Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 27 Issue: 1

FROM SYRIA TO UKRAINE: TÜRKİYE’S SEARCH FOR AUTONOMOUS FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE AK PARTY ERA

Abdurrahman Gümüş(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1746-7876
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The article offers a balanced assessment of autonomy in Turkish foreign policy as a strategic orientation shaped by both opportunities and constraints.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Türkiye’s foreign policy has experienced a significant transformation during the AK Party era, and evolved from a soft power-oriented and Western-aligned approach into a more assertive and autonomy-seeking posture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:While close cooperation with Western actors, particularly the U.S. and the EU, played a decisive role in shaping Turkish foreign policy in the early 2000s, the subsequent period has witnessed strategic shifts such as diversification of regional and global partnerships and increasing autonomy through selective challenges to existing alliance norms.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The article offers a balanced assessment of autonomy in Turkish foreign policy as a strategic orientation shaped by both opportunities and constraints.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Turkish Foreign Policy · Autonomous · Türkiye

Abstract

Türkiye’s foreign policy has experienced a significant transformation during the AK Party era, and evolved from a soft power-oriented and Western-aligned approach into a more assertive and autonomy-seeking posture. While close cooperation with Western actors, particularly the U.S. and the EU, played a decisive role in shaping Turkish foreign policy in the early 2000s, the subsequent period has witnessed strategic shifts such as diversification of regional and global partnerships and increasing autonomy through selective challenges to existing alliance norms. This article argues that the recent evolution of Turkish foreign policy reflects a context-dependent search for autonomy under the influence of both structural changes in the international system, bilateral relationships with major global powers, particularly the U.S. and Russia, and domestic political dynamics. Türkiye’s pursuit of autonomy represents an effort to expand its room to maneuver rather than signaling a complete rupture from Western alliances. The study qualitatively analyzes the evolving dynamics of Turkish foreign policy, examines the underlying reasons for this turn toward autonomy and highlights the constraints that limit the sustainability of autonomous foreign policy behavior. The empirical analysis draws on key cases such as Syria, Libya, the Second Karabakh War, and the ongoing Russia–Ukraine War, and illustrate how autonomy has been exercised selectively across different policy arenas. The article offers a balanced assessment of autonomy in Turkish foreign policy as a strategic orientation shaped by both opportunities and constraints.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gümüş, A. (2026). FROM SYRIA TO UKRAINE: TÜRKİYE’S SEARCH FOR AUTONOMOUS FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE AK PARTY ERA. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 27 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1764714

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Agathangelou, A. M., & Ling, L. H. M. (2004). The house of IR: From family power politics to the poisies of worldism. International Studies Review, 6(4), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-9488.2004.00448.x
  2. Akturk, S. (2014). Toward a Turkish-Russian axis? Conflicts in Georgia, Syria, and Ukraine, and cooperation over nuclear energy. Insight Turkey, 16(4), 13–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26299398
  3. Akturk, S. (2019). Relations between Russia and Turkey before, during, and after the failed coup of 2016. Insight Turkey, 21(4), 97–114. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26842780
  4. Anghel, S., Immenkamp, B., Lazarou, E., Saulnier, J. L. & Wilson, A. B. (2020, September). On the path to “Strategic Autonomy”: The EU in an evolving geopolitical environment. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/652096/EPRS_STU(2020)652096_EN.pdf
  5. Aran, A., Altunisik, M. & Kutlay, M. (2026). Turkey’s quest for strategic autonomy in the Middle East and the Black Sea regions: navigating uncertainty amid regional and global flux. International Politics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-026-00751-y
  6. Aydin, M. (2000). Determinants of Turkish Foreign Policy: Changing patterns and conjunctures during the Cold War. Middle Eastern Studies, 36(1), 103–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00263200008701300
  7. Aydin-Duzgit, S., Kutlay, M., & Keyman, E. F. (2025). Strategic autonomy in Turkish foreign policy in an age of multipolarity: Lineages and contradictions of an idea. International Politics, 58(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00638-w
  8. Balci, A. (2019). A three-level analysis of Turkey’s crisis with the U.S.-led order. Insight Turkey, 21(4), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2019214.01
  9. Balci, B., & Liles, T. (2018). Turkey’s comeback to Central Asia. Insight Turkey 20(4), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2018204.06
  10. Balta, E. (2019). From geopolitical competition to strategic partnership. Uluslararası İlişkiler/ International Relations, 16(63), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.621309
  11. Baudner, J. (2014). The evolution of Turkey’s foreign policy under the AK Party government. Insight Turkey, 16(3), 79–100. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26299401
  12. Bilge-Criss, N. (2012). Türkiye-NATO ittifakının tarihsel boyutu. Uluslararası İlişkiler/ International Relations, 9(34), 1–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43926225
  13. Buhari-Gulmez, D. (2020). The resilience of the US–Turkey alliance: Divergent threat perceptions and worldviews. Contemporary Politics, 26(4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2020.1777038
  14. Dalay, G., & Keyman, E. F. (2021, July 26). Has Turkey’s quest for “strategic autonomy” run its course? German Marshall Fund. https://www.gmfus.org/news/has-turkeys-quest-strategic-autonomy-run-its-course
  15. Erhan, C., & Sivis, E. (2017). Determinants of Turkish-American relations and prospects for the future. Insight Turkey, 19(1), 89–116. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26300481
  16. Ersen, E. (2017). Evaluating the fighter jet crisis in Turkish-Russian relations. Insight Turkey, 19(4), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2017194.06
  17. Fiott, D. (2022). A clash of concepts? Making sense of “European sovereignty” and “strategic autonomy”. In LSE Ideas Europe Programme, Beyond autonomy: Rethinking Europe as a strategic actor (pp. 11-18). https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/publications/reports/beyond-autonomy
  18. Giacalone, R. (2012). Latin American foreign policy analysis: External influences and internal circumstances. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(4), 335–353. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24910793
  19. Grevi, G. (2020, December). Fostering Europe’s strategic autonomy: A question of purpose and action. The European Policy Centre (EPC). https://www.epc.eu/en/Publications/Fostering-Europes-Strategic-Autonomy--A-question-of-purpose-and-acti~3a8478
  20. Groitl, G. (2022). The EU at a crossroads: Strategic autonomy as strategically-adept sovereignty. In LSE Ideas Europe Programme, Beyond autonomy: Rethinking Europe as a strategic actor (pp. 49–58). https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/publications/reports/beyond-autonomy
  21. Hale, W. (2000). Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774-2000. Frank Cass Publishers.
  22. Helwig, N. (Ed.). (2021). Strategic autonomy and the transformation of the EU: New agendas for security, diplomacy, trade and technology. Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA), Report No. 67. https://www.fiia.fi/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/fiia-report-67_niklas-helwig-et-al_strategic-autonomy-and-the-transformation-of-the-eu.pdf
  23. Hurrell, A., Cooper, A. F., Gonzalez, G., Sennes, R. U., & Sitaraman, S. (2000). Paths to power: Foreign policy strategies of intermediate states (Report No. 244). Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Latin American Program. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/244-paths-to-power-foreign-policy-strategies-intermediate-states
  24. Ipek, P., & Gur, V. T. (2021). Turkey’s isolation from the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum: Ideational mechanisms and material interests in energy politics. Turkish Studies, 21(2), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2021.1925884
  25. Istanbul talks highlight Turkiye’s balancing act between Russia and Ukraine. (2025, May 16). Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/16/istanbul-talks-highlight-turkiyes-balancing-act-between-russia-and-ukraine
  26. Kennedy, R., & Dickenson, M. (2013). Turkish foreign policy and public opinion in the AKP era. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2012.00179.x
  27. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7sq9s
  28. Keyman, E. F. (2010). Globalization, modernity and democracy- Turkish foreign policy 2009 and beyond. Perceptions, 15(3–4), 1–20. https://izlik.org/JA33KD64SF
  29. Keyman, E. F. (2017). A new Turkish foreign policy: Towards proactive “moral realism”. Insight Turkey, 19(1), 55–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26300479
  30. Kutlay, M., & Onis, Z. (2021). Turkish foreign policy in a post-western order: Strategic autonomy or new forms of dependence? International Affairs, 97(4), 1085–1104. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab094
  31. Landler, M. (2017, December 6). Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and orders U.S. Embassy to move. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html
  32. Lippert, B., von Ondarza, N., & Perthes, V. (Eds.). (2019, March). European strategic autonomy: Actors, issues, conflicts of interests (Paper No. 4). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP). https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/research_papers/2019RP04_lpt_orz_prt_web.pdf
  33. Marillas, P. (2021, November). An architecture fit for strategic autonomy. Foundation for European Progressive Studies. https://feps-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/publications/211125%20policy%20brief_strategic-autonomy2.pdf
  34. Martins, B. O., Tank, P., & Isleyen, B. (2023). Turkish drones as a foreign policy tool (No. 1). Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Mideast Policy Brief. https://www.prio.org/publications/13435
  35. Muftuler-Bac, M. (2017). Assessing Turkey’s foreign policy choices towards the European Union. Insight Turkey, 19(1), 117–134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26300482
  36. Muftuler-Bac, M. (2020). Turkey’s grand strategy in the context of global and regional challenges. Perceptions, 25(2), 178–202. https://izlik.org/JA62GJ42TK
  37. Oguzlu, H. T. (2012). NATO ve Türkiye: Dönüşen ittifakın sorgulayan üyesi. Uluslararası İlişkiler/ International Relations, 9(34), 99–124. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43926229
  38. Oguzlu, H. T. (2020). Turkish foreign policy in a changing world order. All Azimuth, 9(1), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.464076
  39. Onis, Z. (1995). Turkey in the post-Cold War era: In search of identity. Middle East Journal, 49(1), 48–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4328771
  40. Ozel, S. (2011-12). Indispensable even when unreliable: An anatomy of Turkish-American relations. International Journal, 67(1), 53–64. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23265965
  41. Ruma, I., & Celikpala, M. (2019). Russian and Turkish foreign policy activism in the Syrian theater. Uluslararası İlişkiler/ International Relations, 16(62), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.588930
  42. Saricicek, E. & Ozturk, T. (2024). The annexation of Crimea and Türkiye's balancing role in the Russia-Ukraine War. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 22(2), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.1425589
  43. Sayari, S. (2000). Turkish foreign policy in the post-Cold War era: The challenges of multi-regionalism. Journal of International Affairs, 54(1), 169–182. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24357694
  44. Shafiyev, F., & Huseynov, V. (2020). Peace negotiations cannot be held forever: Breaking the deadlock in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Insight Turkey, 22(4), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020224.07
  45. Teksen, F. (2017). Thorny relations with the EU under AK Party rule: Challenges and prospects. Insight Turkey, 19(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2017192.07
  46. Tickner, A. B. (2003). Seeing IR differently: Notes from the Third World. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 32(2), 295–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320020301
  47. Tocci, N. (2021). European strategic autonomy: What it is, why we need it, how to achieve it. Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI). https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/european-strategic-autonomy-what-it-why-we-need-it-how-achieve-it
  48. U.S. Department of State. (2020, December 14). CAATSA section 231: Imposition of sanctions on Turkish Presidency of Defense Industries. https://2017-2021.state.gov/caatsa-section-231-imposition-of-sanctions-on-turkish-presidency-of-defense-industries/index.html
  49. Ustun, K. (2020). U.S.-Turkey relations endure despite crises. Insight Turkey, 22(2), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2020222.02
  50. Vigevani, T, & Cepaluni, G. (2007). Lula’s foreign policy and the quest for autonomy through diversification. Third World Quarterly, 28(7), 1309–1326. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20455000
  51. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.
  52. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764
  53. Yavuz, M. H. (2022). The motives behind the AKP’s foreign policy: Neo-Ottomanism and strategic autonomy. Turkish Studies, 23(5), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2022.2100700
  54. Yilmaz, E. & Bilgin, P. (2005/2006). Constructing Turkey's "Western" identity during the Cold War: Discourses of the intellectuals of statecraft. International Journal, 61(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/40204128
  55. Yilmaz, G. (2021). Turkey’s strategic autonomy in a fragmented world order. Third World Quarterly, 42(12), 2791–2809. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-026-00751-y