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.

For the geopolitics of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), it is a time of great anxiety. With the non-Arab actors engaging in another tense series of regional infighting, coercive diplomacy and modern warfare have halted episodic interventions from the Arab counterparts. The MENA high-fliers have moved from their traditional stances of diplomatic arrangements and prioritized military readiness in the current spiraling crisis. For decades, the dominant challenge for the Arab nations has not been Israel’s aggression nor Iran’s ambitions, but their inability to sustain collective agreement in coalitions. The MENA region has seen countless alliances fracturing over the years, resulting in a region without one superpower. If the Gulf states continue to rely on the United States’ changing focus in the Middle East, it will end up losing more than its economic potency and military confidence. It will lose the ability to arrange the chessboard.

The inability of the Arab world to synchronize with its proximate neighbors has weakened the prospects of creating a counterintelligence structure in regional flare-ups. Is staying mutually vulnerable to modern intelligence operations a mistake worth repeating in traditional alliances?

To mitigate conflict spillovers, the Arab nations have prioritized active defense investments and air denial practices. Systematic defense procurements have streamlined their multi-domain operations to prevent entanglements, but out-spying Iran’s asymmetric warfighting or Israel’s intelligence warfare remains a political test. Israel’s intelligence directives of movement profiling and persistent surveillance of the Supreme Leader highlight the necessity to advance intelligence methodologies. MENA’s defensive architecture requires an additional protective layer over deterrence: counterintelligence. Not synchronizing against a common enemy caused several problems: domestic fracturing, outdated doctrines, historical distrust, and interoperability gaps. Investing rapidly in modern war equipment has erased the Arab world’s warfighting inferiority. Still, the mismatch continues to exist in indigenous productions of air defenses, military intelligence, and technical expertise. Despite inter- and intra-regional strategic connections existing as a starting point, the underlying factors of alliance fragmentation have increased.

Consistent strategic differences are fracturing the prospects of political reconciliation and strategic retrospection. Facing multiple power projectors, shared security architecture has reshaped how the geography collaborates during political flare-ups. MENA’s high-fliers see this geography without one dominant actor. This vacuum has yet to be filled, but complete dominance requires incremental layering, which Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the UAE, and Iran seek. The Gulf’s current strategy to combine deterrence with diplomacy has been met with historical, geopolitical tests. From Kuwait (1990) to Bahrain (2011), this geography has had its fair share of regional adventures. The fear of exposing warfighting weaknesses has halted political adventures in MENA. Aside from weak engagements in Yemen and Syria, and confused performances with Israel and Iran, the geopolitical awareness to arrange the Middle East offers a

complex silver lining. The ongoing crisis demands more than a cohesive block from the Gulf. Moving in line with other MENA actors invites multidimensional risks, gambles, and prospects in managing the evolving theater.

Israel’s versatile intelligence alters political entanglements for the Gulf. It introduced a hybrid wave of targeted psychological operations (PSYOPS). The open presence of Israel’s intelligence in the Middle East has resulted in its neighbors’ doctrinal fatigue. This ‘eye in the sky’ layering impacts the susceptibility, vulnerability, and recoverability of MENA’s doctrinal postures. It pushes the Persian Gulf to enhance battlespace in three settings: Iran’s predictive intelligence, the Gulf’s threat assessment, and integrated weapons systems. Still, the absence of collective military intelligence and interoperability is glaring.

To keep a watchful eye on regional aggressors, the Gulf adopted a threefold approach, by formalizing passive defense, security clusters, and proactive diplomacy. With multiple doctrines, MENA struggles to succeed in collectively preserving power, let alone projecting it. Be it Iran or Israel, a common pattern in the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) strategic behavior was observed. It preferred personalized military innovations and investments, while securing inter-regional strategic alliances. From the Levant to North Africa, the GCC to Iran, and Tukey to the broader Middle East, this reality articulated the disconnected objectives. However, the Gulf’s common direction to domestically upgrade remained constant, and it offers three scenarios for a future strategy.

First, to become innovative by forming a layered intelligence coalition with regional military sectors in different geographical quadrants, making Five Eyes a blueprint to align domains, departments, and systems. Second, to continue investing in personalized, ad-hoc security investments before active defense localization. In the current situation, this strategy provided the Gulf with ample psychological and operational confidence to fuse other arrangements together. Third, use the previous geopolitical arrangements of MENA to innovate. The Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA) was the rump administration’s idea to bring the Arab states together for a joint cause: unifying against Iran. The Qatar blockade and Egypt’s withdrawal soured the idea MESA became a memory. Therefore, the prospects of coordination by cross-regional powers require a consensus.

Currently the urgency to upgrade counterintelligence structures is neither lacking incentives nor temptations. The urgency to innovate in multiple spheres of traditional power is a matter of strategic inevitability. MENA has found a cogently balanced geostrategy to maneuver in multidirectional geopolitical dimensions. Natural resources, chokepoints, and trade passages give significant bargaining chips to MENA. It has shaped its strategic profile to constructively depend on geostrategic positioning. Using traditional elements of power with natural commonalities and conditionalities offers alliance politics. In a not-so-friendly neighborhood, finding common ground remains an Achilles ‘ heel. Bringing elements of confidence-building from inter-regional coalition lessons is one go-to strategy.

Muhammad Hamza Chaudhary is a student of International Relations at the Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. He has published his work in the Small Wars Journal, Modern Diplomacy, and the Center for Strategic and Contemporary Research (CSCR). The views of the author are his own.

A Counterintelligence Profile: Are High-Fliers Ready? was originally published on Global Security Review.

In fact, months ago, the president asked North Atlantic Treaty Council Organization (NATO) countries for a proposal by each state for putting peacekeeping troops in Ukraine. The Europeans dithered and then expressed consternation that Trump was keeping them out of the negotiations with Putin.

More pertinently, the president suggested that NATO countries increase their defense expenditure to five percent of gross domestic product (GDP). This is a far more realistic assessment of the decline in European capabilities than that which calls for a growth of defense expenditure to three percent of GDP.

The British, French, and Germans all expressed varying degrees of outrage at Trump’s actions including the suggestion by some that he is creating a “Munich”-like outcome in his negotiations with Putin by conceding too much even before the discussions began. The fact is that Trump is playing his cards knowing full well that the Europeans have no plan.

Why Five Percent Is Impossible

When one looks at NATO’s defense expenditure, countries like Canada, Italy, and Spain are below the two percent threshold while France, Germany, and the Netherlands barely cross it.  Yes, countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are above the two percent threshold, but they are small nations with populations less than that of Chicago. Estonia has a mere 1.6 million people.

To get to three percent, let alone five, would require NATO countries to add tens of billions to their defense budgets and require cutting the social services that their citizens expect and value. As Politico pointed out, for France, which is one of the voluble proponents of European rearmament, to go from two to three percent of GDP would require Paris to add about 30 billion euros to its defense budget.

Given the country’s budgetary problems that is unlikely to happen. Five percent is a bridge too far. Britain, which is also facing economic headwinds, cannot afford such an increase. In Germany, despite the 100 billion euros committed to modernization, which largely went to refurbish existing equipment that was mothballed, Berlin made it clear it is a long way from substantially increasing its defense budget. Countries like Italy and Spain, given their own economic compulsions, will also find five percent impossible.

The Europeans raise the issue that even if they went to five percent their defense industries are not able to crank up production to meet the demand for new weaponry. That is not the primary problem for these countries. Instead, it is an issue of manpower. Europe is aging and lacks the population for expanded militaries. Worse, as part of the peace dividend, conscription was removed in most countries in the 1990s. This left Gen X, the millennials, and now Gen Z, without any memory of military service.

Reinstating conscription, as seen from the figures below, would be the way to give teeth to European militaries. Compulsory military service, however, is hugely unpopular among the younger generation and a push to draft people would lead to an electoral backlash that few politicians in Europe want to face.

As Table I shows, the major European militaries drastically downsized after the Cold War:

Source: The Military Balance [IISS: London], 1972, 2017, 2023, 2024 editions.

The above figures clearly show that remilitarization would require a major intake of manpower that the European countries would be unable to achieve because of the factors discussed above. Yet, this does not stop them from making bold pronouncements about future militarization efforts. Reality is something else.

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy states the German case of weakness quite bluntly:

The decline in German numbers over the past 20 years is particularly striking: in 2004 Germany had thousands of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and even almost one thousand howitzers. By 2021, these numbers had come down to the hundreds, as Germany only had 339 tanks and 121 howitzers. The German numbers for 1992 must be interpreted carefully, as they include weapons and equipment from the newly incorporated East German army. Still, when considering the available Leopard tanks, i.e., the West German tanks, Germany had around 4200. The German decline in military stock is thus massive.

Despite all the optimistic talk emanating from Berlin, German rearmament is a myth.  The country’s industrial capability, which is in the doldrums, will not allow it to rapidly militarize. And young people will not join the military in droves as Olaf Scholz and Ursula van der Lyon fondly believe. There is a reason Ukraine has not dipped into its pool of 18–21-year-olds for the current war. It would probably lead to mass flight from the country by younger Ukrainians.

If Europe cannot remilitarize easily and lacks the manpower to build Cold War–level forces, what can it do? The answer is simple. Write checks.

Ukraine requires reconstruction. The World Bank estimated that it would cost around $486 billion, while Zelensky put the number closer to $700 billion. It is a year since the World Bank made its estimate so one can safely assume that in the intense conflict of 2024 the damage to infrastructure may have added another $50 billion to $100 billion to the bill. The Europeans can make a $25 billion a year commitment to Ukraine for the next twenty years to aid reconstruction. This would lead to the rapid build-up of Ukraine’s economy and stop the population from fleeing the war-torn nation.

As things stand, Ukraine’s population is set to decline to around 30 million by 2050 and it will largely be a country of old people thanks to a decline in fertility. If Kyiv stands a chance, it needs a sustained dose of financial aid with no strings attached. A side benefit would be that China would not be the major post-war economic player in Ukraine.

From the European perspective, Brussels can go to Trump and say that yes, we engaged in burden sharing and it would be a lot less expensive than five percent of GDP and far less socially divisive than the imposition of conscription.

Xi Jin Ping suggested Chinese and Indian peacekeepers be inserted in Ukraine. This would change the future security architecture of the region. Russia will be far more comfortable with such a peacekeeping force rather than a crypto-NATO force posing as peacekeepers. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Perhaps most interesting is the fact that Trump called Europe’s bluff. If London, Paris, and Berlin want to be relevant, it is time to write a big check. At least for now, Americans are no longer willing to subsidize Europe’s welfare states.

Amit Gupta is a Senior Fellow of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. The views in this article are personal.

The European Dilemma: Five Percent and Manpower was originally published on Global Security Review.