For decades, Europe leaned on the United States for hard power while focusing on liberal soft power and economic integration. The transatlantic partnership functioned on the assumption that the United States would remain committed to European security, but this dynamic is shifting. European leaders now face the reality that Washington may increasingly view NATO and EU relations purely through an economic lens. The recent Munich Security Conference (MSC) underscored the urgency for Europe to reassess its security architecture—a reckoning long overdue.
This year’s conference served as an alarm bell for Europe. Munich Security Conference Chairman Christoph Heusgen’s tearful closing speech epitomised the sentiment of growing unease. While European policymakers have long debated their security independence, they are only now taking the need for action seriously as the spectre of a more transactional U.S. administration looms.
The Path to Peace Negotiations
As Europe grapples with its security vulnerabilities, several governments jockey to play the intermediary role to end the Ukraine War. On February 18, 2025, Saudi Arabia hosted top U.S. and Russian officials for high-stakes talks on Ukraine, aiming to solidify its role as an international mediator. A Saudi official stated that Riyadh seeks to move beyond hosting and actively mediate the discussions. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov acknowledged the venue as acceptable to both parties, marking a diplomatic win for the Kingdom.
The Trump administration’s sudden moves deeply disappointed the Ukrainian government, particularly with Zelensky’s exclusion from the event. Subsequently, Zelensky stated that Kyiv “did not know anything about” the talks in Riyadh and that it “cannot recognise any things or any agreements about us without us.”
Ukraine’s criticism, combined with European frustration, raises doubts about the prospects of these talks. In response, European leaders convened in Paris for an emergency meeting on Trump’s discussions with Putin, while Germany, Poland, and Spain signalled reluctance about deploying peacekeeping forces to Ukraine.
Although it is too early to predict the outcome, given the negative response so far from the European and Ukrainian authorities, Riyadh talks may soon reach an impasse. If that happens, the focus will shift to the need for a more experienced mediator with a proven track record in navigating the complexities of the Ukraine conflict.
Enter Türkiye
Russian media recently circulated images from the Istanbul talks that could offer a hint, but drawing conclusions from this alone would be premature. Still, an earlier article by a prominent Turkish journalist outlining a timeline closely resembles the recently discussed “peace by Easter” framework. The article mentions the potential lifting of sanctions and identifies a country and leader who could mediate the peace process.
Zelensky’s decision to visit Türkiye on the same day as the Riyadh meeting for talks with President Erdoğan carries both political and symbolic weight. All these elements underscore Türkiye’s growing importance as a potential mediator, reinforcing its positioning in the evolving framework for peace negotiations.
Türkiye’s Rising Strategic Importance
European Commissioner for Enlargement Márta Kos recently reminded audiences that Türkiye is a “candidate country for EU membership and a strategic partner in Southeast Europe.” This statement underscores Türkiye’s enduring significance in the region and its central position in Europe’s broader security and diplomatic considerations.
Moreover, Türkiye’s growing influence is evident in its recent acquisition of the Italian aerospace company Piaggio Aerospace through its defence giant Baykar, alongside deepening ties with Italy’s Leonardo. These developments send strong messages about Türkiye’s expanding defence footprint in Europe.
The Search for a Balanced Mediator
As peace discussions approach, the need for an experienced and balanced mediator grows urgent. This facilitator must protect all sides’ interests, ensure negotiation progress, and offer solutions to deadlocks while keeping open channels with both Russia and Ukraine.
Given the geopolitical realities, absolute neutrality is nearly impossible. Ukraine and Russia are direct belligerents, while the U.S., Kyiv’s main military backer, is effectively involved. The EU has also taken a pro-Ukraine stance. Thus, a mediator outside the conflict is essential. In this context, ‘neutrality’ shifts to a ‘balanced approach’ to mediation.
Türkiye, with its diplomatic pragmatism, is uniquely suited for this role. A NATO ally maintaining ties with Moscow, it bridges opposing camps. Its history of hosting the Istanbul talks and preserving dialogue makes it a strong candidate. But Türkiye’s role is not limited to mediation alone—it is also a crucial actor in the broader reconfiguration of European security.
Europe’s Critical Choices Ahead
In the months ahead, Europe will have to make difficult choices. It can no longer afford to assume that Washington will always act as its security guarantor. The need for stronger European defence structures is clear, yet divisions persist. Poland has dismissed the prospect of a European army, highlighting the ongoing lack of consensus on deeper military integration.
At the same time, the necessity of engaging constructively with key partners beyond the EU’s borders remains paramount. Türkiye, with its strategic position, demonstrated capacity for diplomatic manoeuvring, and one of the most powerful armies in NATO, is becoming increasingly central to this conversation.
As the war in Ukraine evolves and discussions about post-war security arrangements intensify, European leaders must recalibrate their strategies. The long-standing assumptions of unconditional transatlantic cooperation are being challenged, and the necessity of rethinking Europe’s security architecture has never been more urgent. This moment demands decisive action, strategic vision, and a willingness to engage with a rapidly changing global order. The choices made now will not only determine Europe’s capacity to navigate current crises but also its resilience in an increasingly multipolar world.