According to the international expert on geopolitics, energy, and strategic security Mehmet Öğütçü, Europe today is experiencing not just a change in rhetoric, but a fundamental shift in thinking, comparable in scale to the end of the Cold War. For approximately three decades, he emphasizes, European policy and strategic planning were built around a single key idea — the so-called “peace dividends.”
After the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the bipolar world, it seemed that the era of direct confrontation between great powers had forever passed. Europe entered a period of economic growth, deepened integration, and faith in soft power as the main instrument of influence. Military budgets were systematically reduced, compulsory military service was abolished in many countries, the size of armed forces decreased, and the very concept of “war” gradually disappeared from political discourse, remaining primarily within academic discussions.
However, Öğütçü notes, today this picture has radically changed — and the changes are occurring rapidly.
The expert draws attention to the unprecedented return of hard military language in the official rhetoric of European states. The French Chief of the General Staff directly warns society that in the coming years Europe may have to accept the reality of losses among its own young generation. Civilian hospitals and infrastructure facilities are being sent instructions for preparation under wartime conditions. In the United Kingdom, senior military leadership openly speaks about the need to psychologically prepare the population for a potential high-intensity conflict with Russia. Germany officially sets the goal of transforming the Bundeswehr into an “army ready for war” by 2029. Poland is discussing defense expenditures at the level of 5 % of GDP. The Baltic states are effectively living in a state of constant mobilization readiness. Romania is rapidly strengthening military and energy infrastructure in the Black Sea region at an unprecedented pace. Even the Netherlands is revising the architecture of its ports, logistics hubs, and fiber-optic networks based on scenarios of hybrid warfare.
According to Öğütçü, this is compounded by strategic uncertainty emanating from Washington. Statements by Donald Trump suggesting a possible weakening of American security guarantees for Europe, hints that Russia may feel emboldened, and even discussions about bringing Greenland back into the focus of military rivalry, all intensify a sense of instability. Simultaneously, Moscow openly declares its readiness for a prolonged war and its lack of intentions to retreat.
Against this backdrop, the expert emphasizes, Europe is increasingly asking the worrying question: is the continent truly moving toward a hot war with Russia, or are we witnessing a deliberate hardening of rhetoric?
Öğütçü believes that the answer here is complex and multilayered. However, one thing, he says, is entirely clear: what is happening is not a declaration of war. It is a declaration of new strategic thinking.
The expert explains that for approximately thirty years European security relied on three fundamental assumptions. First — that the United States would always guarantee Europe’s security. Second — that Russia would, over time, become softer and more predictable through integration into global economic and political structures. Third — that war would remain outside the European continent. The war in Ukraine, Öğütçü emphasizes, has destroyed all three assumptions simultaneously.
The strategic focus of the United States is increasingly shifting toward the Indo-Pacific region. Russia has demonstrated its willingness to expand in the absence of effective deterrence. Energy infrastructure, cyberspace, submarine cables, and space systems have become real frontlines.
This is why, the expert notes, the harsh rhetoric of European leaders is addressed not only to Moscow. First and foremost, it is addressed to their own societies. European citizens are effectively being told: the era of comfort is over, security has again become costly, and prosperity has a price — a price expressed in defense, mobilization of resources, and a change in mindset.
According to Öğütçü, phrases such as “we may lose our children” are not emotional accidents. These are carefully calculated formulas. Without such psychological preparation, it would be impossible to politically justify the growth of military budgets, the return or expansion of conscription and reserves, the redistribution of funds from social programs to defense, as well as the deep restructuring of ports, railways, energy networks, and data centers with consideration of military resilience.
The expert emphasizes that during the Cold War, societies were mobilized by the fear of nuclear annihilation. Today, mobilization is built around the threat of conventional and hybrid warfare. He notes that this is not fear-mongering for the sake of fear itself, but a conscious public mobilization in the interest of deterrence.
Speaking about the Russian factor, Öğütçü points out that Europe’s concern goes far beyond Ukraine. It is about the long-term trajectory of Russia: the transformation of its economy into a military one, rapid expansion of defense-industrial capabilities, active cyber operations and sabotage, threats to energy and communication infrastructure, intensified military activity in the Baltic and Black Seas, as well as constant pressure on NATO’s eastern flank.
Military planners, the expert emphasizes, formulate their position extremely clearly: they are not seeking war, but they are convinced that without readiness, peace cannot be preserved.
Evaluating the likelihood of direct conflict, Öğütçü believes that in the short term, the risk of a full-scale war between NATO and Russia remains low, since such a scenario would be catastrophic for all parties. However, in the medium term, he sees the growth of three serious risks: the risk of miscalculation — in the Baltics, the Black Sea, Kaliningrad, the Arctic, and cyberspace; the risk of a prolonged conflict following a model of attrition, similar to Ukraine; and the risk associated with uncertainty regarding American commitments to Europe.
This is why the new rhetoric, according to Öğütçü, is formulated not as “we want war,” but as “we will not allow ourselves to be caught unprepared.”
The expert emphasizes that all these changes have direct strategic significance for Turkey. The Black Sea, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Middle East are increasingly merging into a single security belt. Against this backdrop, the importance of the Montreux Convention, NATO’s southern flank, energy corridors, defense-industrial capabilities, and balancing policies is increasing.
According to him, Turkey’s role becomes critically important in three dimensions at once: as a deterrent military force, as a balancing diplomatic actor capable of maintaining dialogue with both Russia and the West, and as a key node of energy and logistics security linking the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Middle Corridor.
Öğütçü gives special attention to the South Caucasus and Azerbaijan, which he calls the new strategic hinge of the emerging security system. The expert emphasizes that the Black Sea is ceasing to be a peripheral space and is becoming a connecting link between Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East. In this arc, Azerbaijan occupies a key position.
Firstly, as a European energy anchor. Reducing dependence on Russian gas has turned the Southern Gas Corridor from an alternative route into a strategic artery. The security of the Caspian-Anatolian-European energy chain has become inseparable from Europe’s overall defense and resilience strategy. Pipelines, LNG terminals, energy interconnectors, and digital corridors, Öğütçü emphasizes, are no longer merely commercial assets — they have become elements of strategic infrastructure.
Secondly, Azerbaijan acts as a geopolitical stabilizer. The post-war order following Karabakh, the opening of transport corridors, and the prospects of deeper integration of the Turkic world with Europe place Baku at the center of the new east-west connectivity map. In a world where supply chains become instruments of pressure and geography once again shapes destiny, Azerbaijan, according to the expert, is not on the periphery of European security but on its extended frontline.
Thirdly, Azerbaijan is a strategic partner in the logic of deterrence and balance. Its multivector and measured foreign policy — maintaining functional relations with Russia, Turkey, the West, and regional actors simultaneously — reflects the very balancing model that Europe is today forced to relearn. Stability in the South Caucasus, the expert emphasizes, has ceased to be a local issue and has become a structural element of the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security architecture.
According to the expert, the language of readiness, now heard in Paris, Berlin, and London, finds resonance in Baku — not as a call for confrontation, but as confirmation of shared understanding: peace in the 21st century is maintained not by naive expectations, but by reliable deterrence, resilient infrastructure, and strategic foresight.
For Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Europe, Öğütçü emphasizes, the conclusion is the same: connectivity without security is fragile, energy without protection is vulnerable, and diplomacy without strength carries no weight. States located on key corridors of energy, transport, and data — from the Caspian to the Bosphorus, from the Black Sea to Central Asia — are no longer merely transit territories. They are becoming pillars of the emerging world order of security.
Concluding his analysis, the expert emphasizes that the return of hard language is not a call for war, but a call for strategic realism. However, here it is necessary to maintain a delicate balance. If fear is used wisely, it reinforces deterrence; if used irresponsibly, it can generate instability.
The key question, according to Öğütçü, is whether Europe speaks of war to prevent it, or to become accustomed to it. The interests of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Europe, he is convinced, clearly lie in the first option.
In the new era, the correct strategy is neither panic nor complacency, but calm, strategic foresight, and balance. The era of peace dividends has ended. The era of the price of peace has begun.