Turkey and the United States.. A Multi-Faceted Dialogue to Contain International Crises
August 23, 2025204 ViewsRead Time: 2 minutes
Font Size
16
In a phone call that embodies the complexity of the current geopolitical map, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and American Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed a range of thorny issues extending from Ukraine to Gaza, passing through Syria, indicating an attempt by both countries to play a mediating role in intertwined global crises.
The dialogue focused on the outcomes of the Alaska meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin, which did not achieve a decisive breakthrough but remained a platform for direct dialogue. Turkey's focus on "potential steps to end the war" reflects Ankara's desire to avoid the continuation of escalation that threatens the stability of the Black Sea region and the Mediterranean. The effort to enhance Turkey's role as a reliable mediator between Moscow and Kyiv is based on previous grain export agreements. There is also concern about the war's repercussions on the Turkish economy.
Fidan reiterated Turkey's firm stance on the necessity of achieving an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. He emphasized allowing humanitarian aid to enter without obstacles and pressing Israel to halt military operations.
This position comes at a time when Turkey continues to provide medical and humanitarian aid to Gaza while strongly criticizing Israeli policies.
Statements by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed the consensus among European leaders, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Turkey on:
A realistic assessment of the outcomes of the Alaska summit. The necessity of continued military and economic support for Ukraine.
The Turkish-American dialogue carries several implicit messages as Turkey tries to maintain its balance between its relations with Russia and its commitments in NATO, while Ankara seeks to enhance its role as a regional mediator in multiple files, and the United States recognizes the importance of Turkey's role in managing these crises.
The path to resolving these crises remains difficult in Ukraine: the gap remains wide between Kyiv and Moscow's demands. In Gaza: Israel continues its operations despite international pressures, while in Syria: the file remains complicated with multiple interventions.
This dialogue represents an attempt to build bridges at a time when conflicts are escalating, but its success will depend on the ability of the different parties to transcend their narrow interests and reach solutions that serve international stability.
The dialogue focused on the outcomes of the Alaska meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin, which did not achieve a decisive breakthrough but remained a platform for direct dialogue. Turkey's focus on "potential steps to end the war" reflects Ankara's desire to avoid the continuation of escalation that threatens the stability of the Black Sea region and the Mediterranean. The effort to enhance Turkey's role as a reliable mediator between Moscow and Kyiv is based on previous grain export agreements. There is also concern about the war's repercussions on the Turkish economy.
Fidan reiterated Turkey's firm stance on the necessity of achieving an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. He emphasized allowing humanitarian aid to enter without obstacles and pressing Israel to halt military operations.
This position comes at a time when Turkey continues to provide medical and humanitarian aid to Gaza while strongly criticizing Israeli policies.
Statements by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed the consensus among European leaders, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Turkey on:
A realistic assessment of the outcomes of the Alaska summit. The necessity of continued military and economic support for Ukraine.
The Turkish-American dialogue carries several implicit messages as Turkey tries to maintain its balance between its relations with Russia and its commitments in NATO, while Ankara seeks to enhance its role as a regional mediator in multiple files, and the United States recognizes the importance of Turkey's role in managing these crises.
The path to resolving these crises remains difficult in Ukraine: the gap remains wide between Kyiv and Moscow's demands. In Gaza: Israel continues its operations despite international pressures, while in Syria: the file remains complicated with multiple interventions.
This dialogue represents an attempt to build bridges at a time when conflicts are escalating, but its success will depend on the ability of the different parties to transcend their narrow interests and reach solutions that serve international stability.
