Analysis uncovers economic dependencies and strategic competition in the South Caucasus, suggesting potential cooperation between Turkey and the EU.
This article explores the strategic approaches of Türkiye and the European Union (EU) in the South Caucasus, identifying their core interests, areas of cooperation, and major contradictions. It analyzes economic, political, and geopolitical dimensions of their involvement, with particular focus on energy policies, security challenges, diplomatic engagement, and economic dependencies shaping interactions between Ankara and Brussels. The study highlights competitive dynamics in infrastructure, trade, military cooperation, and regional security, shaped by both historical legacies and contemporary geopolitical shifts. Türkiye’s active role – driven by its alliance with Azerbaijan, expanding economic ties, and involvement in post-conflict reconstruction – contrasts with the EU’s normative influence and integration efforts through the Eastern Partnership. While Türkiye leverages hard power tools such as military partnerships, economic agreements, and strategic alliances, the EU primarily employs soft power and economic instruments, facing significant limitations in projecting broader influence and authority across the region. The rivalry is further complicated by the involvement of external powers like Russia, Iran, and China, whose overlapping interests contribute to regional instability, competitive interference, and shifting power balances. The South Caucasus thus emerges as a contested geopolitical space, where Türkiye and the EU pursue divergent yet occasionally converging goals and interests. The article concludes that despite prevailing strategic competition, there are potential areas for pragmatic cooperation in trade, energy diversification, infrastructure development, and conflict mediation. Recognizing mutual dependencies and shared priorities could pave the way for a more balanced, stable, and constructive engagement between the two actors in the region’s evolving geopolitical landscape.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Аlbert K. Dudaiti (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: