Why Turkiye opposes a separate EU defense union

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine marked a major turning point for European security. US President Donald Trump’s stance on reducing support for the continent has put European states in an even more difficult position, pushing them to seek alternative ways to strengthen their security. This is why Turkiye is today being seen as a potential partner.

Turkiye’s relations with the EU, NATO and the broader Western world have never been a bed of roses. Despite numerous issues testing these relationships, Turkiye has consistently framed itself as an indispensable actor for the West. Now, Europe’s doubts about long-term US security commitments have left the EU with little choice but to develop a new approach toward Turkiye. This was not necessarily the EU’s preferred choice, but rather the result of certain realities.

Turkiye, for its part, has taken advantage of this indispensability given its geostrategic position, balanced ties with Russia despite EU sanctions, growing defense industry, and status as NATO’s second-largest military force and third-largest contributor to the alliance’s missions and operations.

For months, there has been a closeness between Ankara and several Western capitals. Turkiye was even described as a “like-minded” non-EU partner by the bloc, which led many to describe this as bringing new momentum to Turkiye-EU relations. Also, this momentum has been interpreted as a pragmatic approach toward Turkiye by Brussels. So, hopes were high that this would not become yet another failed attempt to further their relations.

However, the EU is a fragmented bloc, lacking a unified stance among its members despite facing the same security challenges. This fragmentation has led to missed opportunities in the past and seems to be leading to more in the future of EU-Turkiye relations.

A statement made on Monday by Turkish Ambassador to NATO Basat Ozturk supports this argument. Ozturk, speaking at a gathering in Brussels, criticized the idea of an independent EU defense union. He said it risks dividing the NATO alliance at a time when unity remains essential for collective security. “No alliance within an alliance,” he noted, arguing that creating a separate military alliance within the existing transatlantic framework would discriminate against non-EU NATO members such as Turkiye.

Ozturk emphasized that Turkiye’s exclusion from the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation Military Mobility project reflected clear discrimination and that, under current EU rules, Turkish forces would be unable to transit EU territory. This is despite the fact Turkiye would be expected to provide reinforcements in a worst-case scenario.

Ankara has long insisted on being a part of Europe’s defense programs and having a say in how the bloc shapes its security. On several occasions, Turkiye has also expressed its willingness to assume an active role in EU defense procurement. But the EU views Turkiye mostly through the lens of its membership bid and political disagreements.

It is now even more puzzling that such an idea is being discussed at a time when there has been no progress on Ukraine-Russia negotiations and the Trump administration is signaling a pivot away from Europe. While these developments heighten the EU’s sense of insecurity, excluding Turkiye would be yet another example of the bloc’s irrational decision-making.

Ankara has long insisted on being a part of Europe’s defense programs and having a say in how the bloc shapes its security

Dr. Sinem Cengiz

In the absence of US support, it is crystal clear that the EU would not be able to deter Russia effectively without closer cooperation with Ankara. However, some EU states apparently seem to not be comfortable with the idea of overreliance on Turkiye, which is perceived by them as being opportunistic rather than a reliable actor.

As Ozturk stated, Turkiye opposes the creation of an alliance within an alliance. Why? First, Ankara views such a move as discriminatory, because it seeks to not only be part of the European security architecture but also a key actor in shaping it. Given the lack of progress in Turkiye’s EU membership bid and stalled negotiations over the customs union, Turkiye has sought to leverage security as a key element in its relationship with the bloc.

Second, it would undermine the progress Turkiye is trying to achieve with the EU — most importantly, by lessening its leverage and relevance in European security perception.

Third, Turkiye has been exporting defense industry products to some EU states and a separate union could negatively affect the purchasing decisions of others that are planning to procure its defense technology. If such a union were to be established, the EU states would seek to harmonize their defense industries.

Fourth, Turkiye sees NATO as the core of European security and creating a separate defense union would institutionalize its exclusion. So far, NATO membership has been a key instrument for shaping Turkiye’s relations with Western states, particularly EU countries. This was clear when Turkiye initially used its veto power over Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO. A separate EU defense union would likely position Turkiye in a secondary role, limiting its influence, something a middle power like Ankara, which has geopolitical ambitions, would want to avoid.

The creation of a separate EU defense union would mark a shift in the European security architecture toward a formation where Ankara has no seat at the table. For now, the EU still has several limitations in terms of creating such a union — and Ankara is well aware of this. Turkiye’s harsh stance toward this idea shows that Ankara and the EU are at a critical moment in their relations.

• Dr. Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye’s relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz