By Mustafa Kökmen
The rise centered around the Asia-Pacific region, which has gained increasing prominence in recent history, has prompted the construction of various scenarios in the West. Notably, China’s expanding sphere of influence and its growing global presence are closely monitored with concern across multiple geographies. International public opinion remains divided in this regard. While some advocate for the continuation of the Western-centered order, others anticipate the emergence of an alternative Eastern-based power capable of reshaping the global system.
Donald Trump, who has launched into the post-Joe Biden era with remarkable speed and intensity, appears to be shifting away from his previous “despite Ukraine” stance in relations with Russia. In particular, Trump seeks to transform the established institutional framework of the U.S. state into a more leader-centric approach to foreign policy. Ultimately, the recent overtures from the U.S., which outwardly signal a pro-Russian inclination and a commitment to peace, are in fact a longstanding diplomatic tactic employed throughout history. The security concerns and obstructive strategies characteristic of the multipolar world order are poised to escalate further during this period.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently visited Türkiye in a bid to secure support from one of NATO’s most pivotal actors, much as he did at the onset of the crisis. Given Türkiye’s strong diplomatic ties with both parties, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also made a visit to Türkiye following Zelensky’s trip. Lavrov’s visit was undoubtedly an acknowledgment of Türkiye’s measured and strategic diplomacy since the beginning of the conflict. For Russia—subjected to sweeping boycotts and embargoes by nearly all European states in the region and unable to garner substantial support in the West beyond actors like Belarus—Türkiye’s neutral stance and its commitment to maintaining amicable relations with Moscow hold immense value.
At the outset of the conflict, Türkiye played a mediator role by orchestrating peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. Now, it is once again facilitating diplomatic engagement, bringing U.S. and Russian delegations together in Istanbul. Analyzing the past two decades of regional tensions and crises, it becomes evident that whenever a resolution emerges in the Afro-Eurasian geopolitical landscape, Türkiye often plays a pivotal role. Recognizing this strategic competence, Russia has consistently tailored its rhetoric and policies towards Türkiye accordingly. Conversely, U.S.-Türkiye relations faced considerable turbulence during Trump’s first term, culminating in strained ties. This was followed by a period of passive engagement under Joe Biden. However, in Trump’s second term, Washington has come to recognize the indispensable roles certain geopolitical actors play. Among them, Türkiye has undeniably risen to prominence in the regional equation. Within the context of leader-driven diplomacy—a concept rooted in direct relations between heads of state—Trump has exhibited a notable evolution in perspective compared to his initial tenure.
As 2025 unfolds, structural revisions in the U.S. approach to foreign policymaking are becoming increasingly evident, even prior to Trump’s formal inauguration. One of the more intriguing developments has been the diplomatic visits to the U.S. In this context, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with U.S. President Donald Trump to evaluate the situation in Ukraine. While Macron’s stance aligns with the EU’s overarching strategy towards Russia, Starmer, representing the UK’s post-Brexit foreign policy, plays a critical role in shaping Western support for Ukraine. The alignment of the U.S., France, and the UK suggests a potential unified stance in their dealings with Russia. Meanwhile, the recent rapprochement between Washington and Moscow has fueled speculation in international circles. Diplomatic niceties and public displays of friendliness often serve as tools to shape global perceptions, reinforcing the idea that power in diplomacy is inherently tied to the construction of an adversarial “other.”
“The West has turned Ukraine into a Russophobic suicide state,” remarked Rodyon Miroshnik, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Special Representative for Kiev Crimes, during a visit to Ankara. In essence, he asserted that Russia’s assertiveness in Ukraine—viewed as a Eurocentric entity—is driven by an unchecked sense of self-confidence. As global political tensions persist, the geopolitical landscape continues to heat up. Since the Cold War, numerous theories and conjectures regarding U.S.-Russia collusion have circulated. Behind the scenes, Russia continues to offer Trump 650 million tons of rare earth metals. Despite prevailing rhetoric, Russia remains home to a substantial number of American corporations, while European states continue to be the largest consumers of Russian energy and minerals. Analyzing foreign policy solely through the lens of public discourse is fundamentally flawed as a methodological approach. The divergence between rhetoric and actual policy has been a defining feature of U.S.-Russia relations since the Cold War. In the realm of diplomacy, it is imperative to remain prepared for every possible scenario and to engage with adaptability and strategic foresight.
