NATO Summit Gives Europe and Turkey a Strategic Reset Opportunity — But the Clock Is Ticking

Turkey controls the only maritime chokepoint between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, hosts the second-largest army in NATO, and has been simultaneously buying Russian weapons, blocking alliance enlargement, and mediating grain corridors with Moscow — all while remaining a formal ally. If that sounds like a contradiction, that’s because it is. And the June 2025 NATO summit in The Hague may be the last clean opportunity either side gets to resolve it.

The stakes here are not abstract. Russia’s war in Ukraine has redrawn every strategic assumption NATO built over three decades. What was once tolerable ambiguity — Turkey doing its own thing on the margins — has become a structural liability. Either Ankara is in, meaningfully, or the alliance has a 355,000-soldier gap in its southeastern flank that no amount of Nordic reinforcements can plug.

How a Decade of Broken Trust Between Ankara and Brussels Created the Crisis That The Hague Must Now Fix

The Turkey-NATO relationship didn’t deteriorate overnight. It eroded through a series of specific decisions, each one logical from Ankara’s perspective, each one alarming from Brussels’. The timeline tells the story bluntly.

What the table shows is a relationship that has been purely transactional for at least six years. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has treated NATO membership the way a skilled poker player treats a strong hand — he plays it slowly, extracts maximum value from each round, and never shows all his cards. The West, for its part, has oscillated between punishing Turkey and desperately needing it, which is precisely the dynamic Erdoğan has exploited.

The EU-Turkey accession process — frozen since December 2016 — is the longest-running diplomatic farce in recent European history. Thirty-five negotiating chapters were opened. One was closed. The relationship now functions through emergency instruments: migration deals, customs arrangements, back-channel security cooperation. Brussels is essentially paying Ankara to manage 3.6 million Syrian refugees while pretending the accession framework still exists. For the latest on how these European political tensions are playing out across multiple fronts, the European Politics Headlines at 4:28 a.m. GMT: Climate, Armenia, Housing, and the Brexit That Won’t Die offers useful context on the broader continental mood.

What Actually Happened at The Hague on June 24–25, 2025, and Why It Matters Beyond the Communiqué

NATO summits produce communiqués. Communiqués are political theater. What matters is the side conversations, the bilateral commitments made in hotel corridors, and the specific policy movements that follow in the weeks after the cameras leave. The Hague generated several that deserve serious attention.

Here’s what actually moved at the summit:

• 5% GDP defense target adopted: All 32 members agreed to hit 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, up from the 2% benchmark that most barely reached. Turkey, already at approximately 2.1% and operating a rapidly expanding domestic defense industry — including the combat-proven AKINCI and Bayraktar TB2 drone systems — positioned itself as a key industrial partner rather than a burden-sharing laggard.
• F-35 re-entry talks reopened: U.S. officials quietly resumed discussions about readmitting Turkey to the F-35 program. The sticking point remains the S-400 air defense system purchased from Russia in 2019. Turkey’s position: the S-400 will not be destroyed but could be placed in storage, deactivated, and kept away from NATO systems. Washington has not formally accepted this but has stopped calling it a dealbreaker.
• Black Sea security architecture discussions: With Russian naval capacity constrained by the war in Ukraine, Turkey’s enforcement of the 1936 Montreux Convention — blocking Russian warships from returning through the Bosphorus since March 2022 — has become one of the alliance’s most consequential unilateral actions. The Hague discussions formalized Black Sea coordination in ways the 2024 Vilnius summit didn’t.
• EU offered upgraded Customs Union: Separate from NATO proceedings but timed deliberately, the European Commission signaled willingness to modernize the EU-Turkey Customs Union, frozen since 1995, alongside renewed migration management cooperation.
• Visa liberalization back on the table: For Turkish citizens currently subject to significant travel restrictions to the EU, the prospect of partial visa liberalization was floated as a political incentive — though nothing was committed.

The pattern is unmistakable. Every one of these moves is transactional. None of them require Turkey to fundamentally change its foreign policy posture. That’s deliberate. Pragmatism has replaced idealism as the operating framework in Brussels and Washington.

Erdoğan, Rutte, and Fidan: The Three Men Who Will Actually Determine Whether This Reset Survives Contact With Reality

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Erdoğan has been in power since 2003 — first as Prime Minister, then as President — and he has never once made a major foreign policy decision that didn’t serve a domestic political calculation simultaneously. The NATO reset opportunity is no different. Turkey’s economy has been battered by inflation that peaked above 80% in 2022 before gradually subsiding; a modernized Customs Union with the EU would provide genuine economic relief for Turkish exporters. F-35 reintegration would be a nationalist triumph — proof that Turkey extracted concessions without surrendering sovereignty over the S-400. Erdoğan needs wins. The reset offers him several. His leverage, however, diminishes the moment it becomes obvious he needs the deal more than Europe does, which is why his Foreign Minister has been carefully managing the optics of who is approaching whom.

Mark Rutte

Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary-General since October 2024, brings a very specific Dutch pragmatism to this role. As Prime Minister of the Netherlands for thirteen years, he survived every coalition crisis by finding the minimum viable agreement that kept the table together. He’s applying the same method to Turkey. Rutte has signaled openly — more openly than any previous Secretary-General — that Turkey’s strategic value outweighs the alliance’s discomfort with Ankara’s democratic record. He is not naive about Erdoğan. He simply thinks the cost of continued estrangement exceeds the cost of a managed rapprochement. That’s a defensible position. It’s also one that will face fierce opposition from the European Parliament and from NGO communities that have spent years documenting Turkish democratic regression.

Hakan Fidan

Hakan Fidan is the least-known of the three outside specialist circles, and arguably the most consequential. As Turkey’s Foreign Minister since June 2023, and before that as the long-serving head of Turkish intelligence (MİT), he is Erdoğan’s primary diplomatic architect. Fidan understands Western pressure points with the precision of a man who spent decades surveilling them. He was the key negotiator on the grain corridor deal that briefly linked Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine in 2022. He is not ideologically anti-Western — he’s strategically agnostic, which means he’ll take whatever deal maximizes Turkish positioning. That’s useful for reaching agreements. It’s less useful for maintaining them when circumstances shift.

Why Europe’s Pro-Reset Camp Is Overselling the Opportunity and the Skeptics Are Ignoring the Alternative

Here’s the uncomfortable truth that neither camp wants to say out loud: the pro-reset advocates — primarily France, Germany, and NATO leadership — are treating Turkey’s geographic indispensability as a substitute for strategic alignment. It isn’t. A Turkey that stores its S-400s in a warehouse while retaining the option to reactivate them is not a Turkey that has chosen its alliance over Moscow. It’s a Turkey that has chosen ambiguity while pocketing Western concessions. That’s not a reset. That’s a better-managed version of the same problem.

The skeptics — Greece, Cyprus, the European Parliament liberals — have their own credibility problem. Greek airspace violations by Turkish aircraft were recorded at over 1,000 incidents in a single year as recently as 2023. Cyprus remains divided, with Turkey the only country recognizing the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The European Parliament has passed multiple resolutions condemning Turkey’s democratic backsliding, the imprisonment of journalists, and the continued incarceration of figures like Osman Kavala, serving an aggravated life sentence since 2022. These are not minor footnotes. They are ongoing realities.

But here’s what the skeptics are unwilling to calculate: what does NATO’s southeastern flank actually look like without Turkish cooperation? Who controls the Bosphorus if Ankara decides to interpret the Montreux Convention differently? Who mediates with Moscow on grain shipments, POW exchanges, or nuclear facility safety if Turkey opts out? The answer, in each case, is nobody — or at least nobody with Turkey’s combination of geographic position and established back-channels. You can find this kind of EU political analysis regularly covered in our EU political news section.

The honest position, which almost no elected official will articulate, is that Europe is choosing between bad options. A reset that tolerates Turkish authoritarianism and S-400 ambiguity is bad. Continued estrangement that leaves a 355,000-soldier army in a state of semi-alignment is worse. The Hague didn’t resolve this tension. It papered over it with joint communiqués and Customs Union sweeteners.

Four Scenarios for How the Turkey-Europe-NATO Reset Plays Out Before the Next Summit

What happens next depends on a specific sequence of decisions by specific actors. Here are the four most plausible trajectories:

• Managed rapprochement (most likely, ~45% probability): Turkey agrees to a formal S-400 storage protocol. The U.S. reopens F-35 negotiations without a final commitment. The EU finalizes an upgraded Customs Union framework. Relations normalize transactionally. The underlying tensions — Cyprus, Aegean, democratic backsliding — remain unresolved but managed. This is the muddle-through outcome that European foreign policy specialists privately call the realistic ceiling.
• Accelerated integration (~15% probability): A full EU-Turkey upgrade, including meaningful movement on visa liberalization and the re-opening of additional accession chapters, achieves political momentum in both Ankara and Brussels. This requires domestic political courage that neither Erdoğan’s coalition nor the current EU leadership composition has demonstrated. Possible if a sharp external shock — an escalation in the Black Sea, a Russian move against a NATO member’s territorial waters — forces both sides to accelerate.
• Status quo drift (~30% probability): Rising far-right electoral pressures in France, Germany, and Austria — where anti-Turkey sentiment polls consistently high — paralyze EU decision-making on the Customs Union upgrade. Erdoğan, reading the signals, decides the concessions on offer don’t justify the domestic political cost of the S-400 compromise. The Hague momentum dissipates by Q1 2026. Both sides return to mutual irritation as the default mode.
• Sharp deterioration (~10% probability): A Turkish military incident — either in the Aegean, around Cyprus, or involving Kurdish-linked groups in northern Syria — triggers a European political backlash that makes any reset politically impossible for 18-24 months. This is the tail risk that Rutte is most anxious to prevent, which is why keeping bilateral dispute mechanisms active and reducing the chance of miscalculation is part of his immediate agenda.

The NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting scheduled for late 2025 is the next real test. That’s where The Hague commitments either begin converting into concrete deliverables or quietly get shelved in favor of the next crisis. Watch that meeting closely. The communiqué will be warm. The substance will tell you everything.

The window for a genuine Turkey-Europe strategic reset is real, but it is narrow, it is fragile, and it is being managed by governments on both sides whose domestic political incentives point in exactly the opposite direction from the strategic logic they’re publicly endorsing. That’s not a recipe for transformation. That’s a recipe for another decade of expensive, dangerous ambiguity — and Vladimir Putin knows it better than anyone sitting at the table in The Hague.

About The Author

Sophie Gesture

Political writer and analyst focused on global affairs, public policy, and emerging political trends.

See author's posts