Nato has reportedly called on the EU and Turkey to improve their relations given Donald Trump’s move to deprioritise the US role in the security of Europe. The US president’s downgrading of defence relations has caused European capitals to rapidly reassess the role non-EU allies could play in defending the continent from any potential future military threat from a hostile Russia.

Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte privately urged EU leaders to step up engagement with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan despite years of often tense relations, the Financial Times reported on March 11, citing officials briefed on remarks he made at a private dinner in February.

In January—when geopolitical analysts were already pointing to the value of Turkey, a country with the second largest land forces in Nato behind those of the US and boasting a sizeable defence industry—Rutte, a former Dutch PM, told the European parliament that “involving non-EU allies in EU defence industrial efforts is vital, I believe, for the security of Europe”.

Referring to relations with Turkey, one senior EU official told the FT: “Things change. At a certain point in time you need to decide who you would like on your team, regardless of any issues you might have.”

Referring to Turkey’s policy of attempting to keep amicable, balanced relations with both Moscow and Kyiv and not join in with the Western campaign of war sanctions against the Kremlin, the official added: “But they also need to sort out their ambiguity over Russia.”

Many EU member nations are fully behind the idea of confronting the threat from Russia with a “coalition of the willing”, with non-EU countries such as Norway and the UK, and even Canada, obvious candidates to join that coalition.

But demonstrating Turkey’s rising prominence in EU conversations on how to assemble a new security architecture, the country was in early March invited to the top table of European discussions on the Ukraine War and massive rearming required by the European powers, with Turkish foreign minister Hakan Fidan attending a London crisis summit called by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Days previously, Fidan had said: “If European security architecture will regenerate, it is, of course, not possible without Turkey. In other words, leaving Turkey out of a security architecture approach would be unrealistic. This matter should be underlined."

Erdogan has since reiterated that Ankara sees it as “inconceivable” that Turkey would not feature in the revised defence approach, although it would of course want something in return such as a meaningful progressing of its application to join the EU, which has been moribund for years, and, in trade, an expanded customs union with Brussels.

For the accession to progress, there would have to be agreements on how to resolve sharp differences between Turkey and the EU on matters such as respect for the rule of law and basic human rights, territorial disputes with Greece and the future of the divided island of Cyprus. Turkey’s relations with Russia, if still warm, would be another sticking point.

One Greek diplomat told the FT that Athens remained “cautious rather than dogmatic” on an expanded defence collaboration with regional rival Ankara. “Turkey has to be constructive in dealing with outstanding issues with member states,” he added, referring to Greece and Cyprus.

In a commentary published on March 11 by think tank Carnegie Europe, entitled “Turkey in a Trump-and-Putin World”,  Middle East and Turkey analyst Marc Pierini, a former EU career diplomat, concurred that “the upheaval to the Western order brought about by the second Donald Trump administration may soon create new opportunities for Ankara to strengthen its relations with European partners”.

He noted that Turkey’s “defence industry has Nato-compatible industrial capabilities in key domains, including armored vehicles, long-range artillery, artillery shells, air and naval drones, and short- and medium-range missiles” and concluded: “Disruptions emanating from the Trump-Putin world do not spare Turkey, complicating its balancing policy between Russia and the West. However, Europe’s focus on security may present a major opportunity for Ankara, if political stars align.”

Veteran Turkey analyst Timothy Ash on March 10, in a piece headlined “Turkey has answers for a vulnerable Europe”, published by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said: “Facing a possibly existential security challenge, Europe needs to ask swift questions and find immediate solutions. It may not be to everyone’s taste given a history of troubled relations, but the continent has an obvious solution staring it in the face — Turkey.”

Turkey, noted Ash, has close to 400,000 ground troops, and double that when reserves are included, as well as more than 2,000 main battle tanks, close to half those in European Nato, and naval forces with critical control and leverage over Black Sea shipping lanes. 

“With Europe struggling to put together a reassurance force for Ukraine of perhaps 20,000-30,000, only Turkey has the ability to scale up to something effective, at least in the short term,” said Ash, adding that in defence industrial output, Ankara “can make an even bigger difference”.