[OPINION] Never-ending ‘maybe’: Europe’s fear of belonging and Turkey’s flight from responsibility

06.11.2025

By Turkish Minute

Source:https://www.turkishminute.com/2025/11/06/opinion-never-ending-maybe-europes-fear-of-belonging-and-turkeys-flight-from-responsibility/

Yasemin Aydın*

The October 2025 visit of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to Ankara was not a turning point in policy but a revealing episode in the psychology of international relations. It showed how diplomacy, when stripped of breakthroughs, becomes a theatre of symbols. What unfolded between Merz and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was not merely political negotiation but a mirror in which Europe and Turkey saw their own unresolved questions of identity, recognition and belonging.

The grammar of distance

The entire visit revolved around a single preposition. Merz said, “We see Turkey close at the side of the European Union.” Turkish media translated it as “Germany wants to see Turkey in the EU.” The difference between “at the side of” and “in” seems small, yet it encapsulates the emotional and historical distance of six decades. In those few words lies the central paradox of the relationship: closeness without inclusion, partnership without parity, recognition without acceptance.

This captures what anthropologist Victor Turner called liminality — a state of being suspended between two positions. Turkey has lived in this liminal zone for more than half a century: indispensable to Europe’s security, but never fully admitted to its political or moral community. The liminal status that was once thought temporary has become structural, a form of permanent waiting.

Projection and desire

From a psycho-political perspective, Europe and Turkey are engaged in a mutual act of projection. Europe projects its fears onto Turkey: fears of demographic change, cultural otherness and political instability. Turkey projects its longing for recognition onto Europe: the desire to be seen as modern, rational and European. Each defines itself through the other.

The relationship thus follows what Erik Erikson described as identity confirmation: the self becomes stable only when acknowledged by a significant other. For Europe, Turkey represents the limit against which it measures its own liberal and secular identity. For Turkey, Europe represents the stage upon which its modern self seeks validation. The repeated rejection or deferral of membership is therefore not simply political; it is existential.

The semiotics of authenticity

The moment that went viral — the image of Merz carrying his own briefcase — illustrates the collapse of trust into symbolism. In Germany, it was routine and unremarkable. In Turkey, it became headline news, interpreted as humility or as calculated public relations. The contrast tells us something fundamental about political culture. Where institutions are trusted, authenticity is assumed and symbols remain invisible. Where institutions are distrusted, authenticity must be performed and symbols become exaggerated.

The obsession with gestures, objects and choreography is therefore not trivial. It reflects a deeper sociological truth: When citizens lose trust in systems, they search for sincerity in symbols. The briefcase became a substitute for integrity, an emotional shorthand for credibility in a world of doubt.

Between membership and partnership

At the joint press conference, Erdoğan spoke of “our goal of full membership.” Merz responded with talk of “partnership” and “proximity.” Between these words lies the entire history of the relationship. For the European Union, Turkey is a functional actor — crucial for migration management, energy corridors and regional security. For Turkey, Europe is not a partner but a symbolic home, the imagined destination of its century-long modernization.

This mismatch produces what might be called performative diplomacy: a ritual of equality performed within a structure of hierarchy. Both sides act out mutual respect while protecting unequal power positions. In this sense, every handshake conceals as much as it declares.

The theatre of trust

The politics of trust became visible in the small details. Erdoğan received Merz in a German-made Maybach, adorned with both the German flag and the Turkish presidential emblem. A German politician riding through Ankara in a German car symbolizing Turkish grandeur — this was not coincidence but choreography. Where trust is weak, gestures must carry emotional weight.

Such moments reveal that diplomacy has become a form of dramaturgy. Bags, cars and body language perform the sincerity that institutions can no longer guarantee. Each image compensates for the absence of confidence. The symbolism grows heavier as the substance of trust thins out.

Europe’s mirror stage

Europe’s hesitation toward Turkey reveals a double crisis: an identity crisis of Europe and a systemic crisis of Turkey. Accepting Turkey would mean understanding Europe as a universal political project rather than a cultural club. Excluding it, on the other hand, confirms that Europe’s liberalism still rests on boundaries drawn by history, religion and cultural self-images. The “endless maybe” is therefore more than diplomatic caution: It is a form of psychological self-protection, a way of avoiding the need to resolve one’s own ambivalence.

Yet this ambivalence has its comforts. While Europe preserves its moral self-image, Turkey’s internal development over the past decade has conveniently justified keeping the door closed. Over the last 13 years, Turkey has visibly distanced itself from democratic, rule-of-law and human-rights standards. Judicial independence has been eroded, media pluralism exists only in fragments and civil society operates under heavy pressure. The economic crisis has deepened this authoritarian dynamic, as political loyalty increasingly becomes the currency of economic survival.

For the European Union, this trajectory offers a convenient — even morally relieving — foundation: It can invoke democracy and human rights to legitimize its distance. In this framing, Turkey is not merely “not yet ready” but becomes a cautionary tale marking the limits of European enlargement. The criticism is, of course, partly justified — yet it remains selective, allowing Europe to uphold its own sense of normative purity without questioning the geopolitical and economic interests that already shape the partnership.

The Turkish side, in turn, rejects this diagnosis. Instead of acknowledging its structural deficiencies, the political elite retreats into the narrative that “Europe simply doesn’t like Turkey.” This tale of rejection serves a dual purpose: It masks the country’s democratic shortcomings and functions as emotional glue for domestic audiences. Thus, the EU becomes a mirror in which Turkey can present itself as the victim of European arrogance — and at the same time as a moral standard it constantly fails to meet.

Europe, in a metaphorical sense, is trapped in its own mirror stage: It strives to reconcile its self-image as an inclusive, value-driven community with its actual treatment of outsiders. The mere presence of Turkey in the European discourse exposes this contradiction. The EU likes to define itself as a post-national project, yet it remains haunted by civilizational reflexes it believes it has already transcended.

Thus, two mirrors face each other: on one side, a Europe that morally justifies its boundaries; on the other, a Turkey that politically represses its shortcomings. Between them lies a no-man’s-land of self-deceptions, where realpolitik and psychological projection blur into one another. The “endless maybe” is therefore not merely a sign of diplomatic caution, but the symptom of a relationship in which both sides recognize their own unease in the other’s reflection — and prefer to leave it there.

From geopolitics to psychopolitics

Merz’s visit revealed how diplomacy has shifted from the geopolitical to the psychopolitical. The visible negotiations — defense contracts, migration deals, energy cooperation — form only the surface. Beneath lies a struggle for recognition, pride and emotional balance. The rapid spread of the mistranslation from “at the side of” to “in” was not due to journalistic error but to psychological desire. It felt good to hear; it restored a sense of dignity.

This shows that modern international relations are increasingly shaped not only by interests but by emotions. The politics of belonging has replaced the politics of balance.

The politics of belonging

The European Union’s “endless maybe” to Turkey is not simply a diplomatic impasse; it is a civilizational symptom. It reveals a Europe uncertain of the reach of its own values and a Turkey trapped between pride and yearning. Both sides are negotiating identity as much as power.

Each gesture, each mistranslated sentence, and each carefully staged encounter expresses the same unresolved truth: Closeness is not inclusion, partnership is not belonging and recognition remains the rarest currency of all.

The relationship endures not because it works but because it mirrors the insecurities of both sides. Europe looks at Turkey and sees its anxieties. Turkey looks back and sees its aspirations. Between these reflections lies the EU’s endless maybe — a state of permanent negotiation between necessity and denial, between who we are and who we still wish to be.

First published in German on Deutsche Bold.

*Yasemin Aydın is a social anthropologist and social psychologist in Germany.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Turkish Minute.