: the ongoing war in Iran. For the first time, NATO managed to declare a joint position on Iran, presenting a united front despite severe internal fractures. However, the joint position did not offer anything groundbreaking. 

Trump arrived in Türkiye deeply frustrated, publicly bashing European allies for not adequately supporting the U.S. during the initial strikes. Yet, the final communiques managed to paper over these transatlantic cracks, delivering a unified statement on collective defense. However, the most fascinating aspect of this joint position wasn't what was included but what was left out: there was absolutely no mention of China. I witnessed an Aussie journalist being frustrated about that. Ultimately, the Ankara summit proved that while NATO can still choreograph a display of unity against a regional adversary, it remains slightly paralyzed on how to address the global elephant in the room".

source: Ilker Sezer, the Managing Editor of Turkiye Today, His article appeared first in this publication on 11 July

picture: The family photo of NATO leaders at the NATO summit in Ankara

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut