An Exclusive Economic Zone does not grant absolute territorial sovereignty to a coastal state. However, it secures the exclusive rights of a coastal state to explore and exploit vital economic resources within the water column and the seabed. In an era of intense geopolitical competition, Türkiye introduced the Blue Homeland doctrine as a comprehensive maritime strategy. This visionary strategic framework protects these rights and safeguards Ankara’s long-term interests in its surrounding seas. The implementation of this doctrine represents a fundamental shift in regional maritime geopolitics. 

The Aegean Sea and the Territorial Waters Status Quo 

Greece has long-standing ambitions to extend its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles in the Aegean Sea. This proposed move would severely threaten regional stability and the delicate balance established over decades. Historically, Türkiye has declared that such an extension is an indisputable cause of war. 

Currently, Türkiye is not a signatory to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This abstention stems from the unique geographical structure of the Aegean Sea. Historically referred to as the Sea of Islands, the Aegean defies standard nautical mile limitations designed for open oceans. Applying these standard rules would severely restrict international airspace and maritime navigation. 

While Athens maintains a six-mile limit for now, it has militarized numerous Aegean islands despite Turkish claims that such deployments violate the demilitarization provisions of the Lausanne and Paris treaties. These historical agreements explicitly conditioned Greek sovereignty over these islands on their strict demilitarization. Consequently, the current militarization efforts undermine the foundational legal texts governing the region. 

Fault Lines in the Eastern Mediterranean 

In the Eastern Mediterranean, shifting geopolitical fault lines have given Türkiye a significant strategic advantage. In 2019, Ankara signed a Maritime Delimitation Memorandum of Understanding with Libya. This pivotal agreement completely dismantled the maritime containment strategy devised by Greece, Egypt, and the Greek Cypriot Administration. 

Simultaneously, lucrative natural gas discoveries have transformed the Eastern Mediterranean into a focal point of global energy competition. Initial efforts by opposing blocs attempted to exclude Türkiye from regional energy infrastructure, notably through the unviable EastMed pipeline project. However, the subsequent failure of these exclusionary projects proved that no regional energy equation can succeed without Türkiye’s participation. 

Today, Türkiye systematically codifies its maritime jurisdiction zones to consolidate these strategic gains. By defining legal boundaries for disputes dating back to 1982, Ankara actively redraws the Eastern Mediterranean energy map. Domestically, the Blue Homeland doctrine enjoys a robust bipartisan consensus across the political spectrum. The Turkish parliament is expected to legalize these maritime boundaries soon. Moving forward, Greece must face this newly established strategic reality. Athens must factor in both the regional energy resources and the renewed Libyan geopolitical equation. Rejecting diplomatic negotiations in favor of maximalist policies will not yield favorable outcomes for Athens. 

The Legalization of the Blue Homeland 

Declaring an exclusive economic zone establishes a definitive and recognized legal framework. It places all living and non-living resources within the water column and the seabed under the strict jurisdiction of a single state. The upcoming legislative steps of Türkiye will reinforce its sovereignty in the Aegean Sea. This definitive legal action preempts Greek claims to these contested waters. 

Crucially, this legal framework encompasses one hundred and seventy-six islands, islets, and rocks whose sovereignty remains disputed. Historical treaties never explicitly ceded the sovereignty of these specific geographic formations to Greece. Thus, this upcoming legislation solidifies both the legal and practical reality of the Blue Homeland doctrine. 

Under the current Territorial Waters Law of Türkiye, the Aegean boundary remains at six nautical miles strictly out of geographical necessity. In contrast, Türkiye applies the standard 12-mile limit smoothly in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Despite this delicate equilibrium, Greece recently announced plans to create large national marine parks slated for 2025. This environmental initiative reveals a clear intent to establish unilateral control over disputed waters. Consequently, it poses a direct and unacceptable challenge to Türkiye’s maritime rights. 

Growing Concern in Athens 

Unsurprisingly, these structural moves trigger profound anxiety within political circles in Athens. The Greek government publicly expresses fears that codifying Türkiye’s maritime claims could be an immediate cause of war, as the Turkish parliament declared in 1995. Meanwhile, the Greek domestic press frequently accuses its administration of underestimating these significant developments. 

Greek media openly acknowledges that Türkiye’s growing geopolitical influence fundamentally shifts the regional balance of power. Greek outlets often mischaracterize this growing influence as Turkish revisionism. This rhetoric serves to mask that Ankara seeks to secure its rights under international law. 

Toward a New Regional Security Architecture 

The international system of today faces profound crises of global hegemony and a turbulent transition of power. Leaving maritime boundaries ambiguous in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean creates a massive and dangerous security vacuum. The recent initiative of Türkiye anchors its Blue Homeland vision upon a solid, unshakeable legal foundation. 

This codification is a proactive measure carefully designed to close the existing security gap. The international community and regional actors should not view Ankara’s actions as aggressive revisionism. Instead, they represent the foundational building blocks of a new regional security architecture. This new system is firmly grounded in legal clarity, effective deterrence, and geopolitical realism. 

Nazım Fatsa is a public sector professional and independent researcher based in Türkiye, currently completing his master’s studies in International Relations at Kütahya Dumlupınar University. His primary research focuses on regional security dynamics, Middle Eastern geopolitics, and maritime strategies such as the Mavi Vatan doctrine. He also serves as a Language Editor for several peer-reviewed publications, including the ASSAM International Refereed Journal and the Academic Thought Journal. The views of the author are his own. 

Redrawn Boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean: Türkiye’s New Legal Moves was originally published on Global Security Review.

Nonproliferation has been the goal of America’s foreign policy since the end of the Cold War more than three decades ago. At that time, the biggest concern was the possibility of the crumbling Soviet military apparatus being captured by rogue states, terrorist organizations, and other non-friendly entities that could use Soviet expertise and technological prowess to develop means to attack the United States. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR), for instance, was started in 1991 to assist the Soviet Union and its “successor entities” to “destroy nuclear, chemical, and other weapons; transport, store, disable, and safeguard weapons in connection with their destruction; and establish verifiable safeguards against the proliferation of such weapons.”

Since then, many more programs have been created to control exports of sensitive and dual-use materials. Regardless of the effectiveness of these programs, it might seem that the world has entered a new era of proliferation as allies and partners, among others, start to question the security commitments of the United States and the possible prospect of developing their own nuclear programs.

Whether the US would actively defend its allies and partners if attacked, thousands of miles away from American territory, has long stimulated debate. Now, more than ever, Ukraine and the Middle East are important centers of attention following their years-long conflicts and the involvement of the United States. In Ukraine, for instance, President Trump called for peace negotiations, allegedly, without the consent of Ukraine.

Amid these decisions, conflicting messages were shared by American officials on the issue. On the one hand, President Trump stated that “Ukraine may be Russian one day, or not,” and that there were discussions on the possibility of a deal to provide the United States with part of Ukraine’s mineral deposits in exchange for American weapons. On the other hand, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership for Ukraine is unrealistic and that the country should abandon its hopes of a return to its pre-2014 borders.

The fears running among Ukrainians and other European partners are shared. What if the US withdraws its assistance from Ukraine? What about the rest of the continent? On Monday, February 17, 2025, European leaders met to form a united front during an emergency meeting in Paris to discuss Trump’s plans for Ukraine and the continent. In this meeting, the reliability of Europe’s key transatlantic partner might be questioned. As this situation and the negotiations continue, many possible outcomes are certain to receive attention.

One of them includes the possibility of developing or expanding European nuclear programs, which is an idea floated for some time. For instance, Elena Davlikanova, from the Center for European Policy Analysis, reported that “[d]uring his speech in Brussels on October 17, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy voiced what many Ukrainians are thinking, that in the war for its existence, Ukraine now has a choice between NATO membership or manufacturing nuclear weapons.” If, according to the US Secretary of Defense, Ukraine’s membership in NATO is dismissed, then the other viable option for Kyiv is clear. And so might be for other US partners and allies.

In the Middle East, furthermore, a similar situation could be addressed. Since the last violent exchanges between Israel and Iran, concerns were raised about the possibility that Iran may now finally develop its own nuclear program with the assistance of Russia. Moreover, President Trump’s plans to expel ethnic Palestinians from Gaza and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” could fuel concerns among Arab partners.

Along these lines, Arab states, friend or foe of the US, may acquire nuclear capabilities if they perceive their interests (regime survival, national integrity, sovereignty, etc.) are at stake and if they consider the growing US-Israel alliance a security risk. Iran could definitely see it this way, but what about the newly established Syrian government? The historical competition between Israel and Syria could now further expand as Islamist organizations now control the country.

Overall, two roads seem to be ahead of us. If the Trump administration’s goal is to partially denuclearize China and Russia, then concessions (“sacrifices”) will need to be made, which might include surrendering Ukraine to Moscow and, perhaps, Taiwan to Beijing—or at least the sovereignty claims of the South China Sea. If this is the case, the US alliance may tremble, encouraging US partners and allies to pursue their own independent nuclear programs. The other road leads to the support of US partners and allies but without facing real possibilities of engaging in arms control negotiations with either China or Russia.

In other words, the status quo would be maintained. The Trump administration would need to start evaluating these two paths ahead, but partners and allies should also play their part to convince the administration that they are not a burden to carry, and that keeping the alliance alive will also benefit the United States in the short and long term.

Santiago Spadiliero is a doctoral candidate at Missouri State University’s School of Defense and Strategic Studies whose research is focused on great power competition, deterrence, and America’s missile defense architecture.

President Trump’s Foreign Policy Could Encourage Proliferation was originally published on Global Security Review.