The following points are in fact the greatest paradoxes of international relations.
In my articles “The Hegemony of Capital and Technology over States” and “Techno-Feudalism” When we look through the window of deep analysis that I have emphasized, we can see that this is not just a matter of “will” but a structural resistance.
This deep contradiction between Europe's strategic dependence on Turkey and its resistance to membership can be analyzed along several main axes:
1-Institutional Digestion and Sovereignty Concern
The sovereignty of nation states is being seriously eroded in the new world order. But the EU is still trying to create a “pool of sovereignty” within itself.
Population and Decision-Making:
The moment Turkey joins the EU, it will have the most seats and voting rights in the European Parliament and the Council (based on its population). This would upset the balance established for decades by France and Germany, the “founding engines” of the EU.
Veto Power
The veto power that a Turkey seeking strategic autonomy would have over the EU's foreign policy is seen as an “unmanageable” risk for Brussels.
2-The Nature of Capital and Economic Integration
Beyond being a “normative power”, the EU is actually a union of capital.
Agricultural and Structural Funds:
Turkey's accession would mean that a large part of the EU budget (especially agricultural subsidies and development funds) would flow to Turkey. In the current “techno-feudal” structure, European capital at the center of platform capitalism is reluctant to transfer this resource to a new member instead of its own internal transformation.
Customs Union and Full Membership:
For Europe, Turkey is already an economically integrated market thanks to the Customs Union. Instead of making Turkey a full member and granting it political rights, maintaining its current status as an “economic satellite” is seen as a rational capital preference.
3-Buffer Zone” Strategy (Security Paradox):
It is true that they are dependent on Turkey for security, but this very dependence turns into a reason for “exclusion”.
Protecting Borders:
The EU prefers to position Turkey not as a member but as a “cost-effective buffer zone” against instability, migration and terrorism from the Middle East and Asia. If Turkey becomes a member, the EU's borders will be Syria and Iraq. This would destroy the EU's image as a “safe fortress”.
Energy Corridor:
Being an energy hub is critical for their security. But keeping Turkey at the table as a “partner” is less costly and offers a more flexible policy than keeping Turkey as a “decision-making member”.
4-Identity and the Veto of the Rising Right
In Europe, the pangs of globalization gave way to a right-wing wave of isolationism and cultural protectionism.
Cultural Homogeneity:
“The ”Christian Club" argument is no longer just a discourse, it is the trump card of the far-right parties in Europe (AfD, RN, etc.) in the eyes of the electorate. In this political climate, no European leader can explain Turkey's membership to his/her own electorate.
Functional Partnership & Corporate Membership
The ideal for Europe is to keep Turkey “neither far enough away to be lost, nor close enough to be made a partner in governance”. In other words, instead of full membership, they prefer a “functional/transactional (give-and-take)” relationship model based on the “asymmetrical power relations” that I often emphasize in my analyses.
Under the new forms of domination of digital lords and capital, which I have outlined in my article “Techno-feudalism”, the entry of a large and dynamic nation state like Turkey into this “closed circuit” system is perceived as a threat to disrupt the status quo of the system.
Let's elaborate a little bit more; “Sharing Sovereignty & Protecting Capital” It is necessary to see The Liquidation of Sovereignty and the Fortification of Capital and the EU-Turkey Impasse, in which I discuss the tension and Turkey-EU relations from the perspective of techno-feudalism.
The “techno-feudal” order, which replaces the traditional nation-state concept, radically changes the nature of sovereignty while reducing states to “service providers” or “border guards”. Although the European Union project, in essence, claims to create a “pool of sovereignty”, the resistance to Turkey's integration into this structure should be explained by capital's instinct for protection rather than the capacity of this pool.
Dilution of Sovereignty and the Paradox of Decision-Making:
Capital, by its very nature, demands predictability and control. The inclusion of an actor with a high demographic weight and a wide geopolitical room for maneuver like Turkey in the EU decision-making mechanisms (sovereignty pool) carries the risk of “diluting” the status quo established by the existing continental capital (especially the Franco-German axis). For the techno-feudal lords, a “manageable periphery” is always preferable to an “unstable partner”. In this context, Turkey's exclusion is not based on democratic criteria, but on the desire to preserve the asymmetry in the sharing of sovereignty.
Surveillance Capitalism and the “Buffer Zone” Function:
Rather than being a “domestic market” for European capital, Turkey has been constructed as a strategic “barrier”. On the plane of Surveillance Capitalism and Techno-feudalism, which I have often emphasized, the role assigned to Turkey is a form of “subcontractor sovereignty” that manages migration flows, waits for energy corridors and ensures the physical security of digital networks. Since full membership would transform this subcontracting relationship into a partnership, it contradicts the cost-benefit analysis of capital.
Capital's Hegemony over the State and Political Resistance:
As the place of nation states in the new world order is being shaken, the EU has adopted a protectionist welfare nationalism to protect its “island of prosperity”. Turkey's accession would necessitate the redistribution of capital (structural funds, agricultural subsidies, etc.) over a wide geography. However, instead of expanding its accumulation, today's hegemonic capital structure prefers to fortify its existing strongholds (Brussels-Frankfurt-Paris) and keep its technological superiority within these borders.
To summarize briefly;
Turkey's exclusion from the EU is not a question of harmonization; it is the result of the strategy of global capital and the new generation techno-feudal structure to keep Turkey as a “peripheral power protecting the system” rather than as an “actor within the system”.
In the face of this reality, Turkey must protect its interests with a firm diplomatic stance instead of yawning.