Europe
Turkey’s energy ‘hub’ dream and Russia’s proposal
The pandemic, war, geopolitical competition, and political preferences resulted in inefficient use of available resources and thus created the gas crisis. After the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 sabotage, the idea that Turkey could play a more effective role in the energy market has been discussed. Due to sanctions restricting the import of Russian gas into the European market, the transport of it to Europe via Turkey is only one aspect of the issue.
In a broader sense, could the energy crisis that broke out with the Russia-Ukraine war have opened a new window of opportunity for Turkey to become a global player in energy? When alternative sources such as Central Asian gas and Iranian gas are added to the equation, it seems to be a serious possibility for Turkey to turn into an energy vein for Europe, at least on paper. The fact that Turkey is the most suitable route for the transport of potential gas in the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe in the medium and long term can be considered as one of the advantages of the “geographical location”, which is frequently mentioned.
Remarks from the leaders
As for the choice of Turkey as the energy hub, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in October “It’s because direct engagement with European partners is very difficult. We can establish a gas center in Turkey very quickly.” and drew great attention. According to Putin, Europe will be willing to buy Russian gas through the transfer center to be established in Turkey.
Speaking at the capacity increase ceremony of Silivri Natural Gas Storage Facility owned by BOTAS in Silivri, President Erdoğan said, “We had important meetings with my dear friend Mr. Putin on this subject. We have taken and are taking our steps and thus Thrace will become a hub in natural gas. We carry out our work on this together with our energy partners in our region,” he said.
These statements do not include technical details. Are the conditions for Turkey to become the main player in the gas market, which is a direct part of geopolitical competition, as convenient as it seems? According to experts; ‘Yes…’ However, the definition of “hub” here needs to be clarified by decisionmakers. Because being a “transit country” where gas comes and goes from Turkey and being one of the international centers such as TTF, NBP or Henry Hub where the price is determined are completely different.
Former BOTAS General Manager Gökhan Yardım, evaluating the issue to Harici, said, “Turkey can be a gas hub. But with current thinking, it’s very challenging. The legal infrastructure is crucial. Both the Westerners and the Easterners will come,” he said, pointing out both the potential and the shortcomings he sees.
What do we know?
Turkey reinforced its transit position with the TurkStream, which came into play in 2018. However, Russia did not provide the parameters necessary for Turkey to be a “hub” based on this project. One of the main factors of being a hub is that the price of gas is determined in the market to be established in Turkey and Turkey being a commercial beneficiary.
“The electronic platform for trading in the natural gas center may be established in the coming months. The price of natural gas for European consumers will be largely determined at the center. It’s crazy what’s happening in Europe’s own centers,” Russian leader Putin said. Would it be wrong to assume that he no longer considers Turkey as a transit country?
“I don’t know the details of the offer,” former BOTAS General Manager Yardım said, “In regard to Putin’s statement, I believe they are thinking of a system like the electronic sales platform they made earlier. As for the possible plan in Moscow’s mind, I believe the Russians are thinking of a system in which they will buy gas, choose the companies themselves, collect the offers themselves and say, ‘You won this much, the average price was this much at the end of the month.’
“It is not an issue to be solved in 3-5 months”
The schedule of the project is another matter. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Fatih Dönmez has announced that their goal is to start the project to establish gas hub in Thrace within a year. Dönmez noted, “It is not an issue to be dealt with in 3-5 months. Perhaps we can start with a more limited number of markets in the transition period before a permanent market. Then the schedule will be pushed forward a little more” emphasizing the need for time.
Commenting on Dönmez’s prediction of a “one year” period, Yardım believes that the upcoming elections and the balances that the government looks after between the West and Russia are also decisive in this project. “I think this will cool down a bit before the elections,” he said, assessing that Ankara would not want to “get in wrong with the U.S. directly.”
How can it work?
Turkey already has a gas exchange. Its name is Energy Exchange Istanbul (EXIST) or Enerji Piyasaları İşletme A.Ş. (EPİAŞ) by its Turkish name. The website of the institution states that EXIST, which was established on March 18, 2015, works in harmony with Turkey’s goal of “becoming a central country in energy trade” and is on the way to become an energy exchange that is referenced on a global scale.
Former BOTAS General Manager Yardım explains the operation of the system that will be the center as follows:
“In EXIST, the names of the gas suppliers and buyers are not disclosed. Neither the seller nor the buyer is known in the transactions in EXIST. Gases are nationalized to be traded in EXIST. Both seller companies and buyer companies need to establish a company in Turkey and obtain a license in accordance with the legislation of EMRA.”
After this process, buyers and sellers create supply and demand just like in the stock market by trading on EXIST’s Continuous Trade Platform. The price is determined through this mechanism. Buyer and seller bids meet each other without the bidders being known and the price is formed. EXIST guarantees the payments through TAKASBANK.
“Gazprom wants to make the electronic sales platform transactions it has stopped in Europe in Turkey.” Gökhan Yardım clarifies the difference between being a ‘transit’ and a ‘center’ as follows:
“Gazprom will sell gas within its sales platform. Buyers will receive the gas transmitted through Turkey. This does not make Turkey a gas hub as the gas is only transferred through Turkey. Gas should be sold in Turkey. All trading transactions of liquidity should be made in Turkey and the money should remain in Turkey. Turkey has all kinds of infrastructures. All procedures and rules of EXIST are suitable for these steps. If Gazprom desires, it can buy a certain share from EXIST. Other European companies can also do the same. The important thing is to perform these transactions through EXIST.”
Why would Europe buy Russian gas from the Turkish stock market?
Gökhan Yardım explains:
“Europe may take a negative stance at first, but if more gas comes to Turkey, the gas transmitted through TANAP can also be traded here. LNG that is coming from America can be traded here. The bigger the market, the more eager Europe becomes. But if there’s only one player, Russia, then they won’t be willing. If too many players and too much gas come to Turkey, then a different picture will emerge.”
‘Atlantic Council’ analyses
According to Atlantic Council analysis, by Yevgeniya Gaber in December, “Turkey’s desire to play a major role in regional energy infrastructure is not only geopolitically driven but also economically and technically feasible.”
The analysis also highlights Turkey’s gas storage capacity and the advantages of having pipelines at the intersection. However, in the analysis it is advocated that, for Turkey to be an energy hub, “Russian gas can’t be a key part of the plan.”
According to Yevgeniya Gaber, the Ukrainian Foreign Policy Expert; “diversification of existing routes and suppliers, independence in decision-making through an independent institution, market demand and supply that determine prices, and political will of potential partners to get involved in the projects…” are the basic conditions for establishing an energy hub.
Putin’s project to make Turkey a gas hub could increase Ankara’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels and Moscow in strategic issues, and further endanger Ankara’s complex relations with the West, the author says.
Similar views are echoed in another analysis of Atlantic Council on December 20. It is emphasized that Turkey’s dream of becoming a gas hub will not be realized without adopting liberal market principles. In his article, Eser Özdil claims that BOTAS’s dominant role in the Turkish energy market is the most important obstacle to Turkey becoming a gas hub. According to the author, BOTAS’s dominant role should be restricted, its dominance on the market with mass subsidization should end, in short, Turkey’s gas market should be completely liberalized…
Of course, in such a scenario, it is not possible to predict the future of gas price to be consumed by the household in times of crisis.
Available capacities
The Blue Stream has a capacity of 15.75 billion cubic meters. TurkStream’s total capacity is 31.25 billion cubic meters (bcm). Currently, TANAP has a capacity of 16 billion bcm. These pipelines, which meet Turkey’s gas needs, also transfer some gas to Europe. Nord Stream 1 and 2 have a total annual gas transport capacity of 110 billion cubic meters (bcm). From this point of view, it seems inevitable to increase capacity and build a new pipeline.
The European Union (EU) needs around 400 bcm of gas per year. It is impossible for the lines passing through Turkey to respond to this need in its current form. Therefore, the construction of a new gas pipeline or capacity-building opportunities need to be evaluated. Building new pipelines from Russia amidst war environment in the Black Sea is another question. On the other hand, the need for the project in case peace is restored is another point.
Currently, although the seller is different, Europe may not be eager to buy Russian gas from the Turkish stock market. The EU, which imported 43.5 percent of its gas from Russia in 2021, uses 7.5 percent of Russian gas this year. The pressure put by the U.S. on Nord Stream 2 should be considered as well.
In summary, “being a hub” covers Turkey’s right to be a commercial beneficiary of the natural gas that passes through it. Gases from various sources will be traded on EXIST’s stock exchange and will bring buyers and sellers together. The greater the market depth, the greater the hub quality. First, a regional consensus at the initial stage, especially between the EU and Russia, seems essential to becoming a hub.
Since we will be revisiting this discussion, let’s end it here for now with the following questions:
Is the ‘active neutrality’ policy or being in the ‘right place’ geopolitically, being a member of NATO and simultaneously following the ‘Asia Anew Initiative’ policy sufficient to become an ‘energy hub’?
Can Turkey create a different alternative center between Russia’s proposal and the current market regulations?
Or are all these foreign policy orientations opposites that cancel each other out?
Europe
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.
In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.
According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.
The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.
At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.
“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”
The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.
The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.
Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.
A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”
Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”
Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.
In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.
The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.
A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.
Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.
Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.
The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.
“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”
Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.
Shagina said:
“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”
In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.
Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.
“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.
Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.
A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”
“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.
Europe
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.
The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.
Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.
The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.
Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.
Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”
The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.
Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.
In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.
The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”
Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.
Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”
The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.
For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.
The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.
Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.
The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.
Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.
The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.
Europe
SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine
SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.
In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:
“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”
In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.
The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.
SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”
When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.
Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.
Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.
At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”
The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.
A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
