Anil Can Ozgun: Turkey’s Syria Strategy Is About Realpolitik, Not Neo-Ottomanism

Despite rhetorical echoes of empire, Ankara’s involvement in post-Assad Syria is driven by strategic necessity—not imperial nostalgia.

As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime collapsed in late 2024, many observers were quick to revive the old “Neo-Ottomanism” label to explain Turkey’s actions in the region. But this characterization fails to capture the reality on the ground. Turkey is not seeking to resurrect the Ottoman Empire; it is pursuing strategic interests shaped by regional instability, economic challenges, and national security imperatives.

Neo-Ottomanism: An Overused and Poorly Defined Concept

The term “Neo-Ottomanism” gained popularity through the writings of former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, whose Strategic Depth emphasized a values-driven foreign policy and increased regional engagement. Yet the term has become a catch-all for any Turkish move that diverges from Western norms—especially over the past decade.

While Western analysts frequently invoke the term, Turkish policymakers rarely use it. The concept is vague and inconsistently applied, often used polemically rather than analytically. Turkey’s policy in Syria highlights how misleading the Neo-Ottoman label can be.

Syria: Cooperation Born of Necessity

After Assad’s fall, Turkey’s role in Syria increased—but not in the way many predicted. While Ankara had limited tactical coordination with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) prior to the Aleppo offensive, the speed of Assad’s downfall surprised all sides.

The new Syrian President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has opened cooperative channels with Ankara. However, he is far from being a Turkish client. His pragmatic approach is rooted in the realities of governing a fractured, war-torn country. While using Muslim nationalist rhetoric, al-Sharaa has engaged diplomatically with not only Turkey, but also Germany, France, and Qatar. Crucially, he has reassured neighbors by refusing to export Syria’s revolution.

Turkish Influence in Syrian Security: A Realist Choice

Turkey’s growing role in Syria’s security institutions stems from a request by Damascus for help training new officers—a need created by the collapse of the Assad-era military. Given the political sensitivities surrounding U.S., Russian, Iranian, or Israeli personnel, Turkey became the only feasible option.

This development expands Turkish influence, but it also reflects the absence of alternatives. It is a partnership of necessity, not domination. Turkey’s economic vulnerabilities and Syria’s strategic location make the relationship mutually dependent.

The Kurdish Question: Security, Not Imperialism

Critics often cite Ankara’s actions in northern Syria—especially against the PYD and SDF—as evidence of Neo-Ottoman ambitions. But the reality is more grounded: Turkey’s policies stem from decades-long concerns about PKK-linked separatism.

While Ankara remains skeptical of Kurdish groups ideologically aligned with PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan, it has shown willingness to consider a political settlement—provided those groups sever PKK ties and integrate into Syrian national structures. This position is pragmatic, not ideological.

Turkey’s Balancing Act: Russia, NATO, and Realpolitik

Turkey’s balancing act between Moscow and the West further illustrates its strategic pragmatism. While Ankara did not join Western sanctions against Russia, it has worked to limit Russian influence in Syria, Libya, the South Caucasus, and even Ukraine.

This is not duplicity—it’s Realpolitik. Turkey cooperates where interests align and resists where they don’t. Western assumptions of loyalty-based alliances no longer apply in a multipolar world.

A Historical Tradition of Strategic Flexibility

Turkey’s current foreign policy mirrors older patterns of strategic balancing. During the Cold War, Ankara’s position was unusually constrained by NATO alignment. But historically, both the Byzantine and Ottoman empires navigated shifting alliances across religious and ideological lines to maintain autonomy.

From Sultan Suleiman’s alliance with Catholic France to Atatürk’s cautious diplomacy in the interwar period, Turkey’s geopolitical tradition is transactional. That legacy continues today as Ankara maneuvers between power centers to preserve its autonomy.

Toward a Post-Ideological Foreign Policy

In today’s multipolar order, Turkey’s foreign policy reflects neither Ottoman nostalgia nor blind Western alignment. It is shaped by practical calculations of threat, opportunity, and influence. Western policymakers must adjust their frameworks accordingly.

Stability in Syria—and across the region—requires understanding Turkey’s actions through a realist lens. Reducing Ankara’s strategy to “Neo-Ottomanism” is analytically lazy and risks misreading one of the region’s most consequential actors.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: PA Turkey intends to inform Turkey watchers with diverse views and opinions. Articles in our website may not necessarily represent the view of our editorial board or count as endorsement.

Follow our English language YouTube videos @ REAL TURKEY: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKpFJB4GFiNkhmpVZQ_d9Rg
And content at Twitter: @AtillaEng
Facebook: Real Turkey Channel: https://www.facebook.com/realturkeychannel/