Journals / Turkish Academic Research Review / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

Turkish Foreign Policy in the Global Geopolitical Transformation (2022-2025): Strategic Competition in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins

Küresel Jeopolitik Dönüşüm Sürecinde Türk Dış Politikası: 2022-2025 Döneminde Doğu Akdeniz ve Karadeniz Havzalarında Stratejik Rekabet

Cüneyt Yılmaz(15 KASIM KIBRIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SİYASAL VE SOSYAL BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-1655-588X
Sarp Bağcan(İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8075-378X
Pages
595–612
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️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 findings indicate that Türkiye pursues a stability-oriented balancing strategy in the Black Sea while adopting a more competitive, power-projection-oriented posture in the Eastern Mediterranean.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study offers a comparative examination of the reconfiguration of Turkish foreign policy in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea basins between 2022 and 2025, situating this process within the broader context of global geopolitical transformation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The theoretical framework integrates neoclassical realism with geoeconomics, treating the interaction between systemic constraints and domestic policy capacity as the principal variable accounting for foreign policy outputs.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that Türkiye pursues a stability-oriented balancing strategy in the Black Sea while adopting a more competitive, power-projection-oriented posture in the Eastern Mediterranean.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:uluslararası ilişkiler · Türk dış politikası · Karadeniz

Abstract

This study offers a comparative examination of the reconfiguration of Turkish foreign policy in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea basins between 2022 and 2025, situating this process within the broader context of global geopolitical transformation. The aim is to explain why, and through which mechanisms, Türkiye's foreign policy behavior diverges across two distinct regional security complexes despite operating under comparable systemic pressures. The theoretical framework integrates neoclassical realism with geoeconomics, treating the interaction between systemic constraints and domestic policy capacity as the principal variable accounting for foreign policy outputs. Methodologically, the study combines qualitative comparative case analysis with process tracing; the evidentiary base was constructed through the systematic triangulation of NATO and United Nations reports on maritime security and the law of the sea, official statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye, SIPRI military-expenditure and arms-transfer data, and the relevant peer-reviewed literature. The findings indicate that Türkiye pursues a stability-oriented balancing strategy in the Black Sea while adopting a more competitive, power-projection-oriented posture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Strategic autonomy, hybrid foreign policy instruments, and flexible alignment behavior emerge as shared determinants across both basins, although their relative weight and sequencing differ substantially. By integrating the Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean within a single comparative frame, the study addresses a persistent gap in the literature and proposes a dual-basin strategic autonomy model to account for Türkiye's multi-layered regional strategy.

Özet

Bu çalışma, 2022-2025 döneminde Türk dış politikasının küresel jeopolitik dönüşüm bağlamında Doğu Akdeniz ve Karadeniz havzalarında geçirdiği stratejik yeniden konumlanmayı karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. Araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye'nin iki farklı bölgesel güvenlik kompleksinde geliştirdiği dış politika davranış kalıplarını, aynı sistemik baskılara maruz kalmasına karşın bu davranışların neden ve hangi mekanizmalarla farklılaştığını açıklayacak biçimde çözümlemektir. Kuramsal çerçeve, neoklasik realizm ile jeoekonomi yaklaşımlarının bütünleştirilmesine dayanmakta; sistemik baskılar ile iç politika kapasitesi arasındaki etkileşim, Türkiye'nin dış politika çıktılarını açıklayan temel değişken olarak konumlandırılmaktadır. Yöntemsel olarak nitel karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi ile süreç izleme (process tracing) birlikte kullanılmış; veri seti NATO ve Birleşmiş Milletler'in deniz güvenliği ve deniz hukukuna ilişkin raporları, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı'nın resmî açıklamaları, SIPRI'nin askeri harcama ve silah transferi verileri ile konuya ilişkin hakemli akademik literatürün sistematik taranmasıyla oluşturulmuştur. Bulgular, Türkiye'nin Karadeniz'de istikrar odaklı bir dengeleme stratejisi izlerken Doğu Akdeniz'de daha rekabetçi ve güç projeksiyonuna dayalı bir dış politika sergilediğini göstermektedir. Her iki bölgede de stratejik otonomi arayışı, hibrit dış politika araçlarının kullanımı ve esnek ittifak davranışı ortak belirleyiciler olarak öne çıkmakta; ancak bu unsurların ağırlığı ve sıralanışı bölgeden bölgeye anlamlı biçimde değişmektedir. Çalışma, Karadeniz ile Doğu Akdeniz'i bütüncül biçimde ele alan karşılaştırmalı literatürdeki boşluğu doldurarak Türkiye'nin çok katmanlı bölgesel stratejisini açıklamaya yönelik “çift havza stratejik otonomi modeli” adlı bir analitik çerçeve önermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, C., Bağcan, S. (2026). Turkish Foreign Policy in the Global Geopolitical Transformation (2022-2025): Strategic Competition in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins. Turkish Academic Research Review, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 595–612. https://doi.org/10.30622/tarr.1993958

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Allison, G. (2022). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides's trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  2. Aydın, M. (2021). The Eastern Mediterranean and Turkey's security dilemmas. Turkish Studies, 22(3), 345-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2020.1843331
  3. Aydın-Düzgit, S., Kutlay, M. ve Keyman, E. F. (2025). Strategic autonomy in Turkish foreign policy in an age of multipolarity: Lineages and contradictions of an idea. International Politics, 63, 184-205. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00638-w
  4. Blackwill, R. D. ve Harris, J. M. (2016). War by other means: Geoeconomics and statecraft. Harvard University Press.
  5. Buzan, B. ve Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and powers: The structure of international security. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Colombo, S. ve Soler i Lecha, E. (2021). Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean: The challenge of conflict and cooperation. Mediterranean Politics, 26(5), 601-620.
  7. George, A. L. ve Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
  8. Goh, E. (2008). Hierarchy and the role of the United States in the East Asian security order. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 8(3), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcn011
  9. Goşu, A. ve Manea, O. (2015). The consequences of the militarization of Crimea for the wider Black Sea region. Studia Politica: Romanian Political Science Review, 15(1), 9-20.
  10. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2023). Eastern Mediterranean energy outlook. IEA Publications.
  11. Kakachia, K., Malerius, S. ve Meister, S. (Eds.). (2024). Security dynamics in the Black Sea region: Geopolitical shifts and regional orders. Springer.
  12. Kutlay, M. ve Öniş, 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
  13. Kuik, C.-C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore's response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 159-185.
  14. Lesser, I. O. (2020). The Eastern Mediterranean in conflict: Geopolitics and energy security. German Marshall Fund of the United States.
  15. Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M. ve Taliaferro, J. W. (2009). Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Maris, G., Flouros, F. ve Galariotis, I. (2022). The changing security landscape in South-Eastern Mediterranean: Assessing Turkey's strategies as a rising power. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 24(5), 795-814. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2022.2037962
  17. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The tragedy of great power politics (Updated ed.). W. W. Norton.
  18. Moudouros, N. (2021). “Blue Homeland” and Cyprus: The “survival of the state” coalition and Turkey's changing geopolitical doctrine in the Eastern Mediterranean. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 21(3), 459-471. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-3-459-471
  19. Öniş, Z. ve Yılmaz, Ş. (2009). Between Europeanisation and Euro-Asianism: Foreign policy activism in Turkey during the AKP era. Turkish Studies, 10(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683840802648562
  20. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100007814
  21. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2025). Military expenditure database. https://www.sipri.org
  22. Tsakonas, P. ve Tziarras, Z. (2019). The Eastern Mediterranean in turmoil: Security dynamics and regional order. PRIO Cyprus Centre Report.
  23. United Nations. (2023). Black Sea Grain Initiative reports.
  24. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2024). Review of maritime transport 2024.
  25. Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.
  26. Wæver, O. (2004). Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New schools in security theory. Review of International Studies, 30(1), 1-17.
  27. Yiallourides, C. (2021). Maritime boundary delimitation in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea: Progress and outstanding legal issues. Eastern Mediterranean Affairs, (2). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3979875
  28. Youngs, R. (2022). Europe's Eastern Mediterranean dilemma. Carnegie Europe.