At the 80th anniversary gala of the German publication Die Zeit in Hamburg on April 20, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen aimed to present European Union expansion as a decisive and visionary geopolitical move.
However, her attempt to advocate for a broader Union was overshadowed by a single provocative sentence. This specific remark has since sparked a major diplomatic row with Türkiye, a nation that remains both a vital NATO partner and a long-standing candidate for EU membership.
During her address, von der Leyen emphasized that the EU’s primary objective must be the “completion” of the European continent. She argued that only a fully integrated Europe could insulate itself from the external pressures and political influences exerted by Russia, China, and Türkiye. By grouping these three nations together, she signaled a shift in how the Commission views its neighboring powers, regardless of their official status with the bloc.
The President called for a fundamental shift in European thinking, urging leaders to adopt a more aggressive geopolitical mindset. She asserted that the previous pillars of European prosperity—specifically its dependence on cheap energy from Russia, affordable industrial labor from China, and the protective military umbrella provided by the United States—are no longer sustainable. In her view, the era of relying on these external guarantees has ended, necessitating a move toward total European sovereignty.
This strategic pivot, however, created an immediate backlash due to its phrasing. By categorizing Türkiye—a formal ally within the NATO alliance and candidate country for EU—alongside global rivals like Russia and China, von der Leyen’s speech was quickly flagged by international observers. Turkish media outlets, led by the state-run Anadolu Agency, reacted with sharp criticism, interpreting the speech as a deliberate exclusion and an affront to Ankara’s geopolitical standing.
Ultimately, what was intended to be an inspiring manifesto for integration in the Western Balkans has instead exposed the deep-seated friction between Brussels and Ankara. The incident underscores a persistent challenge for the European Union: the difficulty of reconciling its internal enlargement goals with the complex diplomatic realities of a multipolar world, where distinguishing between a “strategic rival” and a “difficult ally” is becoming increasingly blurred.
Following the backlash, the European Commission issued a formal clarification, reaffirming that Türkiye continues to be an “unquestionably vital partner” for the bloc.
A Commission spokesperson pointed to the essential role Ankara plays in critical sectors, specifically noting its contributions to migration control, economic synergy, and major infrastructure projects like the Trans-Caspian Middle Corridor. The statement also pointedly reminded observers of Türkiye’s dual status as both a NATO member and a country officially seeking EU membership.
The Commission further explained that the President’s earlier comments were intended to address wide-ranging geopolitical dynamics, rather than suggesting that Türkiye is viewed in the same light as the other nations mentioned.
Therefore, the Commission attempted to mitigate the diplomatic fallout by issuing a statement aimed at repairing Ursula von der Leyen’s misstep.
However, the negative implications of von der Leyen’s remarks extend beyond merely triggering a diplomatic tension between Türkiye and the European Union. By placing Türkiye—through its highest official voice—alongside China and Russia in a category of countries perceived as potentially detrimental to Europe, the EU inadvertently provided discursive leverage to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the ruling political bloc he leads.
Authoritarian regimes tend to construct overarching “grand narratives.” These narratives are reinforced through smaller, everyday political developments and stories. Followers of an authoritarian leader interpret events through the lens of this broader narrative, which in turn facilitates the legitimization of the leader and makes it easier for supporters to perceive him as right and justified in nearly all circumstances.
A defining feature of such narratives is their reliance on a binary distinction between “us” and “the other,” thereby offering individuals a clear identity framework. This sense of belonging significantly shapes the worldview and political attitudes of the regime’s support base.
Within this framework, Erdoğan and his nationalist allies portray Türkiye as a rising global power and a center of attraction and stability in its region. Erdoğan himself is depicted as the true leader of the Muslim world, a statesman who has elevated Türkiye’s foreign policy standing, and a hereoic figure devoted to serving the nation in all fronts.
Conversely, the “other” in this grand narrative—though not always explicitly defined and subject to periodic variation—generally encompasses Western civilization and Israel.
The rhetoric of these external actors, positioned as “the other,” often ends up reinforcing and strengthening the narrative of Erdoğan’s government. In this regard, the role of Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right governing coalition has been particularly significant in recent years. Statements by Israeli politicians framing Türkiye as a new adversary have, perhaps unintentionally, contributed to consolidating Erdoğan’s domestic support base and reinforcing voter alignment behind him.
In this context, the remarks made by Ursula von der Leyen can be characterized as a diplomatic misstep that landed with considerable force on Türkiye’s political agenda. Coming at a time when relations between the European Union and Türkiye had begun to improve—particularly in the realm of security cooperation—her statements inadvertently reinforced Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s narrative, in which Europe is positioned as part of the “other.”
Moreover, von der Leyen’s comments strengthened a widely held perception within Turkish society: the belief that, regardless of its actions, Türkiye will ultimately be excluded from EU membership on account of its Muslim identity.
The statements also generated significant disappointment among opposition groups in Türkiye, who are in need of democratic support from Europe and the broader international community. This reaction was particularly pronounced at a moment when segments of the opposition had been encouraged by developments such as Viktor Orbán’s loss of elections in Hungary.
The European Union remains an indispensable anchor for the revitalization of democracy in Türkiye and for reversing the country’s trajectory toward authoritarianism. It is therefore of critical importance that European leaders act with an awareness of this reality.
Since the Treaty of Paris (1856), through which the Ottoman Empire was formally recognized as part of the European state system, Türkiye has largely oriented itself toward Europe in both political and economic terms. Against this historical backdrop, portraying Türkiye—as in von der Leyen’s remarks—alongside countries such as China and Russia, and thereby alienating it, is unlikely to yield any constructive benefit.
*Bahadır Çelebi is the Managing Editor of Daktilo1984, editorial project of the Turkish think tank D84.
