Türkiye’s Compartmentalized Hedging and Multi-Crisis Diplomacy: Ukraine, Gaza, and the Black Sea

Öz

This article examines Türkiye’s multi-crisis diplomacy in a multipolar international order by examining its engagement with the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, and the Black Sea region. While studies on middle powers and hedging explain strategic uncertainty, they offer limited insight into how states manage multiple crises simultaneously. To address this gap, the article develops the concept of compartmentalized hedging, defined as distinct alignment strategies across geopolitical theaters while maintaining strategic coherence. The article argues that Türkiye adopts issue-specific strategies rather than a uniform foreign policy orientation. In Ukraine, it combines mediation diplomacy with pragmatic cooperation with Russia while preserving NATO commitments. In Gaza, it emphasizes humanitarian and normative diplomacy. In the Black Sea, it prioritizes maritime security and regional stability while balancing alliance obligations and energy interdependence. Using a qualitative comparative case study design based on process tracing and document analysis, the study finds evidence that Türkiye’s foreign policy reflects strategic differentiation rather than ad hoc pragmatism, and tests this reading against two rival explanations. Findings contribute to middle power theory and hedging literature by showing that hedging can be fragmented across issue areas rather than uniformly applied at the state level, offering a new perspective on strategic autonomy in a crisis-driven international system.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkiye
• Hedging Strategy
• Middle Powers
• Multi-Crisis Diplomacy
• Strategic Autonomy

Destekleyen Kurum

None.

Türkiye’nin Bölümlenmiş Dengeleme ve Çoklu Kriz Diplomasisi: Ukrayna, Gazze ve Karadeniz

Öz

Bu makale, Türkiye’nin çok kutuplu uluslararası düzende Ukrayna savaşı, Gazze savaşı ve Karadeniz bölgesi üzerinden yürüttüğü çoklu kriz diplomasisini incelemektedir. Orta güçler ve dengeleme (hedging) literatürü stratejik belirsizliği açıklasa da devletlerin aynı anda birden fazla krizi nasıl yönettiğine dair sınırlı bir anlayış sunmaktadır. Bu boşluğu gidermek için makale, bölümlendirilmiş hedging kavramını geliştirmekte; bu kavram, genel stratejik bütünlüğü korurken farklı jeopolitik alanlarda ayrı hizalanma stratejilerinin izlenmesini ifade etmektedir. Makale, Türkiye’nin tek tip bir dış politika yönelimi yerine konuya özgü stratejiler benimsediğini savunmaktadır. Ukrayna’da Türkiye, NATO yükümlülüklerini korurken Rusya ile pragmatik iş birliği ve arabuluculuk diplomasisini birleştirmektedir. Gazze’de insani ve normatif diplomasiye vurgu yapmaktadır. Karadeniz’de ise ittifak yükümlülükleri ve enerji alanındaki karşılıklı bağımlılığı dengelerken deniz güvenliği ve bölgesel istikrara öncelik vermektedir. Nitel karşılaştırmalı vaka çalışması tasarımına dayanan ve süreç izleme ile belge analizini kullanan çalışma, Türkiye’nin dış politikasının ad hoc pragmatizmden ziyade stratejik farklılaşmayı yansıttığını göstermektedir. Bulgular, orta güç teorisi ve hedging literatürüne katkı sunarak hedging davranışının devlet düzeyinde tek tip uygulanmak yerine alanlar arasında parçalanmış olabileceğini ortaya koymakta ve kriz odaklı uluslararası sistemde stratejik özerkliğe yeni bir bakış sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkiye
• Dengeleme Stratejisi
• Orta Güçler
• Çoklu Kriz Diplomasisi
• Stratejik Özerklik

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12171
2. Altunışık, M. B. (2014). Turkey as an “emerging donor” and the Arab uprisings. Mediterranean Politics, 19(3), 333-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2014.959761
3. Altunışık, M. B., & Martin, L. G. (2011). Making sense of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East under AKP. Turkish Studies, 12(4), 569-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2011.622513
4. Ambrosetti, E. T. (2023). Tarafsız: Turkey’s Impartial Stance Vis-a-Vis Russia’s War Against Ukraine. In Polarization, shifting borders and liquid governance (pp. 367-382). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44584-2_22
5. Asmus, R. D. (2010). A little war that shook the world: Georgia, Russia, and the future of the West. Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Ay, H. M., & Söylemez, A. (2023). Grain corridor agreement and Türkiye’s role in the Russia-Ukraine war. Journal of Islamic World and Politics, 7(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.18196/jiwp.v7i1.27
7. Aydın, M. (2014). Turkish policy towards the wider Black Sea and the EU connection. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16(3), 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2014.928541
8. Aydın, M., & Dizdaroğlu, C. (2020). Turkey’s Middle East Policies. In M. S. Roy & M. D. M. Quamar (Eds.), Changing Security Paradigm in West Asia: Regional and International Responses (pp. 39-54). KW Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003289807-4

9. Bechev, D. (2022). Turkey Under Erdoğan: How a Country Turned from Democracy and the West. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300265019
10. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (2014). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge University Press.
11. Butler, M. J. (2023). Ripeness obscured: Inductive lessons from Türkiye’s (transactional) mediation in the Russia-Ukraine war. International Journal of Conflict Management, 35(1), 104-128. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2022-0215
12. Charap, S., & Priebe, M. (2023). Avoiding a long war: U.S. policy and the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. RAND Corporation.
13. Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823-830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429
14. Cooper, A. F. (2013). Middle powers and the international system. Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Dalay, G. (2023). Türkiye in the emerging world order. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/10/31/t-rkiye-in-emerging-world-order-pub-90868.
16. Davutoğlu, A. (2001). Stratejik derinlik: Türkiye’nin uluslararası konumu. Küre Yayınları.
17. Donduran, C. (2026). Caught between two worlds: Turkey as a hedger. International Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-026-00767-4
18. Figiaconi, F. (2026). Choosing not to choose: Hedging as a category of neutrality. European Journal of International Security, 11(3), 354-373.
19. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
20. Goh, E. (2016). The struggle for order: Hegemony, hierarchy, and transition in post-Cold War East Asia. Oxford University Press.
21. Hill, F., & O’Hanlon, M. E. (2020). The Black Sea: How America can avoid a great-power conflict. Brookings Institution.
22. Hill, F., Madan, T., Sloat, A., Solís, M., & Stelzenmüller, C. (2020). Balancing act: Major powers and the global response to U.S.-China great power competition. Brookings Institution.
23. Hurrell, A. (2018). On global order: Power, values, and the constitution of international society. Oxford University Press.
24. Jordaan, E. (2010). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. Politikon, 30(1), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282
25. Kaliber, A., & Kaliber, E. (2019). From de-Europeanisation to anti-Western populism: Turkish foreign policy in flux. International Spectator, 54(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03932729.2019.1668640
26. Kara, M. (2024). Hedging strategy of Turkey in great power competition. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2024.2352894
27. Kuik, C.-C. (2008). The essence of hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s response to a rising China. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 30(2), 165-187.
28. Kutlay, M., & Öniş, Z. (2021). Turkish foreign policy in a post-Western order: Strategic autonomy or new forms of dependence? International Affairs, 97(4), 1085-1104.
29. Larrabee, F. S., Wilson, P. A., & Gordon, J. (2017). The Ukrainian crisis and European security: Implications for the United States and the U.S. Army. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR903.html.
30. Lim, D. J., & Cooper, Z. (2015). Reassessing hedging: The logic of alignment in East Asia. Security Studies, 24(4), 696-727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1103130.
31. North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO). (2011, March 18). Alliance Maritime Strategy. NATO. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_75615.htm
32. North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO). (2022, June 29). NATO 2022 Strategic Concept. NATO. https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
33. Öniş, Z. (2014). Türkiye and the Arab Spring: Between ethics and self-interest. Governance, 27(2), 207-223.
34. Öniş, Z., & Yılmaz, Ş. (2021). Türkiye and the West: Strategic autonomy in an era of uncertainty. New Perspectives on Türkiye, 64, 105-130.
35. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
36. Robins, P. (2013). Turkey's ‘double gravity’ predicament: The foreign policy of a newly activist power. International Affairs, 89(2), 381-397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12023
37. Sakwa, R. (2017). Russia against the rest: The post-Cold War crisis of world order. Cambridge University Press.
38. Sözen, A. (2010). A paradigm shift in Turkish foreign policy: Transition and challenges. Turkish Studies, 11(1), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683841003747062
39. Stuenkel, O. (2016). Post-Western world: How emerging powers are remaking global order. Polity Press.
40. Tunsjø, Ø. (2018). The return of bipolarity in world politics: China, the United States, and geostructural realism. Columbia University Press.
41. Ulaş, G. (2025). Türkiye’s strategic ambiguity in the Russia-Ukraine war. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 36(3), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2025.2607400
42. Ülgen, S. (2022). Rewiring globalization: From fragmentation to strategic interdependence. Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/02/rewiring-globalization
43. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2024). OCHA situation report: Occupied Palestinian Territory (Gaza Strip and the West Bank).
44. Womack, B. (2016). Asymmetry and international relationships. Cambridge University Press.
45. Yeşiltaş, M., & Pirinççi, F. (2021). Turkey’s strategic conduct under the changing international system. Insight Turkey, 23(4), 13-32.