Connect with us

Europe

Increased importance of the Central Corridor after the Ukraine war improved Türkiye-EU relations

Published

on

Samuel Doveri Vesterbye, Director of the European Neighbourhood Council, spoke to Harici. Vesterbye said that Türkiye’s EU accession process is frozen and will not move forward, but noted that despite this, since the war in Ukraine some new geopolitical changes have happened and this has aligned a new interest, the new interest of the EU and Türkiye. “This has made the relationship much better,” he said.

A specialist in Türkiye, Central Asia and the Middle East, Vesterbye’s research focuses on EU-MENA and EU-Türkiye relations in the areas of trade, accession, energy, migration and regional neighbourhood policy. Vesterbye answered our questions on the European Union (EU) enlargement process, Türkiye’s accession negotiations, Ukraine and the Gaza conflict.

How is EU’s enlargement process going in neighborhood countries, and what could you say about recent reevaluation of readmission agreement with Türkiye?

The relationship between the EU and Türkiye has for a long time been focused on accession. But accession is now frozen and it’s not going to move. That’s because of problems that there were both in the EU and problems also in Türkiye such as Copenhagen criteria, non-compliance, Cyprus, trade irritants… There are many many factors that that lead led to this unfortunately. This is, of course, negatively affected the relationship between Türkiye and EU but in the last few years since the war in Ukraine, some new geopolitical changes have happened. Notably, the Middle Corridor has become much much more important because of trucks infrastructure, containers, insurance premiums having to be deviated away from the Northern Corridor which is Russia. And this has immediately changed the geopolitical landscape making this Middle Corridor from China into Central Asia, trans-Caspian into Caucasus, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia into Türkiye across Black Sea as well into Balkans, Romania, Bulgaria and the EU much much more relevant. So, all of a sudden what we’ve seen is an increase in trade in this region. This has aligned a new interest, the new interest of the EU and Türkiye. This has made the relationship much better and because of these geopolitical changes, everything from readmission to Customs Union to security, to common foreign policy, to areas on critical raw materials and supply chains will be much more aligned in the upcoming years; maybe even upcoming months.

But don’t you think that this is some temporary developments? You know, in the long term, the cooperation of the EU with Türkiye or it’s dependency on Türkiye because of good relations with Russia is very temporary. Do you think it’s really going to affect Türkiye’s position in the EU or it’s accession to EU?

Well, first of all, everything is temporary. This is the most important thing to remember. There is no geopolitical moment of opportunity which has not been temporary in history. All of them have a timeline. The question is whether the stakeholders involved the countries grab the opportunity and exploit it to their own benefit in that moment. There is a moment of opportunity. Whether or not Türkiye and the EU will fully take advantage of it, only God will know. I have no idea. But I know for a fact that since the war in Ukraine until now, Türkiye and the EU have gotten much much closer. I was in Ankara only last week at a closed-door event together with Center for Euroasian Studies (AVİM) and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS). I felt like half of the Ankara’s diplomacy was there. And we’re talking about supply chains, critical raw materials, energy independence, common relationship with Caucasus and Central Asia, the transport and logistics that we can co-fund with European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), European Investment Bank (EIB). In the investors forum in January where there was also Türkiye’s transport delegation as well as representation from DEİK, they were there, too. I saw the positive momentum and I also saw the unblocking of large funds up to 10.5 billion just in the Investors Forum there for renewable energy in Central Asia. And now the EU and Türkiye are working together to do co-production, co-ventures, various types of very important geo-economic perspectives toward both countries.

Is the future of the EU as a political union at risk? After Brexit, there are discussions about the possibility of other countries leaving the Union. We started to talk about this after Brexit but still some other countries, for example Hungary is under sanctions and some negative things are going on. EU is forcing it’s all member countries to apply sanctions to Russia. Do you think there will be any cracks in future?

Yes, inevitably. What the European Union is doing today, is historically the most unique attempt at unifying 27 member-states, 420 or 425 million people. If you did this in any other time throughout history, you would have been a war. And what they’re trying to do is that they’re trying to do it peacefully. This is a very difficult task. So, along the way you’re going to have right-wing movements, certain countries disagreeing and all these discrepancies, this is inevitable. But when you actually look at what the EU is doing especially in my lifetime, they’ve increased double the budget since Covid. So, now it’s not 1% of GDP as a common budget, it is 2%. That’s gigantic to share that kind of budget together. Secondly, they’re harmonizing all legislation. 85% of laws in the EU are now EU laws, not national laws. Now, they’re funding defense and security interoperability. Whole range of different subjects that you would never have been able to imagine ten, fifteen years ago. I think it’s quite clear that the EU is moving at a very fast pace and it’s signing trade agreements around the world including with Türkiye. Customs Union reform hopefully this year or next will be released. Customs Union reform means there’s no tariffs on any products and there will be services in the future as well. Türkiye is the only country in the whole world with the exception. The rest of the world doesn’t have that kind of trade agreement. It’s only Türkiye and the EU have no customs. This is the reason why every single product in Germany is manufactured here. 

It’s also affordable work-force in Türkiye, comparing to the EU.

The EU is not taking advantage. It’s a win-win. When you look at the economic figure, it’s simple. In 1995, 3,000 Euro GDP per capita was Türkiye. It joins the accession process. It gets the EPA funds, EBRD funds. The government of AKP does a good job especially in the early 2000s. This country booms because 7,500 companies from Germany come in here. 4,000 companies from Holland come in here. 1,500 companies from France come in here. All of a sudden your whole manufacturing business and it’s not low technology. I mean, look at your defense industry today. It’s high technology everything from automotive, white good, textile -that’s a lower technology level- but this didn’t exist in Türkiye before. This is because of the Customs Union, because of EPA funds, it’s because of a very important interdependent relationship which is inseparable. It’s impossible. If Türkiye tomorrow goes bankrupt, Germany doesn’t exist. if Germany tomorrow goes bankrupt, Türkiye doesn’t exist. This is simple economics. It’s inseparable interdependency. All the politics aside -Cyprus, trade irritants, disagreement on the East-Med… They’re all problems. There are blames to be held in the EU and there are blames to be held in Türkiye as well. But from the economic point of view and the geographic point of view which doesn’t lie, we’re not 10,000 km away from one another. 

Do you think European united front for Ukraine is cracking for a while? On the one hand, Germany does not want to involve the Ukrainian war militarily, and on the other hand, France and some Eastern European countries do not rule out boots-on-the-ground. Macron said NATO should send troops to Ukraine to fight against Russia. Some cracks are true regarding the financial aid. Do you think that Ukraine can secure the EU aid for good?

Inside the EU, there are some differences in opinion with regards to how much military capacity needs to be given to Ukraine and at which volume and in which time frame. But pretty much all the EU countries have an opinion that Ukraine is a future member state. It’s a candidate country now right, so, if it’s become a candidate country, it means that all the EU countries can agree that Ukraine must have sovereign territory and no longer face the aggression of Russia, which by the way the Turkish Foreign Ministry Hakan Fidan, who was here with us at Antalya Diplomacy Forum, says exactly the same thing: “Respect the natural territory and sovereignty of Ukraine”. This is a Turkish message and EU message. Now, the question then becomes how fast and how much do you arm? This is the details that are more difficult. Germany is more apprehensive. They promised to significantly increase their budget but for a long time they’ve been worried about how much to spend on military versus social. They have electorates as well. That are worried about their social  spending and all these kind of things. So, this is a fine line to be found. What France is doing is very interesting. What France is doing is a lot of people think “oh, why is France so pro-Ukraine all of a sudden?” Well, there’s a simple reason for it. The United States is slowly removing itself, maybe it won’t, but with Donald Trump as a potential next President, there’s a real risk. So, what is France is doing is filling a vacuum. It’s saying, “Okay, my Eastern European  brothers in the European Union and also maybe in the future Türkiye that also faces a lot of problems from his northern neighbor are at risk. Bulgaria, Romania, Balkans, Kosovo, Moldova, the Baltics, Poland.” These are all countries on the front line. They’ve seen what Russia is capable of doing. Maybe provoked, maybe not provoked, that’s an open discussion among different people. But the reality is that Russia is in war and it’s threatening the whole of Eastern Europe. And so, what does France want to do? Step in and provide a security umbrella for their common Europeans in order to have a United Europe. 

What are your views on the farmer protests that started in Eastern Europe and spread to Western Europe? Do you think the European Green Deal is feasible?

No, of course. What you’re seeing is in the European Union, there is always protest about everything. It’s a very democratic structure. So, whenever you make a policy that’s going to somewhat negatively impact the agricultural sector, immediately they have so much infrastructure. They come out with their tractors and they spray milk on the Commission and they always do this. And they’ve been doing this for years. And the green deal what’s important to remember that by fulfilling the green deal the agricultural sector have to stop using as many pesticides as they’re using. Pesticides are the thing that give everyone cancer but it’s cost effective. It’s cheap. Now, the citizens -might or might not be aware of it- but they’re the ones who are going to get the cancer. The farmers who are big industry, they want to use the pesticides because it’s in their advantage to sell cheaper products. The European Commission is looking at it both from the consumer perspective of “I don’t want to get all my citizens to get sick because then the hospital bill is going to be very high in the next 10 years and is also not ethically the right thing to do” and at the same time they’re also very visionary in the sense that they’re thinking climate change, of course, ethically wrong. “We don’t want to breathe bad air. We don’t want to have factories polluting our cities.” Also because this creates social unrest. People get angry when you have factories blowing in their face. But on top of that, they have a very other visionary perspective which is the idea of that if we fulfill transition into solar, hydro, biomass, hydrogen and  wind power, we get to be energy independent. That’s energy autonomy. This is something that Türkiye wants as well. And it’s not coincidental that Türkiye is putting so much money and so much emphasis onto renewable energy as well. And now the Central Asians as well are doing the same with EU funding, with Türkiye’s support and with member states’ support because you want to be energy autonomous in this world. You don’t want to depend on everyone else who will make the decisions for you.

Of course, the EU’s official position is a ‘two-state solution’, but in practice, it does not seem a well pursued policy… What is the EU’s position regarding Israel’s war on Gaza?

It’s complicated because the EU and Norway are traditionally the two biggest funders of the Palestinian Authority in the world. They have put in the most money over the last many years and they’ve proposed a two-state solution which is also for a long period of time been supported by many other countries as well including the Arab countries. This has failed. The Netanyahu’s right-wing government has essentially started colonizing parts of what should be independent Palestinian jurisdiction on 1967 borders which is an absolute shame and is against international law. So, this has now started dividing the EU. Some countries in the beginning were a little bit more neutral. There are only very few countries in the EU like Hungary that vote for Israel. The majority of them were neutral in the ceasefire resolution at the UN. But they’re also significant amount like France, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Ireland who are in favor of the ceasefire, in favor of Palestine, and who vote for in the UN as well. And those countries are becoming more and more important. I think France is a very interesting country in this respect. France was the only country, when the US moved one of it’s military ships into the economic maritime zone of Israel to protect, France moved its other ship which were military hospital into the Gaza-Palestine Maritime area to protect them. And this is something which was not reported so much. What it shows is that France is changing its position in the world and maybe taking much more of a Muslim and also international law, pro-Palestine perspective vis-à-vis this conflict. 

Europe

Nokia and ICEYE sign deal to build sovereign Ukraine satellite network

Published

on

Nokia and space technology company ICEYE have signed a memorandum of understanding with Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence to establish a satellite communications network controlled directly by the Kyiv government.

A press release issued by Nokia noted that the parties will jointly assess the feasibility of implementing a Ukrainian-controlled communications system.

The agreement was announced on 22 October during the Finnish Prime Minister’s visit to Ukraine. The primary goal of the cooperation was described as bolstering the country’s defence capabilities, first and foremost by strengthening its independent satellite communications capacity.

Earlier in October, ICEYE and Nokia announced that they would jointly develop secure broadband communication systems operating in low Earth orbit for public institutions.

Designed for defence, border security, emergency services, and disaster response teams, these European-origin technologies are stated to allow states to directly own and independently operate their own satellites, ground infrastructure, and terminals.

In remarks on the matter, ICEYE Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder Rafal Modrzewski stated that Ukraine requires secure, sovereign, and high-capacity satellite communications systems under its complete control.

Mikko Hautala, Nokia’s Director of Geopolitical and Government Relations and Chairman of the Nokia Defence Board, pointed out that satellite networks ensure the continuity of communications even when terrestrial transmission infrastructure suffers damage.

Hautala said that together with ICEYE, they will explore how reliable and sovereign satellite communications can enhance Ukraine’s resilience and provide the Kyiv government with control over communications on which it depends.

Based in Finland, space company ICEYE develops and manufactures radar satellites and makes data obtained from these satellites available for use.

According to information shared by the company, its technologies are used in defence and intelligence, as well as in environmental monitoring, insurance, and emergency response operations.

Reports indicating that restrictions had been placed on the US satellite connection used by the Ukrainian military surfaced just before this agreement.

In a post on the night of 14 October, former Ukrainian Defence Ministry Adviser Serhiy Sternenko stated that terminals were losing connection when travelling at speeds of 160 kilometres per hour, and that these disruptions later began occurring at speeds of 60 to 70 kilometres per hour as well.

SpaceX head Elon Musk maintained that the US government owns and manages Starshield, the military version of Starlink, and that restriction decisions were therefore taken by US authorities.

The White House, meanwhile, stated that it had nothing to do with the restrictions.

According to a 22 October report in The Wall Street Journal citing US officials, US President Donald Trump personally asked Musk to lift the restrictions in question.

Following the discussion, US and Ukrainian officials stated that the system began operating more stably, while some Ukrainian representatives said functionality had not yet fully returned to its previous state. Trump confirmed that Ukraine’s Starshield access had been restored.

The restrictions met with backlash across Europe.

Accusing Musk of playing political games, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski posted on the X platform: “We are your European customers, we are watching you.”

Poland has purchased approximately 25,000 Starlink terminals for Ukraine since 2022 and continues to cover the satellite connection costs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Following these developments, the European Commission also announced that Ukraine’s inclusion in the Govsatcom programme is under consideration.

Bringing together the existing satellite capacity of EU member states, the secure communications programme is planned by Brussels to be expanded with commercial services at the start of 2027.

Continue Reading

Europe

Mélenchon’s “new France” vision triggers fierce cross-party debate

Published

on

Following the unrest in France this month, the country finds itself split between Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s project of a “new France” and Marine Le Pen’s call for “law and order”.

Triggered alongside the student revolt, the question of national identity has moved to the centre of the presidential race.

“This is Mélenchon’s ‘new France’,” said National Rally (RN) leader Jordan Bardella and Identity and Freedom (ID) party leader Marion Maréchal Le Pen, linking the scenes of violence directly to the phrase.

According to several recent speeches by the leader of France Unbowed (LFI), “new France” signifies a country transformed positively by immigration, women’s rights, shifting family structures, social mobility, and the political demands of younger generations.

Mélenchon contends that this optimistic vision can become a reality if voters elect him president next year.

Two Frances to clash this weekend

Yet as the April 2027 elections draw closer, Mélenchon’s vision of a “new France” has turned into a recurring target for Marine Le Pen’s party, the RN, because it encapsulates a fundamental rift over French identity.

While Le Pen’s party draws on nostalgia for a revived nationalist past, Mélenchon’s vision of a “new France” envisages a clean break with the old order.

These two visions appear set for a direct collision this weekend. Le Pen will stage a gathering in Orléans before 10,000 supporters, which RN officials say will focus on authority, French identity, and public order.

Mélenchon’s party, LFI, is expected to join demonstrations against the RN alongside other left-wing forces and trade unions in the historic French town associated with Joan of Arc, which Le Pen treats as a nationalist symbol.

Echoes of Sartre in “new France”: Change over essentialism

Defending the concept of “new France” against its critics, LFI argues that it cannot be understood without reading a little of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and grasping the legacy accumulated from the left’s long ideological battles.

From a Sartrean perspective, “new France” is not a fixed, essentialist identity, but a fluid, changing reality.

Rather than declaring “this is who we are”, this outlook is grounded in “this is what we live through”, describing the varied realities confronted by precarious workers, women, people of non-French origin, and young voters.

According to this view, their lived experiences fit neither the right’s nor the left’s traditional national representations.

Mélenchon identifies women as the face of the “new France”. This category also encompasses blended families, young people, LGBT rights, long-distance commuters, and French citizens whose ancestors were born abroad.

Broadsides from the right, criticism from the left

Although he has used the phrase for years, pollsters note that it has become increasingly prominent as identity politics has come to occupy a larger share of his campaigning.

For critics across the political spectrum, “new France” implies casting “old France” aside.

Conservative Bruno Retailleau, for example, describes it as “the end of France”.

Former LFI ally François Ruffin criticises Mélenchon from the left. In Ruffin’s view, the LFI leader is trading class-based political appeal for an appeal directed at diverse urban electorates, sacrificing working-class towns and deindustrialised regions in the process.

Others dismiss the phrase as a slogan fabricated to drive polarisation across every cultural fault line.

Promoting the concept in May ahead of the French municipal elections, Mélenchon said: “The new France is not one part of France set against another; it is the whole of France.”

A month later, he noted that crowds at his rallies chanted “On est chez nous!” or “This is our home!”

Usually associated with far-right gatherings through the variant “France belongs to us”, the slogan, according to Rapporteur, offers a simpler expression of what the two camps are actually contesting: who gets to define French identity, and who feels at home in France.

Continue Reading

Europe

EU unveils Arctic plan targeting military corridors and resources

Published

on

The EU is developing plans to enhance its military mobility in the Arctic and aims to establish “multimodal military movement corridors” across the High North.

According to a report by German Foreign Policy, this initiative was outlined in the EU’s new Arctic strategy presented by the European Commission in Brussels on Tuesday.

Under the strategy, a complex logistics network consisting of “ports, airports, and their inland connections” will be created across the Arctic, designed to “remain operational even under adverse weather conditions.”

The strategy paper also announces that “exercises or stress tests” will be conducted to ensure the smooth deployment of military forces and capabilities to the Arctic.

Through this strategy, the EU is responding to the reality that climate change-driven Arctic ice melt is facilitating access to regional natural resources while opening new sea routes, such as the Northeast and Northwest Passages, which can now be used for both commercial and military operations.

The Arctic strategy aims for greater independence from the US and envisages laying a “pan-Arctic” submarine cable running from Europe through the polar region to East Asia.

Arctic natural resources

The EU’s new Arctic strategy addresses, among other topics, the natural resources located in the Arctic, both beneath the seabed and on land.

Due to thawing ice, these resources are already accessible or will soon become easier to reach, and Brussels supports their extraction.

Specific projects highlighted include a rare earth element extraction venture near Kiruna in northernmost Sweden and a plan to mine molybdenum in eastern Greenland.

Departing from its previous 2021 Arctic strategy, the Commission no longer advocates an outright ban on oil, gas, and coal extraction in the Arctic within a multilateral framework.

This policy shift comes as Norway has emerged as the bloc’s most vital natural gas supplier, providing approximately 30% of all its natural gas imports following the EU’s phased reduction of Russian energy imports.

However, production from Norway’s existing fields is expected to decline in the 2030s. Consequently, Norway plans to explore new deposits in the Barents Sea, where vast reserves are estimated to lie.

Dependent on raw material supplies from Norway as well as strategic cooperation with Oslo, the EU no longer opposes these exploration plans.

New sea routes opened by melting ice

The EU is also turning its attention to the gradual opening of new Arctic shipping routes.

For instance, the Northeast Passage, running along Russia’s northern coastline from East Asia to Europe, is now open to navigation between August and October.

This route is considerably shorter than the conventional transit via the Indian Ocean, significantly reducing shipping costs, especially in light of current oil prices.

A Chinese shipping firm launched regular services via the Northeast Passage this summer, while a South Korean vessel recently returned to the port of Busan after completing its maiden commercial voyage along the corridor.

Although used by few vessels to date, the Northwest Passage has also come into operation as a route extending from the North Atlantic through Canada’s northern archipelago and north of Alaska toward East Asia.

Experts believe that, during the summer months, this passage could offer advantages over the traditional route via the Panama Canal “for certain vessel types and transport routes.”

The emergence of new military capabilities was underscored in September when four Russian warships navigated the Shokalsky Strait between two Russian Arctic islands for the first time in history.

Military mobility in the High North

This development represents another driver behind the EU’s new Arctic Strategy placing particular emphasis on military aspects.

Russia has been strengthening its Arctic military positions for some time, partly because the headquarters of its Northern Fleet, which hosts part of its second-strike capability, is located on its north-western coast, and partly because its exceptionally long northern coastline remains strategically vulnerable.

NATO has likewise been expanding its activities in the Arctic considerably, holding numerous exercises across northern Finland, Sweden, and Norway, as well as in Iceland and Greenland, alongside its new “Operation Arctic Sentry.”

The strategy document states that the EU must now strengthen its own posture in the Arctic.

This objective is to be pursued both in cooperation with NATO and through independent EU measures.

For example, situational awareness must be enhanced, including by leveraging EU satellite systems, particularly Copernicus and Galileo.

Additionally, the planned IRIS2 satellite constellation, conceived as Europe’s counterpart to Starlink, should be expanded to cover the Arctic to improve communications.

To coordinate these initiatives, the EU plans to establish a Maritime Security Centre.

The EU places special emphasis on military mobility in the Arctic. According to the document, rapid and large-scale troop deployments must be feasible in the region at any time if required.

To this end, “multimodal military movement corridors” incorporating ports, airports, and their inland connections need to be established.

These facilities will be designed as a unified, complex logistics system “capable of remaining operational even under adverse weather conditions.”

Realising this plan will require preparation for “ice clearance,” “the handling of heavy and oversized military vehicles on frozen ground,” and “the rapid repair of damaged infrastructure.”

Looking ahead, the EU is urged to organize “exercises or stress tests focused on the smooth deployment of forces and military capabilities to and within the Arctic” in cooperation with NATO or like-minded partners.

Viewing these capabilities as vital for “credible deterrence,” the EU also underscores the need for its own icebreaker fleet to clear pathways through the ice for warships.

The Arctic’s role in “strategic autonomy” vis-a-vis the US

Throughout this process, the EU is not only adopting a clear stance toward Russia, but is also pursuing greater independence from the US.

On one hand, the strategy encourages deepening ties with Greenland, which is part of Denmark, does not belong to the EU, and has faced threats of US annexation. The document designates this relationship as a cornerstone of the new Arctic strategy.

On the other hand, the text calls for intensifying cooperation as part of a “Northern Neighbourhood” strategy with Norway, Iceland, and Canada, as well as with the UK, which occupies a strategically advantageous position despite not being an Arctic coastal state.

The EU maintains a security and defence dialogue with Norway, holding its fifth session this past April, alongside launching an “Arctic Dialogue” with Oslo this year.

Canada is classified by the European Commission as a “natural ally” in the Arctic. Observers note that while Canada is mentioned dozens of times throughout the strategy, the US is cited only a handful of times.

This contrast is seen as evidence that the EU is seeking independence from Washington in the High North.

Accordingly, the document explicitly references “European strategic autonomy” as an “integral component of the Arctic.”

Pan-Arctic cable plan extending to Japan

The EU Arctic Strategy also identifies Japan and South Korea as cooperation partners in the region.

This partnership is linked to plans to connect Greenland to the EU via a submarine cable, which would subsequently be extended across the Bering Strait to Japan and South Korea.

Berlin has advocated the construction of such a “pan-Arctic cable” for some time.

According to a statement issued in early July by the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), such an infrastructure project is highly desirable for multiple reasons.

First, data traffic between Europe and Asia, 90% of which currently passes through the Red Sea and the strait between Djibouti and Yemen (Bab el-Mandeb), “suffers from a high failure rate and a lack of redundancy.”

Furthermore, the Arctic route is “significantly shorter,” resulting in reduced latency and fewer transmission delays.

International equity trading in particular stands to benefit from “real-time data transmission” enabled by a new polar cable link.

SWP outlines two potential routes for the cable: one running west of Greenland and the other running east.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey