The West remains unwilling to challenge Erdogan’s authoritarianism due to Turkey’s pivotal role in regional stability, migration control, and the war in Ukraine.

The eruption of protests across Turkey has fractured the once-unshakable image of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a leader who has long projected dominance over the country’s political landscape. Since assuming the presidency in 2014, Erdogan steadily consolidated his authority, shaping a persona as the captain of a rudderless nation. At a moment when Turkey’s foreign policy orientation was uncertain, he emerged as the architect of a new strategic vision. A decade into his rule, Turkey has emerged as a key regional player across the Middle East and Europe. But that ambition has come at a cost.

Erdogan has remained committed to his religious and conservative ideals throughout his presidency, and those convictions have shaped much of his domestic policy. Over nearly ten years, he systematically dismantled many of the secularist reforms introduced by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. While his embrace of religious governance raised concern among secularists, a broad base of Turkey’s conservative and devout population welcomed these changes. Nonetheless, political analysts cautioned early on that Erdogan’s trajectory was veering toward authoritarianism.

The warnings grew louder as economic stagnation took root and press freedoms eroded. His slipping popularity took a dramatic turn with the arrest of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu—Erdogan’s chief political rival and a figure who had captured the imagination of the country’s progressive electorate. Imamoglu’s detention sent shockwaves through Turkish society, igniting widespread anger and bringing Erdogan’s authoritarian leanings into sharp relief. His presidency is now confronting its most formidable challenge to date.

Yet despite the escalating unrest, Europe and the West have shown remarkable restraint. The European Union expressed concern about Imamoglu’s arrest but stopped short of formal condemnation. Though Brussels criticized the mass detention of journalists and demonstrators, it failed to issue any concrete threats or rebukes. This hesitance reflects a broader unwillingness to rupture diplomatic ties with Ankara. For many in Europe, Erdogan—despite his divisive policies—has consistently upheld the agreements he signed, even when Western partners have wavered. It was Erdogan’s reliability, after all, that enabled the successful negotiation of the 2016 EU-Turkey migrant deal.

Europe continues to rely heavily on Erdogan’s cooperation. The shifting dynamics in Syria—particularly with Bashar al-Assad weakened—have altered the regional balance of power. Turkey, with its close ties to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), now holds significant influence over Syria’s future. A stable Syria, in the eyes of European policymakers, depends on strong leadership just across its northern border. Without Erdogan’s involvement, the region could easily devolve into chaos, mirroring the nightmare of the Islamic State era—an outcome Europe is desperate to avoid.

Compounding this urgency is the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has emerged as the gravest security crisis to confront Europe since the Second World War. Erdogan commands one of NATO’s largest military forces, and his country’s military assistance has been critical for Ukraine. As President Donald Trump signaled his intent to sever U.S. aid to Kyiv, Europe finds itself increasingly dependent on Erdogan for continued military support. Turkey, uniquely, has maintained relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv. Erdogan has skillfully capitalized on this dual trust, brokering significant agreements such as the Black Sea grain deal. Should Europe hope to shape a stable postwar Ukraine, it cannot ignore the central role Turkey is poised to play.

Europe thus finds itself entangled in a complex geopolitical situation. On one front, the war in Ukraine continues with no clear resolution in sight. On the other, the transatlantic alliance has weakened under Trump’s provocations—including his shocking suggestion of seizing Greenland by force as a security measure. With pressure mounting from both Eastern and Western spheres of influence, Erdogan appears to be the only figure capable of acting as a counterweight and offering Europe strategic equilibrium in an increasingly unstable world.

What perhaps benefits Erdogan most, however, is the conspicuous silence from across the Atlantic. The Trump administration’s response to the protests has been notably muted, limited to a generic expression of concern. Once regarded as a champion of democracy abroad, the United States has now chosen disengagement. Without a strong U.S. position, international efforts to apply pressure lose credibility. When Washington stays quiet, the rest of the world follows suit—a pattern that has played out predictably in Erdogan’s favor.

That silence has been deafening. The West is not only hesitant to intervene; it has become functionally impotent in the face of Erdogan’s consolidation of power. Confronting him now would mean jeopardizing delicate security, migration, and diplomatic arrangements. Whether Erdogan weathers the current political storm will be determined largely by Turkey’s internal dynamics. But the lack of international opposition has laid bare a sobering reality: so long as its interests are protected, the West is willing to tolerate—even enable—authoritarianism. Erdogan is not an exception to this rule. He is the embodiment of it.