# Erdogan, the tightrope walker keeping both NATO and the Kremlin close > By hosting the NATO summit in Ankara this week, Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirms a unique position within the Atlantic Alliance: that of - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Editorial - Published: 2026-07-07 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/erdogan-l-equilibriste-qui-menage-l-otan-et-le-kremlin-a-la-fois ## Introduction: a host playing both sides of the table ### Ankara, capital of a deliberate balancing act By hosting the **NATO** summit in **Ankara** this week, **Recep Tayyip Erdogan** confirms a unique position within the **Atlantic Alliance**: that of a full member-state leader who simultaneously maintains close economic and diplomatic ties with **Moscow**. The Turkish president is set to host **Volodymyr Zelensky** for an official dinner while also holding bilateral talks with **Donald Trump**, a diplomatic balancing act rarely seen on this scale. This dual role is nothing new, but it takes on particular resonance as transatlantic tensions grow, between the war waged by the **United States** against **Iran** without consulting allies and **Trump's** repeated criticism of European funding for **NATO**. ### A summit marked by uncertainty According to **Reuters**, several European officials hope the good personal relationships that both **Erdogan** and Secretary General **Mark Rutte** maintain with **Trump** will help defuse the tensions expected during this summit, though none can guarantee a smooth outcome. This surrounding uncertainty illustrates the particular role **Erdogan** now plays within **NATO**: no longer just one ally among others, but an informal mediator whose conciliatory skill could shape the overall atmosphere of the talks ahead. *I'll say it plainly: a situation in which a head of state must simultaneously accommodate Moscow and Washington within the same military alliance should trouble us more than it does. But it is Turkey's geopolitical reality, and it deserves to be faced head-on rather than ignored for diplomatic comfort.* ## Geography that dictates an ambiguous diplomacy ### Strategic control of the straits **Turkey's** geographic position, controlling access to the **Bosphorus** and **Dardanelles** straits linking the **Black Sea** to the **Mediterranean**, gives **Ankara** considerable strategic leverage over Russian and Western naval movements in this critical region of the Ukrainian conflict. This geographic card, more than any ideological consideration, explains **Erdogan's** calculated caution toward **Moscow**. Under the **Montreux Convention**, **Turkey** holds the power to restrict the passage of warships through these straits during wartime, a tool **Ankara** has indeed used to limit certain Russian naval movements since the start of the full-scale invasion of **Ukraine**. ### An economic partner that is hard to sanction Trade between **Turkey** and **Russia** remains substantial, notably in the energy and tourism sectors, which puts **Erdogan** in a delicate position facing Western calls for stricter economic isolation of **Moscow**. This mutual dependence structurally limits Turkish diplomatic room to maneuver, whatever pressure its **NATO** partners apply. This economic reality explains why **Ankara** has consistently refused to join the Western sanctions regime against **Russia**, while continuing to supply **Ukraine** with significant military equipment, notably combat drones recognized for their effectiveness on the front. *I understand the geographic and economic constraints weighing on Ankara, but I refuse to see them as a sufficient excuse. You cannot claim to be a reliable NATO ally while categorically refusing to join the economic pressure effort against the aggressor.* ## Dual military support, an acknowledged contradiction ### Bayraktar drones that shaped the war Paradoxically, **Turkey** remains one of **Ukraine's** most important military suppliers since the conflict began, notably through its **Bayraktar TB2** combat drones, which played a documented role in the early phases of Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion. This direct military contribution contrasts sharply with Turkey's refusal to economically sanction **Moscow**. This apparent contradiction between military support for **Kyiv** and maintaining normalized economic relations with **Moscow** is precisely the hallmark of Erdoganian diplomacy: an ability to compartmentalize international relationships along distinct logics, without ever locking itself into a single exclusive camp. ### A recognized but limited mediator role **Ankara** has also hosted several rounds of negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian representatives since the war began, a mediator function **Turkey** claims with a certain diplomatic pride, even though these negotiations have so far produced no lasting peace agreement. This mediator role, while it has not yet borne diplomatic fruit, nonetheless gives **Erdogan** international visibility and a particular status within **NATO**, that of the only member able to keep an open communication channel with **Moscow** under all circumstances. *I recognize the practical usefulness of this Turkish channel to Moscow, but I remain skeptical about its sincerity. A mediator who sells drones to one side and buys gas from the other isn't neutral — he's simply skilled at appearing to be.* ## Erdogan facing Trump, a hall of mirrors ### Two political styles that mirror each other The personal relationship between **Erdogan** and **Trump** rests on a form of mutual recognition between two leaders with similar political styles, marked by assertive nationalism and a shared distrust of traditional multilateral institutions. This personal closeness could prove valuable in defusing tensions expected during the **Ankara** summit. Several European diplomats cited by **Reuters** are explicitly counting on this relationship to prevent **Trump's** repeated criticism of European funding for **NATO** from escalating into an open crisis during the summit's official discussions. ### A credibility test for the Turkish presidency This role of informal facilitator between **Washington** and its European allies represents both an opportunity and a risk for **Erdogan**: succeeding at this mediation would considerably strengthen his international standing, while failure would expose the real limits of his personal influence over a notoriously unpredictable American president. This personal dimension of international diplomacy, where relationships between leaders sometimes matter as much as the official positions of states, illustrates a reality of contemporary foreign policy that **Erdogan** has mastered with considerable skill over the years. *I find it telling that the fate of a NATO summit depends as much on the personal chemistry between two men as on the official positions of their respective countries. It's fragile, but it's the diplomatic reality of our time.* ## The dinner with Zelensky, a symbol of measured support ### A hospitality that doesn't tell the whole story The official dinner **Erdogan** is set to host for **Volodymyr Zelensky** on the summit's sidelines is a significant diplomatic gesture, reaffirming Turkish recognition of the Ukrainian government's legitimacy against Russian aggression. This gesture continues Turkey's ongoing support for **Ukraine's** territorial integrity, a position **Ankara** has held consistently since **2022**. This diplomatic hospitality should not, however, mask the real limits of Turkish commitment: **Turkey** continues to refuse any participation in the Western sanctions regime, a reservation that clearly distinguishes its support from that of other **NATO** allies more economically committed against **Moscow**. ### Kyiv, aware of this ally's limits Ukrainian officials, accustomed to distinguishing rhetorical support from concrete commitments, maintain a pragmatic relationship with **Ankara**, valuing Turkish military deliveries while staying clear-eyed about the impossibility of getting **Turkey** to fully align with the hardest Western line against **Moscow**. This pragmatic relationship, built on acknowledged mutual compromise, illustrates well the complexity of Western alliances facing **Russia**: not all **NATO** members share the same intensity of commitment, and **Kyiv** must work with this reality to maximize whatever support is available, even if partial. *I believe Kyiv is right to accept this imperfect relationship with Ankara rather than demanding a perfect one. In an existential war, a partial ally that delivers drones is worth more than a perfect ally that delivers only speeches.* ## The internal NATO tensions Ankara must manage ### An ally who divides as much as he unites **Turkey's** ambiguous position has, over the years, generated recurring tensions with other **NATO** members, notably regarding its purchases of Russian military equipment or economic relations some more uncompromising partners, such as the Baltic or Nordic states, consider too permissive toward **Moscow**. These internal tensions have, however, never led to a fundamental challenge to Turkey's membership in the **Atlantic Alliance**, as **Turkey's** strategic position and military power remain too valuable for its Western partners to seriously consider marginalizing **Ankara**. ### A role that could become even more decisive As transatlantic tensions grow under the **Trump** presidency, the balancing role **Erdogan** plays could become even more central in the months ahead, notably if the **United States** continues reducing its direct military commitment in **Europe** while demanding more from its European allies. This growing centrality of **Ankara** within **NATO** raises a fundamental question Western capitals will sooner or later have to settle: can an ally who refuses sanctions against **Russia** while fully benefiting from the **Atlantic Alliance's** collective guarantees keep being tolerated indefinitely? *I'll ask the question bluntly: at what point does Turkish ambiguity become incompatible with membership in a collective defense alliance against Russia? I have no simple answer, but the question deserves to be asked publicly rather than avoided for diplomatic comfort.* ## What the Ankara summit reveals about Turkey's game ### A symbolic venue chosen with care Choosing **Ankara** as host city for this **NATO** summit is no coincidence: it lets **Erdogan** stage, on his own soil, his indispensable balancing role between **Washington**, **Brussels**, and, indirectly, **Moscow**. This geographic symbolism strengthens Turkey's diplomatic position at a pivotal moment in transatlantic relations. Hosting both **Zelensky** and **Trump** on Turkish soil at once, amid sharp tensions between Western allies, is a show of diplomatic strength **Erdogan** will surely exploit politically, both domestically and internationally. ### A strategy that could serve peace as easily as delay it **Erdogan's** bet remains risky: by cultivating a position of indispensability with every actor in the conflict, he could indeed help facilitate, one day, a negotiated resolution to the war in **Ukraine**. But that same strategy of permanent balancing could just as easily delay the difficult decisions the situation demands, by sustaining the illusion of a neutrality that primarily benefits **Turkey** itself. It is this fundamental ambivalence, between useful mediation and calculated national interest, that defines Turkey's role in this war and will likely continue shaping **Ankara's** diplomacy for as long as the Ukrainian conflict remains unresolved. *I'll close with a nuanced conviction: Erdogan is playing a dangerous but skillful game — being indispensable to everyone without truly submitting to anyone. History will judge whether this strategy served peace or merely the personal interests of a man who excels at never permanently choosing a side.* ## The energy card, another lever of Turkish pressure ### Russian gas, a persistent dependence **Turkey** remains a significant importer of **Russian natural gas**, notably via the **TurkStream** pipeline, an infrastructure that supplies a substantial share of Turkish energy needs and serves as an additional argument for **Ankara's** refusal to join Western sanctions against **Moscow**. This energy dependence, combined with economic interests tied to tourism and Turkish agricultural exports to **Russia**, creates a network of interdependencies that neither **Brussels** nor **Washington** appear able to break in the short term, despite repeated diplomatic pressure on **Erdogan**. ### An energy balance that is hard to break Western attempts to persuade **Turkey** to further diversify its energy supply sources run into long-term contractual realities and the absence of immediately available alternatives at comparable costs, which keeps **Ankara** in a position of structural dependence on **Moscow** for years to come. This energy reality further reinforces the logic of permanent balance **Erdogan** has embraced for years, a logic that will likely continue shaping Turkish foreign policy well beyond the duration of the current Ukrainian conflict alone. *I believe this energy dependence explains Turkish behavior more than any ideological consideration. Erdogan doesn't go easy on Moscow out of sympathy — he does it out of cold energy calculation, and that may be even more worrying for the future of Western cohesion.* ## Conclusion: the tightrope walker who won't fall ### A role tailor-made for Erdogan The **Ankara** summit confirms, once again, the singular position **Recep Tayyip Erdogan** occupies within **NATO**: that of an ally whose loyalty to the **Atlantic Alliance** never translates into a complete break with **Moscow**. This calculated ambiguity, far from being a diplomatic accident, has been the very core of his foreign policy strategy for years. ### A balance that cannot last forever It remains to be seen how long this balance can hold, as the war in **Ukraine** enters its fifth year and Western pressure for clearer alignment against **Russia** will likely keep intensifying in the months and years ahead. *I'll close with a question that will likely remain unanswered for a long time: will Erdogan someday save the peace through this permanent balancing act, or will he simply have delayed the hour of hard choices the West will eventually have to impose on Moscow?* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - Ministry of Defence of Ukraine — official communications, July 2026 - Reuters — NATO leaders gather in Ankara aiming to smooth over tensions with Trump, July 3, 2026 - Armyinform — official Ukrainian communications, July 2026 ### Secondary sources - Foreign Policy — analysis of Turkish foreign policy, 2026 - The Guardian International — coverage of the NATO summit, 2026 - Anadolu Agency — infographic on Turkey's position within NATO, 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/erdogan-l-equilibriste-qui-menage-l-otan-et-le-kremlin-a-la-fois