There are several attempts to define the expression “strategic autonomy”. In its “negative” interpretation, it refers to the ability to defend against outside pressure and interference successfully. In its positive interpretation, it means that a country or union of countries is able to pursue its main goals and projects. Of course, there are always conditions and influences that must be taken into account. Strategic autonomy is always relative and limited, but it still gives more power than the constraints that exist for countries under the influence of an empire or in exclusive alliances. In today’s world, the successful implementation of strategic autonomy needs a sound and balanced economic basis and efficient military capabilities, which, by the way, applies to both Turkey and the European Union.

The relationship between European countries and Turkey has always been complicated. For many centuries, Turkey was definitely seen as a European country, and towards the end of the nineteenth century, it was called the “sick man of Europe“. However, as the relationship between Turkey and the European Union evolved further after World War II, the question arose of whether Turkey was a European country, and the issue of where the Eastern border of Europe should be drawn became a subject of intense discussion.

Again there is talk about achieving peace between Ukraine and Russia. It is much too early to see a concrete path towards peace or at least towards a cease fire, but an agreement, even a weak one, seems to be more realistic today than at any time since the start of the full-scale attack on Ukraine by Russia starting in February 2022.

What brought the recent meeting of Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen concerning trade between EU and US? Was it a deal, or was it just another misunderstanding between the two trading partners?  Anyway whatever it was, it resulted in chaos and confusion. That is not untypical for negotiations when Trump is involved, as with all so-called deals. Also, his actions inside the US government result in chaos. And perhaps the European Commission was just happy to have any kind of agreement - and I could share their eagerness to have any sort of agreement with which one could move on. But the question remains whereto can Europe move on now.

Am 1. August 1975, also vor 50 Jahren wurde in Helsinki ein Abkommen geschlossen, das eine Zeitenwende in Europa begründende, die sogenannten Helsinki Schlussakte. Den Begriff Zeitenwende hatte der ehemalige deutsche Bundeskanzler in die geo-politische Debatte nach dem russischen Einmarsch in die Ukraine am 24.2.2022 eingebracht. Er sollte anzeigen, dass der Krieg nach Europa zurückgekehrt ist und Europa sich wieder auf verstärkte Rüstungsausgaben einstellen muss. 1975 war es umgekehrt. Die davor und parallel zu den Vorbereitungen zur Konferenz von Helsinki geführten Gespräche zwischen Ost und West, insbesondere zwischen den Amerikanern und den „Russen“ (der Sowjetunion) führten zur Abrüstung und der Verständigung über sicherheitspolitische Fragen.

Already for many years, but in particular since the vicious attack of Hamas on October 7th, there is a lively debate amongst Jewish experts about how to define the many punitive actions of the Israeli government and the Israeli Defence Forces I.D.F. against Palestinian militant groups and the general population. Are these actions and especially the reactions to the brutal Hamas killings and hostage-takings justified and measured reactions or are they of a genocidal character? In addition some ask if it is even possible, that Israel can be accused of committing war crimes and especially a genocide due to its founding out of the Holocaust.

When Olav Scholz, the short term German Chancellor, used the expression „Zeitenwende“ to describe the European world after the Russian invasion into Ukraine he probably did not expect, that this expression would find its place in many political comments and analytical articles from then on. Of course different Zeitenwenden cannot be related exactly to certain moments, they have their preparations and roots in the years before the actual turning points. But they mark and symbolize the beginning of a new area.

Das Internationale Recht bleibt dann auf der Strecke. Erschreckend ist, dass sogar international anerkannte politische Analysten, insbesondere wenn es um Israels Militärschlag gegen den Iran geht, das Völkerrecht keine Rolle spielt. Dabei ist ebenso klar, dass auch die politische Führung des Irans - neben einer die Menschenrechte verletzenden Innenpolitik- auch eindeutige gegen die Prinzipen des Völkerrechts verstößt. An der iranischen Innen- bzw. Außenpolitik gibt es nichts  zu beschönigen. Aber gerade der auf die internationale, regelbasierte Ordnung pochende Westen sollte mit dem  internationale Recht nicht leichtfertig umgehen und es in eine Schublade verbannen.