In May 2025, during the European Political Community summit in Tirana, Albania, a video of Turkish President Reçep Tayyip Erdoğan grabbing the French President's finger and refusing to shake his hand went viral on social media. This clash was not the first time such an incident between the two leaders occurred. In 2020, Erdoğan said that Macron needed mental treatment over an argument when the French president defended the country’s policy of laïcité after a teacher got beheaded. The personal tension between Macron and Erdoğan illustrates the growing geopolitical rivalry between Ankara and Paris.

For much of the 20th century, Turkey was defined by a precarious duality—straddling Europe and Asia, secularism and Islam, democracy and authoritarianism. Today, however, Turkey is no longer just a bridge between worlds; it is an assertive regional power reshaping the geopolitical landscape. However, beneath this ascent lies a deeper struggle—one not just about power, but identity. As Turkey expands its influence abroad, it remains divided at home, caught between competing visions of its future. Understanding this internal conflict is key to making sense of the forces shaping Turkey today.

Washington’s increasing attacks on the transatlantic alliance have led to the Europeans to seek partners elsewhere, especially in the Indo-Pacific. These outreach efforts by the EU illustrate its desire to look for alternative partners beyond Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. However, to deepen cooperation, the EU should put more emphasis on its commitment to multilateralism, rather than hyper-focusing on human rights. 

The European Defense Community (EDC) marked the first attempt to create a common European defense framework. Today, it is more important than ever to understand the failure of the EDC and the consequences it entailed. At the heart of this failure was the ambition of the nation states to make sovereignty prevail over the federal character of the European project.

Putinism’s flexible, anti-Western system sustains Russian authoritarianism through contradictory narratives—religious conservatism and Eurasianism—while NATO’s failure to counter these narratives has emboldened Russian aggression. NATO must reject appeasement, delegitimize Putinism, and prioritize Ukraine’s defense to preserve Western security.

A European Defense Force is needed to enhance EU autonomy amid geopolitical threats like Russian aggression and terrorism. Coordination challenges, reliance on non-EU suppliers, and diverging national priorities abound. Frameworks like PESCO and EDF can strengthen EU defense, complement NATO, and achieve strategic independence and global influence.

Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine have had a detrimental impact on the respect of arms control treaties between Russia and the United States. There is a need for the U.S. to formulate a plan to reinstate these agreements in the aftermath of the Ruso-Ukrainian war and eventual leadership change in Russia. To do so, the United States must evaluate Cold-War era efforts to foster communication.

In 1938, Nazi Germany annexed Austria, and France and the UK pursued appeasement, sacrificing Czechoslovakia. Despite these efforts, war erupted in 1939. The failure of appeasement still echoes in the collective memory of Western diplomacy.

By passing the Foreign Agent Law, Georgia is not choosing to become a pro-Russia satellite nor is it choosing to abandon its aspiration of becoming a EU and NATO member. Georgia is choosing its sovereignty and its stability.

Russia is Estonia’s greatest security threat to Estonia, as driven by its geographical proximity, societal integration challenges with Estonia’s Russian minority, and rising cyber threats.

As Europe looks to take more responsibility for its defense and security, talk of “strategic autonomy” has resurfaced and given rise to a great deal of controversy. How realistic is this foreign policy ambition? This article addresses its surrounding misconceptions, necessity, and feasibility in light of challenges and existing capabilities.