SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 1

From Bridge to Hinge: Rapprochement-Estrangement Pendulum of Turkish Foreign Policy

Haluk Özdemir(KIRIKKALE UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2202-6159
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-01-29
🏛️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)

In this process, Turkey appears as a borderland country that keeps moving between pivotal and linchpin positions, trying to confirm her linchpin status while aspiring to become a hinge state.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main motivation of this paper is to uncover the logic underlying the seemingly inconsistent and erratic foreign policy behavior of countries like Turkey, which are surrounded by different subsystems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The strategic cultures of the surrounding subsystems impose different modes of behavior on borderlands and create attract-repel elements for them.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this process, Turkey appears as a borderland country that keeps moving between pivotal and linchpin positions, trying to confirm her linchpin status while aspiring to become a hinge state.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Turkish foreign policy · subsystem · borderland

Abstract

The main motivation of this paper is to uncover the logic underlying the seemingly inconsistent and erratic foreign policy behavior of countries like Turkey, which are surrounded by different subsystems. The strategic cultures of the surrounding subsystems impose different modes of behavior on borderlands and create attract-repel elements for them. The responses to such elements appear as policies of rapprochement and estrangement, representing closer or cooling relations. Therefore, as part of the attract-repel dynamic, foreign policy behavior appears to oscillate between conflicting extremes. Consequently, the borderland position presents a combination of challenges and opportunities, depending on the comprehensive national power. It can be either reduced to a buffer zone caught between different and imposing entities, or transformed into a hinge state that can change regional or global balances. The underlying logic and ultimate goal of such policy swings, which may appear contradictory and erratic at times, is to become a hinge state in this process by capitalizing on advantages and opportunities, avoiding drawbacks and gaining more power at each step. In this process, Turkey appears as a borderland country that keeps moving between pivotal and linchpin positions, trying to confirm her linchpin status while aspiring to become a hinge state.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özdemir, H. (2026). From Bridge to Hinge: Rapprochement-Estrangement Pendulum of Turkish Foreign Policy. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Volume: 15 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1872962

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. Adısönmez, U. C., & Öztığ, İ. L. (2024). A psychoanalytic approach to Turkish foreign policy: Crisis, disorder, and disorientation. Critical Studies on Security, Advance online publication, 1–22. https:// doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2024.2312316
  2. Al Jazeera. (2019). Turkish president Erdogan denounces Egypt’s Sisi over executions, February 24. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/2/24/turkish-president-erdogan-denounces-egypts-sisioverexecutions
  3. Altunışık, M. B. (2023). The trajectory of a modified middle power: An attempt to make sense of Turkey’s foreign policy in its centennial. Turkish Studies, 24(3–4), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.10 80/14683849.2022.2141624
  4. Anadolu Ajansı. (2012). Talimat verilen bir ülke yok, January 21. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/ talimat-verilen-bir-ulke-yok/384378
  5. Banisalamah, M. A., & Al-Hamadi, M. I. (2023). The new Turkey: The spread of Turkish military bases abroad, role and indications (2002–2020). Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences, 50(2), 553–568. https://doi.org/10.35516/hum.v50i2.4961
  6. Brecher, M. (1963). International relations and Asian studies: The subordinate state system of Southern Asia. World Politics, 15(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009374
  7. Buzan, B. (1991). People, states, and fear: An agenda for international security studies in the post–Cold War era. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
  8. Çavuşoğlu, M. (2019). Opening speech. 11th Ambassadors Conference, August 5. https://www.mfa. gov.tr/site_media/html/bkon/XI-BKON-sn-mevlut-cavusoglu-acilis-konusmasi.pdf
  9. Cem, İ. (2004). Türkiye, Avrupa, Avrasya. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  10. Cem, İ. (2005). Avrupa’nın “Birliği” ve Türkiye. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  11. Chase, R. S., Hill, E. B., & Kennedy, P. (1996). Pivotal states and U.S. strategy. Foreign Affairs, 75(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/20047466
  12. Cohen, S. B. (1991). Presidential address: Global geopolitical change in the post–Cold War era. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81(4), 570–576.
  13. Cooper, A., Higgott, R. A., & Nossal, K. R. (1993). Relocating middle powers: Australia and Canada in a changing world order. Vancouver: UBC Press.
  14. Cooper, R. (2000). The post-modern state and the new world order. Demos.
  15. Cox, R. W. (1989). Middlepowermanship, Japan, and future world order. International Journal, 44(4), 823–862. https://doi.org/10.2307/40202638
  16. Davutoğlu, A. (2001). Stratejik derinlik: Türkiye’nin uluslararası konumu. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
  17. Davutoğlu, A. (2013). Teoriden pratiğe: Türk dış politikası üzerine konuşmalar. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
  18. Davutoğlu, A. (2013a). The great restoration: Our new understanding of politics from ancient to globalisation [Speech]. Dicle University, March 15. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/disisleri-bakaniahmetdavutoglu_ nun-diyarbakir-dicle-universitesinde-verdigi-_buyuk-restorasyon_-kadim_ denkuresellesmeye-yeni.tr.mfa.
  19. de Bhal, J. (2023). Rethinking “middle powers” as a category of practice: Stratification, ambiguity, and power. International Theory, 15(3), 404–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971923000118
  20. The Economist. (2023). Turkey has a newly confrontational foreign policy, January 16. https://www. economist.com/special-report/2023/01/16/turkey-has-a-newly-confrontational-foreign-policy
  21. Erdoğan, R. T. (2021). A fairer world is possible: A proposed model for a United Nations reform. İstanbul: Turkuvaz Kitap.
  22. Erdoğan, R. T. (2024). Speech on the occasion of the 97th anniversary of the foundation of the National Intelligence Organization. January 10. https://www.mit.gov.tr/uploads/f/U1aoK3RZXztu.pdf
  23. Fidan, H. (2010). Turkish foreign policy towards Central Asia. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 12(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448950903507560
  24. Gonzalez-Pujol, I. (2024). Theorising the hedging strategy: National interests, objectives, and mixed foreign policy instruments. All Azimuth, 13(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.20991/ allazimuth.1480020
  25. Gray, C. S. (1999). Strategic culture as context: The first generation of theory strikes back. Review of International Studies, 25(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210599000492
  26. Haas, M. (1970). International subsystems: Stability and polarity. American Political Science Review, 64(1), 98–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955616
  27. Higgott, R. A., & Nossal, K. R. (1997). The international politics of liminality: Relocating Australia in the Asia-Pacific. Australian Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 169–186. https://doi. org/10.1080/10361149750887
  28. Holbraad, C. (1984). Middle powers in international politics. Hong Kong: Macmillan.
  29. Hopkins, V., Timur, S., & Reed, S. (2022). Putin offers to make Turkey a gas hub to preserve E.U. energy hold. The New York Times, October 13. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/world/ europe/putin-russia-turkey-gas-eu-energy.html
  30. Hoskins, P. (2024). China Tesla rival BYD signs $1bn Turkey plant deal, BBC News, July 9, https:// www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp08d1nq1y3o.
  31. Hurriyet Daily News. (2011). Iran renews threat to attack Turkey, December 11. https://www. hurriyetdailynews.com/iran-renews-threat-to-attack-turkey-8923
  32. Jackson, V. (2014). Power, trust, and network complexity: Three logics of hedging in Asian security.
  33. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 14(3), 331–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcu005 Johnston, A. I. (1995). Thinking about strategic culture. International Security, 19(4), 32–64. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2539119
  34. Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. South African Journal of Political Studies, 30(1), 165– 181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282
  35. Kaiser, K. (1968). The interaction of regional subsystems: Some preliminary notes on recurrent patterns and the role of superpowers. World Politics, 21(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009747
  36. Kelly, P. L. (1986). Escalation of regional conflict: Testing the shatterbelt concept. Political Geography Quarterly, 5(2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-9827(86)90047-9
  37. Kuik, C.-C. (2016). How do weaker states hedge? Unpacking ASEAN states’ alignment behavior towards China. Journal of Contemporary China, 25(100), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067 0564.2015.1132714
  38. Lesser, I. O. (1992). Bridge or barrier? Turkey and the West after the Cold War. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R4204.html
  39. Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437. https://doi.org/10.2307/1775498
  40. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2019). Asia Anew initiative. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/asia-anew-initiative.en.mfa
  41. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2024). National foreign policy in the “Century of Türkiye”. https://www. mfa.gov.tr/synopsis-of-the-turkish-foreign-policy.en.mf
  42. NTV. (2014). Ortadoğu’ya bataklık demek ırkçılıktır, June 17. https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/ ortadoguya-bataklik-demek-irkciliktir,zTvgBM6d-UOqdWH0Ix3irw
  43. Oran, B. (2001). Türk dış politikası: Kurtuluş Savaşı’ndan bugüne olgular, belgeler, yorumlar (Cilt I). İletişim Yayınları.
  44. Outzen, R. (2024). Turkey’s linchpin role in the Russia prisoner swap offers a lesson. New Atlanticist, August 2. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/turkeys-linchpin-role-in-therussia- prisonerswap-offers-a-lesson
  45. Özdemir, H. (2006). Küreselleşme, Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye üçgeninde kimlik parçalanması ve kimlik yönetişimi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 3(9), 173–203.
  46. Özdemir, H. (2008). Türkiye’nin “sınır ülke” niteliği: Farklı stratejik kültürler arasında Türk dış politikası. Avrasya Etüdleri, 33(1), 7–46.
  47. Özdemir, H. (2015). An inter-subsystemic approach in international relations. All Azimuth, 4(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.167329
  48. Politico. (2023). Sen. Van Hollen: Turkey is an “unfaithful ally.”, February 2. https://www. politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/02/02/sen-van-hollen-turkey-is-anunfaithfulally- 00080844
  49. ReliefWeb. (2022). Joint Coordination Centre opens in Istanbul to facilitate safe export of commercial foodstuffs and fertilizers from Ukrainian ports, July 27. https://reliefweb.int/report/turkiye/jointcoordination- centre-opens-istanbul-facilitate-safe-export-commercial-foodstuffs-andfertilizersukrainian- ports
  50. Robbins, P. (2014). Introduction: Cusp states in international relations – In praise of anomalies against the milieu. In M. Herzog & P. Robbins (Eds.), The role, position and agency of cusp states in international relations (pp. 1–24).London: Routledge.
  51. Rossiter, A., & Cannon, B. J. (2022). Turkey’s rise as a drone power: Trial by fire. Defense & Security Analysis, 38(2), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2022.2068562
  52. Rumelili, B. (2012). Liminal identities and processes of domestication and subversion in international relations. Review of International Studies, 38(2), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0260210511000830
  53. Sayarı, S. (1992). Turkey: The changing European security environment and the Gulf Crisis. Middle East Journal, 46(1), 9–21.
  54. Sayarı, S. (2000). Turkish foreign policy in the post–Cold War era: The challenges of multi-regionalism. Journal of International Affairs, 54(1), 169–182.
  55. Singer, D. J. (1969). The global system and its subsystems: A developmental view. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), Linkage politics: Essays on the convergence of national and international systems (pp. 21– 43). New York: Free Press.
  56. Sorensen, G. (1998). States are not “like units”: Types of state and forms of anarchy in the present international system. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 9760.00047
  57. Soyaltın-Colella, D., & Demiryol, T. (2023). Unusual middle power activism and regime survival: Turkey’s drone warfare and its regime-boosting effects. Third World Quarterly, 44(4), 724–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2158080
  58. Sweijs, T., Oosterveld, W. T., Knowles, E., & Schellekens, M. (2014). Why are pivot states so pivotal? The role of pivot states in regional and global security. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
  59. Thompson, W. R. (1973). The regional subsystem: A conceptual explication and a propositional inventory. International Studies Quarterly, 17(1), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.2307/3013464
  60. Thompson, W. R. (1981). Delineating regional subsystems: Visit networks and the Middle Eastern case. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 13(2), 213–235.
  61. Tuathail, G. Ó. (1996). Critical geopolitics: The politics of writing global space. London: Routladge.
  62. Turner, V. (1966). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  63. Väyrynen, R. (1984). Regional conflict formations: An intractable problem of international relations. Journal of Peace Research, 21(4), 337–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234338402100403
  64. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics.Boston: Addison-Wesley.
  65. Yanık, L. K. (2011). Constructing Turkish “exceptionalism”: Discourses of liminality and hybridity in post–Cold War Turkish foreign policy. Political Geography, 30(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. polgeo.2011.01.003
  66. Yeşiltaş, M., & Balcı, A. (2013). A dictionary of Turkish foreign policy in the AK Party era: A conceptual map. Center for Strategic Research, No:7, Ankara
  67. Yeşiltaş, M., & Pirinççi, F. (2021). Turkey’s strategic conduct under the changing international system. Insight Turkey, 23(4), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.25253/99.2021234.8
  68. Zalewski, P. (2013). How Turkey went from “zero problems” to zero friends. Foreign Policy, August 22. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/22/how-turkey-went-from-zero-problems-to-zero-friends/
  69. Al Jazeera. (2019). Turkish president Erdogan denounces Egypt’s Sisi over executions, February 24. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/2/24/turkish-president-erdogan-denounces-egypts-sisioverexecutions
  70. Anadolu Ajansı. (2012). Talimat verilen bir ülke yok, January 21. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/turkiye/ talimat-verilen-bir-ulke-yok/384378
  71. Çavuşoğlu, M. (2019). Opening speech. 11th Ambassadors Conference, August 5. https://www.mfa. gov.tr/site_media/html/bkon/XI-BKON-sn-mevlut-cavusoglu-acilis-konusmasi.pdf
  72. NTV. (2014). Ortadoğu’ya bataklık demek ırkçılıktır, June 17. https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/ ortadoguya-bataklik-demek-irkciliktir,zTvgBM6d-UOqdWH0Ix3irw
  73. Zalewski, P. (2013). How Turkey went from “zero problems” to zero friends. Foreign Policy, August 22. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/22/how-turkey-went-from-zero-problems-to-zero-friends/