For individuals, nations, and states, security stands out as an indispensable need alongside basic necessities such as food, drink, and shelter. One of the most fundamental duties of states is to protect their societies against both internal and external threats. In this framework, a “state’s power” is directly related to the extent to which it can protect its citizens against national and international threats. In other words, there is a reciprocal and linear relationship between the concepts of power and security. In an international environment marked by multidimensional threats and intensifying global crises, states that can protect the interests of their people, increase their level of prosperity, and minimize security risks are considered powerful states.
The global governance model that emerged after World War II, based on the United States’ (US) unipolar hegemony at times and a bipolar structure centered on the US and the Soviet Union at others, has largely lost its functionality today. This hegemonic structure has failed to produce stability on a global scale; on the contrary, has brought about a period of crises with increasing security threats. Today, with the rise of global powers such as the US, Russia, and China, as well as mid-sized regional actors like Türkiye, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Brazil, world politics has shifted toward a multipolar structure.
Furthermore, it is evident that today’s multipolar governance model is struggling to produce effective and inclusive solutions to the global threats posed by the bipolar system (the US-Russia axis). Parallel to population growth, urbanization, and rapid developments in information technology, the risks threatening the stability of global security are increasing day by day. Among the main threats leading to global crises are degenderization projects, moral erosion, global warming, climate change, drought, migration movements, water and food security issues, and cyber and hybrid attacks. In addition, the level of threats to energy security, international trade corridors, and the security of logistics centers is also constantly rising.
In this multidimensional crisis environment, conflicts in the Middle East are making global security even more fragile. The massacres committed by Israel and the US in Palestine are deepening regional instability while increasing global security risks. In order to maintain its current global hegemony, the US is attempting to draw many actors, particularly Russia, Türkiye, Japan, India, and European countries, into its ideological and strategic orbit, especially in the context of increasing strategic competition with China. In the new multipolar world order, competition between the US and China is triggering global crises, further increasing global security risks.
In addition to information technology and artificial intelligence, China has a clear advantage over the US, particularly in the production and processing of rare earth elements. As of 2024, China alone produced 270,000 tons (69%) of the approximately 390,000 tons of rare earth elements produced worldwide[i] and controlled approximately 85% of the rare earth elements processed globally.[ii] China is challenging the US-centered global economic order by establishing an extensive network of global trade routes and logistics hubs through the Belt and Road Initiative. This process is being compared to initiatives such as the dollar hegemony, the Bretton Woods system, and the Marshall Plan established under US leadership after World War II, sparking debates about its potential to create a new global dependency relationship. These competitive arenas have brought a new battleground defined in the literature as the “corridor wars” to the fore.
The melting of glaciers in the Arctic region due to global warming is paving the way for new trade routes and the discovery of new natural resource reserves. This situation indicates that the Arctic region could become one of the centers of strategic competition in the future, even the “new Middle East.” The failure to end the Russia-Ukraine War, conflicts in the Middle East, US pressure on Venezuela, increasing security vulnerabilities in European countries, and frozen conflict zones such as Cyprus, Kashmir, Palestine, and the Fergana Valley are increasingly threatening global security in a serious manner.
Under these circumstances, the resolution of global crises and the sustainable provision of global security are dependent on multilateral cooperation and a collective security approach. Security should be regarded as a phenomenon that can be produced and developed, just like food, technology, and culture. In today’s international system, where security is in decline and threats and risks are on the rise, Türkiye stands out as an actor that prioritizes not only its own security but also the security of its surrounding regions.
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s principle of “Peace at home, peace in the world” constitutes the historical and normative basis of Türkiye’s approach to being a security-producing rather than a security-consuming country. In accordance with this principle, Türkiye did not participate in World War II; it sought to strengthen both its national and regional security through the Balkan Pact (1934), the Sadabat Pact (1937), and the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits (1936). Particularly, the meticulous implementation of the Montreux Convention during the Russia-Ukraine War has made significant contributions to the protection of Black Sea security.
Türkiye, while remaining faithful to the doctrine of “peace at home and peace in the world,” has rapidly developed its defense capabilities in recent years with the aim of maintaining global peace and contributing to global security production. In other words, Türkiye does not compromise on the principle of “always being ready for a war to maintain peace.” Türkiye’s defense industry exports exceeded $7.4 billion in the last 11 months of 2024.[iii] In the Russia-Ukraine War, Türkiye, who was able to communicate with both sides, host negotiation processes, and spearhead initiatives such as the grain corridor and prisoner exchange, has played a security-producing role in these processes. Additionally, it contributes to Europe’s energy security through the TurkStream project. On the other hand, natural gas transfers from Russia to European countries via pipeline can only be made through the TurkStream. Apart from TurkStream, almost all pipelines extending from Russia to Europe, primarily Nord Stream 1 and 2, have been damaged during the war.
Türkiye’s initiatives in the Middle East, Africa, and Turkistan regions are based on a security approach that prioritizes stability and prosperity rather than generating crises and conflicts. Initiatives such as the Development Road Project, which is planned to extend from Iraq through Türkiye to Europe, and the Zangezur Corridor are considered strategic projects that contribute not only to economic development but also to regional and global security.
[i] “Çin, nadir toprak elementleri ve üretim teknolojilerinin ihracatına yeni kısıtlama getirdi”, AA, https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/cin-nadir-toprak-elementleri-ve-uretim-teknolojilerinin-ihracatina-yeni-kisitlama-getirdi/3712131, (Access Date: 22.12.2025).
[ii] “Çin, nadir toprak elementlerinin ihracatının kontrolüne yönelik aldığı tedbirleri erteleyecek”, AA, https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/cin-nadir-toprak-elementlerinin-ihracatinin-kontrolune-yonelik-aldigi-tedbirleri-erteleyecek/3737928, (Access Date: 22.12.2025).
[iii] “Savunma ve havacılık sanayisinden 11 ayda 7,4 milyar dolarla ihracat rekoru”, AA, https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/ekonomi/savunma-ve-havacilik-sanayisinden-11-ayda-7-4-milyar-dolarla-ihracat-rekoru/3762036, (Access Date: 22.12.2025).
