Has Türkiye once again become a focal player in the new global world order?

Over the past month, a striking picture has emerged in the world media regarding Türkiye.

For many years, international media read Türkiye through domestic political disputes, economic crises, tensions with the European Union, and human rights inquiries, but now they are talking about a completely different Türkiye.

Today in the Western media, Türkiye is mentioned as an actor that sustains NATO’s southern flank, influences Black Sea security, is called to the table in Gaza diplomacy, has become a critical threshold country in the Iran‑Israel tension, and cannot be left out of European defence.

The American geopolitical strategist George Friedman made this observation years ago:

“Türkiye is not a rising regional power; it is a re‑emerging historical power.”

The debates taking place in the world media today are shaped exactly around this sentence.

Because the world system is experiencing a major rupture.

The Ukraine war has upended Europe’s security architecture; European states cannot produce a solution from one day to the next.

The Gaza crisis has deeply shaken the West’s claim to moral superiority.

The United States’ global capacity has become debatable.

Trump’s visit to China has shown that the global power competition is moving in China’s favour.

In such periods, geography once again sits at the centre of geopolitical developments.

It is precisely for this reason that Türkiye is regaining a central position.

The American diplomat and academic Henry Kissinger once said in a speech:

“A Middle East where Türkiye is stable and a Middle East where Türkiye is weak are not the same thing.”

The security concern arising in European capitals today reminds us of this fact once again.

There is a sentence frequently repeated in the Western media lately:

“European security cannot be established without Türkiye.”

This statement is not only a military observation.

It is also Europe’s realisation that its own borders no longer start from the Balkans but from Syria, the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The famous historian Niall Ferguson recently made this warning while assessing Europe’s strategic fragility:

“European security is no longer shaped only in Brussels, but also in Ankara.”

The great transformation in the defence industry has profoundly shaped the approaches of the new era.

Türkiye, which once only imported technology from abroad, is now talked about in NATO exercises with its own UAV systems.

European countries now assess Turkish defence companies not only as customers, but as strategic partners.

The British journalist and international relations commentator Tim Marshall, while explaining the decisive power of geography, used the following expression for Türkiye:

“Türkiye is not just a bridge; it is the central lock controlling the passage routes.”

For this reason, Ankara’s position becomes decisive in every crisis heading from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, from the Caucasus to the Middle East.

Although Türkiye has been on the world agenda mostly in the field of defence industry over the past month, the most striking change is the competence it has shown in diplomacy.

In this context, the leadership diplomacy carried out by Türkiye, with great experience, has reached a dimension that exceeds the country’s power.

The discourse Türkiye has put forward on Gaza is not just a regional reaction; it also constitutes a strong objection to the moral crisis of the current international order.

The policies Israel is implementing in Gaza and the global debates around the Epstein files have made the President’s statements more visible in the eyes of the international public.

Platforms such as the Antalya Diplomacy Forum are therefore not just meetings; they are turning into a showcase of an alternative vision of the world, a ground where the voices of nations that cannot speak are raised.

Parag Khanna, the Indian‑origin global strategy writer, while describing the new multipolar world order, said the following about countries like Türkiye:

“In the 21st century, it will not be superpowers that will be decisive, but connection hubs.”

Today, Türkiye is becoming exactly such a connection hub.

All of this shows us the following:

Türkiye is no longer just “a bridge between the West and the East.”

Türkiye is becoming one of the game‑making central countries in this era where new power balances are being established.

The real question now is this:

Will Türkiye be able to support this geopolitical rise with economic, technological and mental transformation?

Because history teaches us this:

Geography provides an opportunity, but societies without a vision of civilisation cannot turn that opportunity into lasting power.

In this context, how the steps taken so far should be described may be debated, but I believe that all these outcomes stem from the fact that the President’s belief, mindset and political vision carry a native character.

The strategic orientation Türkiye has shown recently is also fed not only by short‑term political moves, but by a long‑term perspective of history, geography and civilisation.

In this context, I do not know what name to give to the politics implemented in Türkiye for a quarter of a century.

Because naming and creating a paradigm have been entrusted to Westerners, I am among those who think that the existing politics of Türkiye is a deep‑rooted politics and that this politics needs to be coded as an alternative politics.