France, Greece, Israel: how does Ankara view proxy country mobility?

The U.S./Israel‑Iran war (but deeper down, the Ukraine‑Russia war) has caused global and regional fractures. All of these directly concern Türkiye. There is a negative concentration especially over Cyprus. While the Israel‑Greek Cypriot administration‑Greece axis is being institutionalized, French President Macron is giving “implicit guarantees” to Athens against Ankara. As Türkiye increases its presence in NATO, some EU leaders are working to establish an alternative “EU NATO.” Is an EU NATO possible? What is Macron trying to do? Why, in this exact conjuncture, did the United Kingdom offer Türkiye a strategic partnership? To make sense of what is happening, we need to answer these questions.

NEW POWER STRUGGLE ON THE WESTERN FRONT

As the U.S. prepares to reduce its visibility in NATO, who will “dominate” Europe becomes important. The U.S. is encouraging Germany to take responsibility. For the first time since World War II, the Germans have published a military strategy document. They want to use their advanced automotive industry as a defense infrastructure. They are discussing raising the number of troops to 260,000 and bringing back compulsory military service. In this sense, it can be said that Germany is willing to lead Europe (It is said… “For the first time in their history, the Germans are making certain defense demands from us. This is new.”)

This bothers France. Macron was one of the European leaders whom Trump lined up against in the White House. This disturbing image and the “mission” given to Germany came on top of the following developments: One. France has suffered strategic losses in Africa and has been expelled from some countries. Two. It was sidelined in Karabakh, which was under the responsibility of the Minsk Trio. Three. It could not compete in its “former colonies” such as Syria and Lebanon (it tried to bring Damascus and the SDG together in Paris, but hit Ankara’s obstacle. In Lebanon, the Americans sidelined France and sat Israel and Lebanon down at the table.) Macron is now acting more proactively to offset his losses.

THE STATUS OF CYPRUS WILL NOT GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS

In this context, France: One. Wants to form the ground component of security guarantees to be provided after a possible ceasefire in Ukraine. Two. Is trying to organize an international conference on Lebanon and Syria. Three. Is trying to lead an international force to clear mines and open the Strait of Hormuz. Four. Has decided to provide a “nuclear umbrella” to some European countries. Five. Sent frigates to the region when developments related to the Iran war occurred in Cyprus. It is making an agreement to establish a permanent base on the island (This is a step that will permanently change the status of the island of Cyprus. Those who dream of reunification of the island can pour a glass of water on that dream.) Six. Is entering into a mutual defense agreement with Greece.

IS AN EU NATO POSSIBLE?

Dreams are big, but possibilities are limited. Neither France is the old France nor Türkiye the old Türkiye. Even the establishment of an alternative “EU pact” to NATO raises many question marks. Those in the know say… “An EU NATO is not possible. They don’t have that kind of capability.” European soldiers are said to say… “If someone calls us at 3 a.m., we don’t have anyone to pick up the phone.” Germany’s effort to build a 260,000‑man army from its own country runs into a “welfare society and unwilling German youth.” In the end, there is also the risk of becoming like the regional countries that have many weapons and planes but cannot act against Iran.

The United Kingdom took an important step in preparation for the “post‑U.S. era” by offering Türkiye a strategic partnership. London’s imperial instinct provides significant flexibility in its strategic decisions. Europe, on the other hand, is swinging between Von der Leyen’s ideological blindness and Macron’s belated ambitions.

PROXY ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY “PROXY COUNTRIES”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – which brought back the reality that “a country can be invaded” – caused alarm bells to ring in Athens. Seeing Türkiye as a threat, Athens, due to its weak position, needs the support of a third power. In return for this support, it has no choice but to accept becoming a proxy power for the country in question (As proxy organizations disappear from the region, they are being replaced by proxy countries. Ukraine was the first example. The second example is Greece.) First, they sought this support from the U.S. (remember the U.S. military activity in Greece). But right now, Mitsotakis cannot get an appointment from Trump. The U.S.’s uncertain policies feed the anxiety in Athens. That’s why (at the U.S.’s prompting) they turned the rudder toward Israel. They are also trying to secure themselves by cooperating with France.

THE EFFORT TO DRAG TÜRKİYE INTO CONFLICT

Türkiye has spent the last 40 years fighting proxy terrorist organizations. The recent “out‑of‑character moves” from Greece (the 12‑mile letter to the UN, placing missile batteries on the islands, alliance with Israel, etc.) are intended to provoke Türkiye. The aim (Israel’s aim) is to force a “premature birth” by dragging Türkiye – which has achieved strategic power concentration through the regime change in Syria and its steps in Libya and Africa – into an indirect conflict. In this way, Israel is trying to draw Türkiye’s attention from the Middle East/Syria to the Aegean, to poison the new language Türkiye has been establishing with the “West,” and to carry out a “preventive” intervention before the revolutions in the Turkish defense industry (in the words of the NATO Secretary General) become permanent. This is the picture from Ankara’s perspective. Let us say that Türkiye is acting patiently and carefully, but will not tolerate the erosion of its rights and interests.