![\"\"](\"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/trabhk.jpg\")
The following points are in fact the greatest paradoxes of international relations.<\/p>\nThe following points are in fact the greatest paradoxes of international relations.<\/p>\n
In my articles \u201cThe Hegemony of Capital and Technology over States\u201d<\/strong> and \u201cTechno-Feudalism\u201d<\/strong> When we look through the window of deep analysis that I have emphasized, we can see that this is not just a matter of \u201cwill\u201d but a structural resistance.<\/p>\n This deep contradiction between Europe's strategic dependence on Turkey and its resistance to membership can be analyzed along several main axes:<\/p>\n The sovereignty of nation states is being seriously eroded in the new world order. But the EU is still trying to create a \u201cpool of sovereignty\u201d within itself.<\/p>\n Population and Decision-Making:<\/strong> Veto Power<\/strong> Beyond being a \u201cnormative power\u201d, the EU is actually a union of capital.<\/p>\n Agricultural and Structural Funds:<\/strong> Customs Union and Full Membership:<\/strong> It is true that they are dependent on Turkey for security, but this very dependence turns into a reason for \u201cexclusion\u201d.<\/p>\n Protecting Borders:<\/strong> Energy Corridor:<\/strong> In Europe, the pangs of globalization gave way to a right-wing wave of isolationism and cultural protectionism.<\/p>\n Cultural Homogeneity: The ideal for Europe is to keep Turkey \u201cneither far enough away to be lost, nor close enough to be made a partner in governance\u201d. In other words, instead of full membership, they prefer a \u201cfunctional\/transactional (give-and-take)\u201d relationship model based on the \u201casymmetrical power relations\u201d that I often emphasize in my analyses.<\/p>\n Under the new forms of domination of digital lords and capital, which I have outlined in my article \u201cTechno-feudalism\u201d, the entry of a large and dynamic nation state like Turkey into this \u201cclosed circuit\u201d system is perceived as a threat to disrupt the status quo of the system.<\/p>\n Let's elaborate a little bit more; \u201cSharing Sovereignty & Protecting Capital\u201d<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n The \u201ctechno-feudal\u201d order, which replaces the traditional nation-state concept, radically changes the nature of sovereignty while reducing states to \u201cservice providers\u201d or \u201cborder guards\u201d. Although the European Union project, in essence, claims to create a \u201cpool of sovereignty\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n Dilution of Sovereignty and the Paradox of Decision-Making:<\/strong> Surveillance Capitalism and the \u201cBuffer Zone\u201d Function:<\/strong> Capital's Hegemony over the State and Political Resistance:<\/strong> To summarize briefly; In the face of this reality, Turkey must protect its interests with a firm diplomatic stance instead of yawning.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" T\u00fcrkiye, Avrupa sermayesi i\u00e7in bir “i\u00e7 pazar” olmaktan ziyade, stratejik bir “bariyer” olarak kurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":281487,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[286],"tags":[289],"class_list":{"0":"post-281486","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-yazarlar","8":"tag-manset"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=281486"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281486\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":281489,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281486\/revisions\/281489"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/281487"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=281486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=281486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=281486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}1-Institutional Digestion and Sovereignty Concern<\/h3>\n
\nThe 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 \u201cfounding engines\u201d of the EU.<\/p>\n
\nThe veto power that a Turkey seeking strategic autonomy would have over the EU's foreign policy is seen as an \u201cunmanageable\u201d risk for Brussels.<\/p>\n2-The Nature of Capital and Economic Integration<\/h3>\n
\nTurkey'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 \u201ctechno-feudal\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
\nFor 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 \u201ceconomic satellite\u201d is seen as a rational capital preference.<\/p>\n3-Buffer Zone\u201d Strategy (Security Paradox):<\/h3>\n
\nThe EU prefers to position Turkey not as a member but as a \u201ccost-effective buffer zone\u201d 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 \u201csafe fortress\u201d.<\/p>\n
\nBeing an energy hub is critical for their security. But keeping Turkey at the table as a \u201cpartner\u201d is less costly and offers a more flexible policy than keeping Turkey as a \u201cdecision-making member\u201d.<\/p>\n4-Identity and the Veto of the Rising Right<\/h3>\n
\n<\/strong> \u201cThe \u201dChristian 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.<\/p>\nFunctional Partnership & Corporate Membership<\/h3>\n
\nCapital, 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 \u201cdiluting\u201d the status quo established by the existing continental capital (especially the Franco-German axis). For the techno-feudal lords, a \u201cmanageable periphery\u201d is always preferable to an \u201cunstable partner\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n
\nRather than being a \u201cdomestic market\u201d for European capital, Turkey has been constructed as a strategic \u201cbarrier\u201d. On the plane of Surveillance Capitalism and Techno-feudalism, which I have often emphasized, the role assigned to Turkey is a form of \u201csubcontractor sovereignty\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
\nAs the place of nation states in the new world order is being shaken, the EU has adopted a protectionist welfare nationalism to protect its \u201cisland of prosperity\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n
\nTurkey'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 \u201cperipheral power protecting the system\u201d rather than as an \u201cactor within the system\u201d.<\/p>\n