Introduction

The international system that we live in was designed by the end of World War II and has been functioning pretty much the same way since, with some ups and downs. Although state sovereignty is central to it, global institutions allowed cooperation and collaboration among sovereign states through political, legal and economic institutions. The key principles of the system were its dedication to peace, stability and the rule of law. Cooperation is complex and hard to achieve, but these institutions made it possible by reducing uncertainty, increasing transparency and building trust.

The United Nations General Assembly provided a platform where all sovereign states could be represented. The United Nations Security Council functioned as the main decision-making mechanism on critical issues, particularly those related to international peace and security. Economic and financial institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the World Bank supported cooperation by facilitating trade, providing financial assistance, and promoting economic stability. Meanwhile, judicial bodies like the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court helped resolve disputes and promote accountability at the international level. Although the system had its flaws, mainly because the states are not treated equally and decision making is usually politicized based on the interests of the leading actors, it provided guidance and framework for the world peace.

The U.S. has ostensibly been the key promoter of the rules-based order, as well as liberalism and free market economy, however, it appears to have changed with Trump. His policies getting more intensified in his second term, he is often criticized for his unconventional way of communication, polarizing rhetoric, acts of undermining institutions and multilateralism, disrespect for the international law and democratic norms as well as being protectionist and transactional. His motto has been "America First" from the start, as he drifted away from multilateralism and focused solely on the U.S. interests. For this, he has not refrained from alienating not just adversaries but also its long-time allies like the EU. He challenged state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada and Greenland. He adopted protectionist measures by using tariffs as leverage in negotiations, even against the transatlantic allies. At the same time, he questioned U.S. security guarantees and pressured Europe to increase their contributions to NATO, eventually pushing them to pursue an independent security architecture. He came to power with the promise of bringing peace to prolonged conflicts, but failed to do so, as he brought along new conflicts. These are a few of many examples in which he openly challenges the rules-based world order, the U.S. has once itself promoted.

Although his individual leadership style is a rupture in terms of U.S. Foreign Policy, Trump's policies could be interpreted as continuity within American Foreign Policy. In other words, Trump's approach to foreign policy is not new but just more intense, faster and more overt compared to that of his predecessors. As the once-hegemon U.S. declines, rising China challenges its global power and influence. The rules-based international system, democracy and free market economy which once served the U.S. interests, have increasingly been serving the interests of a rising China and, potentially, other developing countries. The international system has entered a period of multipolarity, after a brief period of U.S. hegemony, while Russia under Putin's leadership started to pursue a more assertive foreign policy and China's economy developed at a fast pace.

Moreover, regional powers or middle powers seek more autonomy and influence. As a response to that, U.S wants to restore its power and influence. Therefore, U.S. now needs to change the rules of the system which itself has set, in the first place. Starting with the Obama period through the "Pivot to Asia" foreign policy strategy, U.S. has recognized the threat of rising China and gradually adapted its policies based on the central theme of strategic rivalry. In a few decades, we moved from discussing Fukuyama's thesis of "End of History" (1989) to wondering if China's rise would be a peaceful one (Mearshimer, 2005). As Allison puts it in the "Thucydides Trap", whenever there is a rising power challenging an existing hegemon, a confrontation is inevitable (2017).

This central challenge was intensified with key events like 2008 global economic crisis, refugee crisis in the wake of Arab uprisings and finally the pandemic and the following economic slowdown. These consecutive crises revealed the weaknesses of the system and led to the rise of far-right political parties, anti-establishment approaches and populism across the world. Furthermore, wars and conflicts have escalated in Ukraine, Palestine and recently in Iran, while civil wars persist in Yemen or Sudan. Even in conflicts that seem to have been settled, such as in Syria, peace remains fragile.

Whether we conceptualize it as an end, a transformation or a struggle to adapt (Ikenberry, 2018), it is uncertain where the international system is heading. Uncertainties always contain risks and opportunities and for Turkey, a middle power looking for stability, growth and autonomy, being located at such a geostrategic position, this has required a careful balancing act so far. However, as the world enters a critical juncture and conflicts escalate, this task will become even more challenging, and the decisions to be made may significantly shape Turkey's future in global politics.

History

After World War II, the U.S. and the Soviet Union emerged as the two great powers, forming a bipolar world order in the Cold War setting. During the Cold War, we saw states "band-wagoning" either with the United States or the Soviet Union (Walt, 1987). As the Cold War came to an end, the liberal ideology was the winning side and most nations, including the newly formed ones after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, engaged with the Western system, increasingly becoming free-market economies and democracies. In the 90s, we experienced the unipolar moment marked by U.S. dominance. However, U.S. hegemony started to be questioned by the 9/11 attacks and the military operations carried out afterwards. U.S military operations, thus US hegemony gradually lost legitimacy. 2008 economic crisis, triggered by the U.S. sub-prime mortgage crisis, raised concerns about free market capitalism and globalization. In 2007, Putin's speech at the Munich security conference pointed out the inequalities and imbalances of the system and called for a more multipolar world. Shortly after, we stepped into a multipolar world order, where Russia under Putin's leadership started to pursue a more assertive foreign policy and China developed at a fast pace.

Trump rose to power in such a period. He entered U.S. politics in 2015 and was elected 45th President of the U.S. by the end of 2016. He served his first term from 2017 to 2021. After losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden, he came back to the White House in 2025 for his second term. Trump's rise to US presidency challenged traditional American politics as he was an unconventional politician in many ways. He, who previously was a real estate developer and a TV personality, is widely criticized for being a populist, due to discriminating and antagonizing policies against immigrants and minority groups, deep skepticism of global institutions and careless approach towards the international law and the rule of law in general.

His statements are often inconsistent and his intensive use of social media set the agenda globally, usually in a controversial and polarizing way. As he focused on the American interests by chanting the motto of "America First", he prioritizes national sovereignty, border control, trade protectionism and a transactional approach to foreign relations. The upside was that he promised to end regional conflicts such as the ones in Palestine, Ukraine and Armenia. However, his approaches to build peace were mostly shallow and unlikely to yield any long-term results. Furthermore, his intervention to Venezuela and Iran clearly showed that he pursued American material interests, as both countries sought oil trade in local currencies. His bold rhetoric reached millions through social platforms, making American politics the center of attention for the whole world. Although Trump today appears to advocate a retreat to the Western Hemisphere as outlined in his National Security Strategy, the strategic rivalry with China is unlikely to diminish, and the United States is in no fundamentally different position than it was during Obama's "Pivot to Asia", only more assertive. Thus, the "Donroe Doctrine", reference to the famous Monroe Doctrine followed by the U.S. until WW2, is only an attempt at economic recovery before going back to the strategic rivalry with China.

Trump's First Term: Trump's first term was marked by economic nationalization, immigration and border controls as well as critical approach to NATO. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act significantly lowered tax rates for both individuals and companies, aiming to boost consumption, manufacturing and growth. Trump reversed many Obama period regulations, especially the ones related to environmental protection, financial oversight and labor laws. We witnessed an ambitious deregulation program, aiming to contribute to economic growth. Trump supported this plan by favoring fossil fuel development as well as withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. This means rejecting climate commitments like the shift to renewable energy. His first term raised concerns about border security measures such as building a wall between the U.S and Mexico or travel bans for predominantly Muslim countries, although it contradicts with his ambitions of growth and reshoring industries. He consolidated power by replacing retiring supreme court judges and cementing a more conservative legacy. He antagonized the woke culture and became more appealing to his conservative voter base, who felt alienated as a result of rapid social changes in the last decades.

At the international level, he imposed tariffs mainly on China as well as other trading partners. This move challenged the foundations of the free market economy. He has withdrawn from Trans-Pacific Partnership which is a trade agreement between countries that surround the Pacific. The divergence with the EU also started in this period. Trump, stating that the U.S. was carrying the economic burden of NATO alone, demanded that European allies meet their contribution target of 2% of their GDP. Issues with NATO, declining multilateralism and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement were signaling the divergence from the EU, but it was only the beginning.

During his term, there was a clear continuity in the alliance with Israel, if not a stronger one. In the middle East, Trump brokered the Abraham Accords, in order to normalize relations between Israel and the MENA countries UAE, Bahrein, Moracco and Sudan. It was a clear example of Trump's transactional approach. Countries received incentives in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel. Another important point of the first term was the withdrawal from the Iranian Deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It was negotiated in the Obama period in 2015 between Iran and P5+1 (UNSC permanent members and Germany) in order to monitor Iran's nuclear program and remove the economic sanctions in return. It would later pave the way for waging war on Iran. When Joe Biden took the office, he attempted to go back to the deal but he did not succeed.

Trump's Second Term: Donald Trump returned to the presidency for a second term in January 2025. From the beginning we have seen a more intensified approach to his priorities of the first term. The tariffs have been expanded significantly. We saw a more ambitious industrial policy to secure the U.S. leadership in technology and critical industries. He increased domestic chip manufacturing, investments in tech-companies and focused on the security of the supply chains. He showed his willingness to negotiate in exchange for reducing the tariffs he has initially claimed. This time, he has become much more transactional in the bilateral relations.

He increased pressure on the European allies regarding NATO contributions, even threatening to reduce security guarantees. Meanwhile, the U.S. citizens have become exhausted of financing overseas conflicts like Gaza and Ukraine. This made it convenient to use the idea of peace both as a campaign promise and as leverage in negotiations with the EU over NATO contributions, signaling that the Ukrainian war was not an American War but a European war. This way, he was able to increase European defense spending, but he also pushed the EU to pursue an independent security architecture.

As part of the campaign promises, Trump took concrete steps for building the peace in prolonged conflicts like Gaza and Ukraine, although they remained controversial due to not bringing a permanent peace and being biased. The 20-point peace plan called for immediate ceasefire, but Palestinians were not involved in this plan. It was rather imposed on them. Points like governance of Gaza, disarming Hamas or withdrawal of Israeli army, made it easy to stop the peace process for both sides. The plan failed to resolve major issues that Palestinians are concerned with, such as the annexed territories of the West Bank. In the end, the plan was said to be amended in such a way that Hamas would reject it (Kuttab, 2025). Similarly, the 28-point peace plan for Ukraine was heavily criticized for being pro-Russian. Russia would keep all the territory they have invaded, which corresponded to 20% of the whole Ukrainian territory. Ukraine would not be able to join NATO in the future and this provision would be enshrined in the Ukrainian constitution. Unfortunately, the plan does not appear to be effective, as the war continues months after the peace plan was proposed.

The National Security Strategy (NSS), presented by Trump in his second term, emphasized his priorities as well as revealing a different stance in terms of redesigning the U.S. foreign policy. NSS identifies China as the primary long-term systemic competitor. Therefore, it leads to expanding tariffs, reshoring industries and redesigning supply chains as well as restricting capital flows to China (2025). In practice, Trump has openly threatened countries which intend to do trade in local currencies instead of US dollars. This is seen as one of the reasons behind the end of Maduro's presidency in Venezuela (McGeever, 2026). The NSS also presents the US intention to focus on the Western hemisphere, resembling the Monroe Doctrine. This implies that Europe is left to Russian dominance and Asia to Chinese dominance, at least in the short term. In this document, sovereignty is seen to be overriding multilateral commitments. Therefore, alliances are conditional and valid as long as they serve to American interests such as the transatlantic alliance.

The withdrawal from JCPOA in the first term has paved the way for an intervention to Iran in the second term. The U.S. and Israel carried out the 12-days war to damage Iran's nuclear capabilities by targeting key nuclear plants and nuclear scientists. As we were trying to figure out how much the program fell behind or if Iran had any remarkable capabilities at the first place, U.S.-Israel coalition stroke back, killing the religious leader Khamanei and other key figures who played key roles for the survival of the regime in Iran.

The World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos was the stage for leaders to present their own interpretation of how we have come to the end of the rules-based order. German chancellor Merz stated "The international order of the past three decades, anchored in international law, has always been imperfect. Today, its very foundations have been shaken" (2026). The prime minister of Canada, Carney in his speech stated that the system's power came not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source (2026).

When we look back at the Trump era, we clearly see the failure of the rules-based order, not because his policies strictly differed from his predecessors, but because he stopped acting as if the rules-based order was true and that it worked. In an era in which the world politics go through such a vast structural change, under Trump's leadership, what kind of a foreign policy strategy should a middle power like Turkey follow, in order to maintain stability, secure growth and seek autonomy? In order to answer this question, a deep dive into the recent history of U.S.-Turkey relations is necessary.

Relations with Turkey

Relations between the U.S. and Turkey have historically been a combination of strategic cooperation and recurring tensions. As a NATO member and a major regional actor, Turkey has played a central role in U.S. strategy in key regions like Europe, the Middle East and Eurasia. At the same time, disagreements over regional conflicts, defense policy, and domestic political developments have frequently complicated bilateral relations. The presidency of Trump has added a new dimension to this relationship. Trump's personal diplomatic style, as well as his pragmatic and transactional approach to foreign policy have created both opportunities and risks for the bilateral relations.

Since joining NATO in 1952, Turkey has been one of the most strategically important members of the alliance. Located at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, the Black Sea region and the Caucasus, the country has served as a critical geopolitical bridge between the East and the West. During the Cold War, Turkey played a critical role against the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the enlargement of NATO, Turkey's position was not so indispensable anymore, but the relationship evolved and remained significant due to Turkey's increasing influence in critical regions like the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia. The post-Cold War period was a stage for new tensions. Disagreements over the Iraq War in 2003 and Turkey's decision not to send soldiers to Iraq strained relations.

The disagreements intensified starting in the late 2010s during Obama period, reaching new heights in the wake of the failed coup attempt of 2016. These problems expanded to Trump's first term and raised tension between the U.S. and Turkey. The problems were mainly, US collaboration with Kurdish groups in the Syrian Crisis, US refusal to give Fethullah Gulen to Turkey, arrest of Pastor Brunson, the S-400's purchased by Turkey from Russia and the allegations of Turkey violating sanctions to Iran.

The United States supported Kurdish military groups in northern Syria, particularly the SDF and YPG, in the fight against ISIS. Turkey, however, views these groups to be linked to the specific Kurdish group PKK, which Turkey considers a terrorist organization, due to the violent attacks it has been carrying out since the 80's. Turkey, as a NATO member, has repeatedly requested support from NATO, in its fight against PKK, but has never received it. Relations have aggravated further with the coup attempt in 2016. The leader of FETO, Fethullah Gulen, who has been residing in Pennsylvania was seen by Turkey as the mastermind behind the failed coup attempt and Turkey's repeated requests for the extradition of Gulen were refused by the U.S. (Oktav, 2019).

Another major issue was Turkey's decision to purchase the Russian S-400s. Turkey has long wanted a long-range air and missile defense system. NATO provided guarantees, but Turkey was looking for a more permanent solution. Turkey became a partner country in the F-35 program both by investing in the program and producing components. However, after the failed coup attempt, there was a growing mistrust on Turkey's side towards its Western allies. Turkey wanted to mitigate risks by diversifying suppliers and engaged in partnership with Russia. Washington argued that the acquisition of the S-400 system posed risks to NATO's integrated defense system. As a result, based on the CAATSA (Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act), considering Russia an adversary, Turkey was removed from the F-35 program. Moreover, additional measures such as limiting export licenses and freezing assets were taken based on CAATSA.

So, when Trump came to power, relations were already complex and unlikely to be resolved easily. However, Trump administration pragmatically sought engagement and negotiation with Ankara. In relations with Turkey, Trump's transactional approach to foreign policy created room for negotiation and compromise. He sees relations as flexible arrangements, open to negotiation. But at times, Trump did not restrain from raising the tension, as in the case of Pastor Brunson's arrest due to allegations of espionage. The political tension and the following U.S. tariffs led to a profound foreign exchange fluctuation in Turkey.

The first term of Trump's presidency was marked by both cooperation and confrontation between Washington and Ankara. One of the defining features of this period was the strong emphasis on leader-to-leader diplomacy between Trump and Erdogan. This can be partly explained by the similar leadership styles of Trump and Erdogan. Both leaders prefer strong executive power and centralized decision making. They both rely on nationalist rhetoric in domestic politics and exhibit skepticism towards institutions. These common characteristics lead Trump and Erdogan to demonstrate a willingness for direct communication, sometimes bypassing traditional diplomatic channels. Another interpretation would highlight the role of power asymmetry, which was often presented as leader-to-leader diplomacy. The release of Pastor Brunson by the Turkish Government had been framed by Trump as a result of his personal relationship with Erdogan. He would later express his satisfaction, regarding the resolution of this issue through relations with Erdogan (Euronews, 2025). However, the release can also be interpreted as a concession by Turkey, as it fails to swap Brunson for Gulen (Lindenstrauss, 2018). More importantly, the key factor behind the resolution of the issue was Turkey's economic vulnerability. The Brunson crisis and its economic consequences for the Turkish economy, subsequently pushed Turkey towards closer alignment with the Russia-China axis (Onis & Yalikun, 2021).

The second term of Trump's presidency emerged in a different international context. Global politics had become increasingly shaped by great-power rivalry and regional conflicts. In this context, US-Turkey relations continued to exhibit the dual characteristics of cooperation and tensions. In his second term, Trump emphasizes burden-sharing within alliances more boldly. NATO members are expected to contribute more significantly to collective defense and to demonstrate alignment with U.S. strategic objectives. In this field, Turkey has fulfilled its obligations and proven that it is a loyal ally. On the other hand, this approach has pushed the EU to pursue more independent security policies, such as the ReArm Europe initiative or the SAFE program. For decades, the EU relied on NATO's security guarantees and therefore did not invest heavily in its own military capabilities. In a scenario where NATO becomes less reliable for the EU, Turkey emerges as a valuable partner, due to its large and capable military. However, this would put Turkey in a risky position as the war in Ukraine continues. Such a partnership would bring fruitful bargaining opportunities for Turkey, but it also carries significant risks in terms of relations with Russia.

Trump obviously sees Turkey as an important actor for the Middle Eastern stability. Whether in Syria, Iraq, or the broader Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey is an instrumental actor for the U.S. in the region, as well as being a balancing factor. Finally, Trump is interested in maintaining economic and technological cooperation with Turkey vis-a-vis other great powers. Defense trade, energy projects, and commercial investments, all contribute to the strategic relationship. On the other hand, Turkey has sought autonomy and diversified political partnerships especially after the disappointment of failed EU membership and shown interest in organizations such as BRICS. Although not accepted as a member, Turkey became a partner state. It cooperates with major U.S. adversaries/rivals within BRICS, like with Russia, as in building a nuclear plant in Akkuyu or with China, in participation in the BRI, specifically regarding the middle corridor. In their last official meeting, Trump and Erdogan have also agreed in principle on a new nuclear plant.

Turkey's interests in its relationship with the United States are complex. First, although not always a reliable partner, the U.S. remains an essential security partner. Access to advanced military technology, intelligence cooperation, and participation in NATO provide significant strategic benefits for Turkey, although they mostly come conditionally. A strong U.S., holding NATO together would be advantageous for Turkey, firstly because NATO's balancing role is crucial for healthy and peaceful relations with Russia, and Turkey has historically carried out this balancing act of strategic necessity quite well. NATO also protects Turkey from conflicts with the other NATO members. Peaceful relations with Greece in spite of tensions is an example to that. Second, economic relations with the United States contribute to Turkey's broader integration into the global economy. Trade, investment, and financial ties remain important elements of the bilateral relationship. Turkey manages to extract economic gains from negotiations with the U.S. and should continue to do so in the future. Third, Turkey seeks recognition of its regional security concerns, particularly regarding PKK and instability along its southern border. Turkey has strained relations with Israel, another regional power, and US plays a central role in stabilizing this relationship. Finally, Turkey pursues strategic autonomy. While remaining part of Western institutions, Turkey also seeks the flexibility to implement independent policies in areas such as defense procurement and regional diplomacy. While pursuing autonomy NATO membership acts like a shield for Turkey. When Turkey carried out military operations at its Syrian border, U.S. in a way provided support by staying silent.

Despite these shared interests, several disputes remain. The most prominent issue remains to be the disagreement over Kurdish forces. Today, Turkey considers PKK terrorism to be resolved to a large extent. Furthermore, Turkey has initiated a peace process at the domestic level. On the other hand, Iraq is much more stable and Syria is going through a transformation and restructuring under al-Sharaa leadership. Turkey plays an influential role in both cases, with the support of the Trump administration. Trump and his cabinet have made it clear that they do not want Kurdish groups to play a role in Syria anymore. However, US wants Kurdish groups to play a more active role in Iran, although they have made it clear that they are not interested in such a deal. One possible outcome of the Iranian conflict is for Iran to be divided based on ethnicities. Possibility of another autonomous Kurdish region at its borders would be perceived as a serious security threat by Turkey. Moreover, the S-400 issue remains unresolved. Turkey had to return the missiles to Russia, in order to reach an agreement with Trump. Turkey is not yet back in the F-35 program, but Turkey pushes for it. Meanwhile, Turkey has signed an agreement with UK on Eurofighter procurement.

The Trump era also presents opportunities for cooperation. Trump's transactional approach means that pragmatic deals are possible even in areas of disagreement. Both governments may find it easier to negotiate specific arrangements without framing disputes in ideological terms. Leader-to-leader diplomacy could also facilitate progress. The personal relationship between Trump and Erdoğan has at times allowed the two sides to manage crises that might otherwise have escalated. However, while Trump's transactional approach provides room for negotiation, for Turkey wins come at an expense. What is seen as autonomy may create new forms of dependence (Onis & Kutlay, 2021).

Relations with Trump did allow Erdogan to carve out some space for autonomy, but the outcome was alienation by the West, which eventually pushed Turkey to deeper dependence on Russia and China in matters of economy and security. So, for Turkey, the main challenge lies in balancing its desire for strategic autonomy and the need to maintain strong ties with Western partners, not just the U.S. but also Europe. Excessive divergence could lead to economic or security consequences. Moreover, a significant risk of relying on a transactional relationship with Trump would cause volatility. Trump's decisionmaking style is prone to rapid shifts, creating uncertainty for its allies. Another risk involves the potential erosion of institutional frameworks within NATO. If disagreements deepen, they could weaken cohesion and complicate joint operations. For the United States, the risk is that persistent disputes might push Turkey further towards the Russia-China axis. Declining U.S. influence in such a critical region would be an undesirable outcome for Trump.

Conclusion / Policy Recommendation

In summary, as there is a rising power challenging the former hegemon, the rules based international order we have criticized so far is coming to an end. The political and economic systems, institutions and frameworks which are used to govern sovereign states are under pressure and prone to change. Under Trump's leadership, multilateralism, institutions and the rules-based order are challenged. The U.S. plays the leading role in this transformation and sets a misleading example for other states to follow. Thus, we see more politicians across the world who follow this path towards an illiberal world order. Nowadays, democratic backsliding and increasing authoritarianism are the major trends. On the other hand, the other leading actors of the multipolar world order China and Russia as well as the emerging powers want to change the system too, in order to make it a more egalitarian, equal-opportunity and a more representative one. They want to limit U.S. political and economic dominance and curb the dominance of the U.S. dollar. Power is not so much concentrated anymore, but rather dispersed to many actors. The shifts in the international order, open up space for new policies especially for emerging powers.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to dominate world politics in his second term. His efforts did not lead to peace, instead conflicts escalated and new ones emerged. Although his decisions are inconsistent, U.S. foreign policy continues to revolve around strategic competition with China. Shift of power brings uncertainty, through which middle powers like Turkey can navigate through negotiation. Trump's transactional approach and leader-to-leader relations with Erdogan brings both risks and opportunities.

Turkey should take both the transformation of the international system and the dynamics of Trumpian politics into consideration when shaping its foreign policy. In such a period of transformation, Turkey should act pragmatically and leverage its assets effectively to maximize its gains.

Turkey should stabilize its relations with the US, as it continues to rely on NATO security architecture. It should continue to be loyal to its obligations towards NATO. Its military capacity will continue to be a useful tool for Turkey in transactions with Trump administration. However, being a NATO member also comes with responsibilities and Turkey should avoid conflicts with regional actors like Russia and Iran at all costs. Working towards these two objectives requires a careful balancing act. In such a political environment, Trump's transactional approach would provide Turkey space for negotiation.

While NATO security architecture continues to be central to Turkish foreign policy, Turkey should develop alternative policies for a world with diminishing NATO influence, as US and EU foreign policies diverge. In such a scenario, an independent EU security architecture would provide potential benefits for Turkey. Turkey should seize this opportunity well for a fruitful negotiation with the EU. For Turkey, EU continues to be the largest import and export market mainly due to their proximity. Although Turkey is disappointed in terms of EU membership, their collaboration and partnership remain to be strong. As US and EU foreign policies diverge in Trump period, EU needs to collaborate with Turkey in security more than ever. Meanwhile, Turkey is within the customs union but not in the EU. This creates imbalances for Turkey as EU expands its free trade agreements with Mercosur and India, which are competitors for Turkish suppliers. Turkey should demand adjustments to secure its competitive positions within the EU markets, turning its military assets into economic gains.

No matter which scenario prevails for the future of NATO, Turkey should secure its defense systems and work with the Trump administration to overcome obstacles. The F-35 issue remains unresolved and should be raised by Turkey in negotiations with the Trump administration.

Turkey should pursue a balanced and multidimensional diplomacy, rather than aligning solely with the West. It should maintain relations with emerging powers, benefiting from economic and political engagement with non-Western actors such as China, Russia, and developing economies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This also involves participating in alternative international and regional organizations. This way, Turkey can enhance its strategic autonomy by acting as a bridge between these different camps as well as mitigating risks.

One of the main disputes between the U.S. and Turkey continues to be the conflict of interests concerning the Kurds. PKK and other related Kurdish groups constitute less of a problem as Turkey managed to diminish their activity within and around its borders and the U.S. currently does not collaborate with these groups in the current Middle Eastern conflicts. However, this might be a temporary phase and Turkey should not take it for granted. Kurdish autonomy in neighboring countries continue to be a threat to keep an eye on.

Trump government supported Turkey to take a leading role at Syria's state building and restructuring and this is an opportunity for Turkey to lead peace and stability in the region. Turkey should seize this political and economic opportunity, to shape friendly and collaborative relations with Syria and in the broader region.