Connect with us

Europe

German think tank details expectations from Ankara

Published

on

The German think tank, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), has outlined Berlin’s and Brussels’ expectations regarding Ankara.

An assessment by Yaşar Aydın, titled Türkiye on the Road to Autocracy, looks at the Turkish government’s options from Berlin’s perspective following the arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu.

Aydın highlights the economic dimension of the Erdoğan administration’s operations against opposition-held municipalities, noting that municipalities run by the CHP (Republican People’s Party) house 62% of the total population, generate 73.4% of the GDP, hold 84.5% of total private savings, and account for 79.6% of Türkiye’s total exports.

Aydın states, “Furthermore, the average per capita income in CHP-run municipalities exceeds that of AKP-run municipalities.”

The author suggests this situation gives the CHP a strategic advantage in exerting decisive influence over the economic cycle and thereby creating an alternative sphere of power, emphasizing that construction companies previously doing business with the AKP can now also work with CHP municipalities, making them more “self-confident” in their relations with Erdoğan.

The SWP author adds, “This new economic power of the CHP is particularly important as high credit interest rates have been curbing investment and orders in the construction sector for about two years.”

The SWP analysis argues that the economic instability arising from İmamoğlu’s arrest has significant costs for the government, pointing to both the depletion of Central Bank reserves and rising interest rates.

Aydın argues that Türkiye faces three scenarios going forward: 1. Consolidation of autocracy; 2. Dissolution of the People’s Alliance; 3. An agreement on early elections.

Aydın suggests the first option would create economic instability in Türkiye, arguing that the country needs external resources for economic growth, but the arrest of the largest city’s mayor would create an unfavorable investment climate.

In the second option, he warns that the MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) leaving the People’s Alliance and forming a two-thirds majority with the CHP and DEM Party to dissolve parliament would cause instability. The SWP analyst, pointing out that a CHP-DEM-MHP alliance would be a kind of “motley crew” coalition, does not find this option favorable for Berlin and Brussels either.

According to Aydın, the best option for the EU and Germany is an early election by agreement. In this scenario, İmamoğlu is released from pre-trial detention, and charges against him are dropped, provided the CHP agrees to the dissolution of parliament and new elections.

According to Aydın, this series of events could lead to a more stable political transition process where Türkiye establishes a new electoral system and politically repositions itself under a new president and a CHP-led alliance.

Furthermore, an orderly transfer of power accompanied by political and economic stability would offer an opportunity to reset EU-Türkiye relations and could strengthen the EU’s geopolitical position.

According to the SWP analyst, there are “regional responsibilities” that the EU and Germany expect Türkiye to fulfill, and stability in Ankara is therefore important. These responsibilities are described by SWP as: regulating and countering migration flows; deterring Russia; and helping to stabilize Syria.

According to Aydın, while the US has so far voiced little criticism regarding recent developments in Türkiye, the reactions from EU institutions and Germany have been relatively measured.

Aydın writes: “Two approaches are being debated in Germany: i) avoiding closer security cooperation with the current government, and ii) maintaining relations with the Erdoğan administration through quiet diplomacy that encourages adherence to the rule of law and democratic principles. The second approach is based on the assessment that the EU depends on a stable Türkiye, both as an important NATO partner, especially for deterring Russia, and as a buffer to control migration flows to Europe.”

According to Aydın, while this assessment is correct, it overlooks an important point: In the current geopolitical situation, Türkiye continues to need NATO’s protection to ensure its national security and the EU’s presence as an economic partner and a market for Turkish goods and services to keep its economy on a growth path.

According to SWP, this fact is also highlighted by Türkiye’s continued active efforts to play a key role in the European security architecture, and the same applies to the Turkish defense industry: despite technological advancements, Ankara remains dependent on the EU in many areas.

Aydın states, “It is unrealistic to completely escape this dependency through cooperation with other states or blocs. Indeed, the sustainable development of Türkiye’s defense industry will continue to require close cooperation with EU member states.”

The author concludes: “In this context, Germany and the EU can exert influence on Türkiye by setting the following conditions for increased security cooperation, further integration into the European security architecture, and more cooperation in defense: Türkiye must return to the rule of law, halt its slide towards full autocracy, and respect human rights.”

Aydın writes that Germany can use negotiations on the modernization of the customs union and visa facilitation as leverage against Türkiye, pointing out that both issues are of great importance for Türkiye, which is trying to improve its domestic investment environment. He notes that the Turkish economy is closely intertwined with the EU economy, and regaining economic dynamism largely depends on deepening these ties.

The SWP analyst’s thesis is as follows: “Türkiye and its industrial sector aim for greater integration into European supply chains; however, if the country continues to slide towards autocracy, its chances of benefiting from reshoring will significantly diminish, creating a substantial economic incentive to reconsider the autocratic path. The EU and Germany can raise the prospect of further integration of supply chains while warning the Turkish government against progressing towards autocracy.”

Europe

Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget

Published

on

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has hit back after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz threatened to veto the EU budget unless funding for Ukraine is secured.

Merz said he would block the EU’s seven-year budget if no agreement is reached on financial assistance for Ukraine.

The chancellor’s intervention has angered Central European leaders who are net beneficiaries of EU funds but do not want to take part in the next round of funding to support Ukraine’s war effort.

“What the chancellor is doing is typical blackmail, and I will not bow to it,” Fico told reporters in Bratislava.

Fico spoke alongside his Czech counterpart, Andrej Babiš, whose government has refused to participate in a future loan to Ukraine.

“I do not know why he said this,” Babiš said, referring to Merz’s stance.

Merz wants EU leaders to discuss Ukraine’s financing needs at a summit in Dublin on Friday.

In a letter to European Council President António Costa, who will chair the meeting, obtained by The Guardian, Merz wrote:

“We must maintain our support for Ukraine in its struggle to defend itself. This is our shared vital interest. Yet bilateral aid provided to Ukraine is distributed unevenly, with the burden shouldered mostly by only a few member states.”

The EU agreed last year to provide a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, intended to cover two-thirds of its military and civilian spending for 2026 and 2027.

Since then, however, Russia’s relentless bombardment has placed a heavier financial burden on Kyiv, prompting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ask for €70 billion to plug the budget deficit.

The EU has endorsed Zelenskyy’s figures and pledged to find €45 billion. Ukraine’s other allies, such as Britain and Canada, are expected to cover the rest.

Last year, Merz launched an initiative to tap €210 billion in frozen Russian state assets held in the EU, but the plan fell through due to opposition led by Belgium, which holds most of the funds in Brussels.

The €90 billion loan was the backup plan. Having opted out of that loan, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia indicated that they would not take part in the next round either.

Bulgaria joined these three member states following the election of Prime Minister Rumen Radev last April.

The question of funding for Ukraine is now spilling over into the fraught negotiations on the 2028-34 EU budget.

Germany, the largest net contributor, wants substantial cuts to the proposed budget and opposes the EU providing generous funding to member states that refuse to contribute to Ukraine’s financial needs.

Merz states in his letter that a “collective commitment without exceptions” is a “fundamental prerequisite” for closing Ukraine’s financing gap and for “discussing other matters, particularly those with financial implications.”

He also notes that, in the context of the EU’s next seven-year budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, all member states must contribute to a “robust” financial perspective for Ukraine from 2028 onwards.

A German government official said:

“For the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be successfully concluded, it is vital that all EU member states provide financial support to Ukraine.”

Berlin is also aiming to shift decision-making on funding for Ukraine from unanimity to qualified majority voting, in an effort to prevent a single government from blocking EU decisions.

The letter reflects mounting frustration among the EU’s northern member states, Ukraine’s most generous backers, over lower contributions from other EU countries in Central and Southern Europe.

The task of brokering an agreement on the budget falls to Costa, the former Portuguese prime minister.

Costa wants a deal by the end of the year, ahead of elections in France, Poland, and Italy in 2027 that could complicate the process.

A spokesperson for Costa confirmed receipt of the letter without elaborating on details. “President Costa will dedicate time to the Ukraine issue at the informal European Council meeting in Dublin this week,” the spokesperson said, adding that funding for Ukraine would be addressed at a dedicated summit on the EU budget scheduled for 26-27 November.

Continue Reading

Europe

EU expects next Israeli government to adopt less aggressive posture

Published

on

The EU expects the next Israeli government to mend its “difficult relationship” with Brussels and adopt a more constructive approach toward Gaza and illegal settlements.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog tasked Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, on Sunday with forming a government.

Eisenkot stated that the country faces a “catastrophic diplomatic crisis” as traditional allies begin to reassess their relations with Israel.

Speaking to Rapporteur, several European diplomats stationed in Tel Aviv said they expect ties to get back on track.

“Whatever government comes in, we can try to revitalize relations because Israel is clearly a very important partner,” one European diplomat said, adding that Brussels expects the next administration to be “less aggressive”.

The diplomat noted that relations with Europe are currently “not very good”.

Israel cut off communication with Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, after Rapporteur revealed in June that she had compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa during a visit to Mexico.

The diplomat stated that this decision, taken ahead of elections, was political in nature. A second European diplomat based in Brussels explained that the announcement came only a few days before an official visit by Dubravka Šuica, the European commissioner for the Mediterranean.

“This could have been interpreted as a tactic to divide Europe, but Israel had asked Kallas to deny the report; she did not do so,” the second diplomat said.

Brussels has repeatedly voiced its frustration with Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the expansion of West Bank settlements.

However, EU governments blocked almost all sanctions proposed by the European Commission.

A third diplomat said opposition parties would “almost certainly take the issue more seriously” when it comes to tackling violence by West Bank settlers:

“We see Palestinians being expelled from their homes and new illegal settlements being built in the West Bank. There is a reluctance on the part of the current government to address this issue, which causes problems in our relations.”

The new government is expected to ease pressure on Palestinians and halt construction of the E1 settlement project, a controversial plan to build settler housing in the West Bank east of Jerusalem.

“They will probably try to deal with the problem of extremist settlers in the West Bank,” the diplomat added.

On Gaza, the diplomat described the situation as “a complete nightmare”, with two million Palestinians crowded into an area that accounts for roughly 35% of the territory.

“There are not enough tents for the winter, and not enough vaccines are reaching the area despite an increase in diseases,” the diplomat said.

The European official argued that Donald Trump’s peace plan met all the conditions for Europe. Although the EU had much to offer, neither the US nor Israel appeared interested in EU involvement in the process.

“We are currently training Palestinian police in the West Bank, and if permitted, we could do the same in Gaza,” the diplomat said.

The diplomat disclosed that Israel had agreed with Šuica that Europe would finance two projects aimed at improving sewage and water infrastructure in Gaza, continuing:

“However, none of these projects has started yet because there is a serious problem with dual-use goods. Getting materials into Gaza is very difficult because the Israelis say they could be misused if they fall into the wrong hands of Hamas.”

Israel insists that Hamas must be disarmed before subsequent phases of Trump’s plan can proceed.

With disarmament unlikely to happen in the near term, the EU argues that certain measures can be carried out in parallel.

“We can begin rebuilding sanitation systems in Gaza. We can start building desalination plants. We can begin providing energy and water to Gaza,” one diplomat said.

While Brussels hopes for progress on Gaza and the West Bank, it maintains that expectations regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state need to be “managed”.

The EU continues to advocate a two-state solution, yet most leading Jewish parties oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

The diplomat noted that the next Israeli government will likely have “a very slim majority and not much room for manoeuvre”.

There is also a “major misunderstanding” between the EU and Israel that must be addressed. According to the diplomat, Europeans fail to recognize the “psychological impact” of 7 October on Israelis.

“This event changed the country and made the two-state solution even more distant than before,” the diplomat said.

In return, some Israeli politicians believe Europe has betrayed Israel despite what they view as a fight against “Islamist terrorism”.

“Their argument is that European politicians are somewhat afraid of the Muslim population in Europe,” the European diplomat said.

Europe strongly opposes Iran and the possibility of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons, imposing sanctions in response.

However, the diplomat argued that the EU would not participate in a war because it lacks a common army:

“We are a diplomatic and economic power, which is why we resort to sanctions and diplomacy. The expectation that we would take part in a military operation is unrealistic.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Germany threatens EU budget veto over long-term Ukraine aid

Published

on

Germany has threatened to veto the European Union’s joint budget for the 2028-2034 period, which is currently under negotiation, unless every member state commits to providing financial support to Ukraine in 2027 and subsequent years, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned.

According to a report by the Financial Times (FT), Chancellor Merz set out Berlin’s condition for the budget talks in a letter addressed to European Council President António Costa.

In his letter, Merz wrote: “A collective commitment that every single one of us, without exception, will make a fair contribution to closing Ukraine’s budget deficit is an indispensable prerequisite for resolving this budget issue and, in particular, for addressing subsequent matters that carry financial implications.”

The German Chancellor stressed that a formula backed by all member states must be established to provide Ukraine with a reliable, multi-year financial perspective starting from 2028.

Merz also insisted that any agreed solution must cover the interest payments on debts incurred to finance the assistance provided to Kyiv.

Conversely, several countries within the bloc have cut financial aid to Ukraine, and the number of capitals adopting this stance is projected to rise next year.

In December 2025, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic approved the EU’s 90 billion euro loan package for Kyiv only on the condition that they would not contribute to its costs themselves.

Alongside these three countries, Bulgaria has also stated that it does not plan to participate in subsequent financial assistance packages for Ukraine.

In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who could potentially win the presidential election scheduled for spring 2027, recently told the FT that Paris has run out of funds.

Le Pen assessed: “The honest approach is to tell Mr Zelensky clearly, and even warn him: ‘Look, we cannot do more. We have already allocated the 90 billion euro EU loan, in which France’s share amounts to 18 billion euros. 18 billion euros is genuinely a huge amount of money.'”

The EU’s 90 billion euro loan, covering the 2026-2027 period, aims to meet two-thirds of Ukraine’s financing requirements.

Brussels expects the remaining 45 billion euros to be covered by other partners, including Canada, the UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Germany remains the largest net contributor to the EU budget.

In contrast, the four Eastern European countries seeking to avoid financing Ukraine rank among the largest net beneficiaries of the bloc’s budget.

Leveraging this balance, Chancellor Merz aims to use his influence in the EU budget negotiations to secure uninterrupted support for Kyiv in 2027 and the years beyond.

According to the FT, Berlin is also demanding that future aid packages be decided by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity, which is required under the current system.

A German government spokesperson told the newspaper:

“The issue of Ukraine’s financial needs must be resolved within the framework of the next EU budget. Financial support for Ukraine from all EU members is decisive for the successful conclusion of the budget talks.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey