In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the international order is undergoing a profound transformation. 

The traditional roles of states, international institutions, and existing alliances are increasingly being challenged, while the rules and norms that once shaped the dynamics of global relations for decades are gradually losing their potency. 

The geopolitical vacuums left by the retreat of old power centres are opening up space for new actors whose rise is not necessarily based on force, but on the ability to adapt, strategic consistency, and regional roots. 

The return of Donald Trump to the global political scene, as well as his unpredictable approach to American foreign policy, are perhaps the most striking symptoms of this broader process. 

In such a fluid and often contradictory international environment, states that manage to project stability, even neutrality, are gaining a new kind of geopolitical significance.

In the weeks of intense debates about the feasibility and conceptual foundations of potential peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, the global public has witnessed the constant adjustments and changes in a process characterised by extreme sensitivity. 

Although Trump’s second term has significantly influenced the dynamics of the talks, the establishment of an unconditional and comprehensive ceasefire still seems to be an elusive goal in the near future. 

Agreement on the essential elements of a possible peace agreement is even less certain. 

Within such a context, the issue of the location of the negotiations, as a place where the warring parties would at least acknowledge their disagreement, emerges as one of the key aspects of this complex process. 

Quiet rise of Türkiye as a reliable mediator

Although at first glance the choice of location may seem to be a technical issue, it is a decision that carries significant political implications, reflects the broader geostrategic context, and entails a certain level of international prestige.

One of the countries that, using the moment of strong international focus, tried to position its neutrality and moral authority as a basis for a potential mediating role is the Vatican. 

The election of a new head of the Catholic Church brought this world's smallest country into the centre of global media attention, while the multi-day election ceremony opened the way for the Vatican to send a message of peace from headlines around the world and offer itself as an ideal platform for resolving conflicts of global importance. 

However, Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov felt that it would be “inappropriate” for the two Orthodox countries to discuss Ukraine within the “Catholic platform”, virtually excluding the Vatican from the circle of serious candidates for the host. 

Saudi Arabia had somewhat more success, which was, symbolically, the second destination officially visited by the US President after the Vatican. 

In March 2025, delegations from Russia and Ukraine met with US negotiators separately in Riyadh, where the first indirect contacts were established after many months. 

While this was a major diplomatic success for Saudi Arabia, this model of communication proved short-lived and unsustainable for more concerted negotiations between Moscow and Kiev. 

It was not until May, more than three years after the first direct contacts, that Istanbul managed to assert itself as the only location with the capacity to bring the warring parties together at the same negotiating table.

However, the choice of Istanbul, Türkiye to host such a significant event did not come as a surprise but was rather perceived as a logical and expected outcome. 

From the very beginning of the Ukraine conflict, Türkiye stood out as the only constant point on the list of potential locations both sides were willing to consider for holding negotiations — a role it reaffirmed by hosting a second meeting in early June.

Therefore, in this case, it was not a matter of short-term political momentum but the result and consequence of a long-term process of strategic repositioning. 

This process was not without challenges, especially since Türkiye positions itself on principles that often imply clearly defined and difficult-to-change positions, thus narrowing the space for classical diplomatic flexibility. 

Yet, paradoxically, it was precisely this consistency that became a key source of credibility and the reason why even warring parties were willing to trust it. 

In this way, the traditional perception of Türkiye as a passive heir to a historical legacy was overcome, and the role of a modern, reliable and strategically thoughtful actor was affirmed, which is increasingly recognised as a relevant mediator in contemporary international relations.

Local manifestation of Ankara’s influence 

The narrative of Türkiye’s strategic repositioning on the global stage is difficult to fully understand without insight into how this process materialises in the local context. 

It is through the example of the Balkans, and especially Bosnia and Herzegovina, that the logic of action that allows Türkiye to build credibility from the inside out, combining historical roots with institutional adaptability, is revealed. 

Bosnia and Herzegovina is an example of a new phase of Turkish engagement going beyond established patterns of cultural nostalgia and historical closeness, and increasingly concretised through a multi-layered institutional, infrastructural and symbolic presence. 

Instead of simply continuing the traditional soft power policy, Türkiye is developing a significantly more sophisticated regional positioning strategy, in which cultural, educational, media and diplomatic components complement each other.

Within the broader strategy of regional presence, the media occupies a special place as one of the most systematically developed areas of Turkish activity. 

The Turkish-Balkan Media Forum held recently in Ankara under the slogan ‘Building a Common Future in the Communication Age’ illustrated how Türkiye positions itself as an actor that simultaneously draws legitimacy from historical heritage and responds to the demands of the digital age. 

The reference to the Balkan Journalists’ Conference of 1936 and the establishment of the Balkan Media Union was not a mere historical curiosity in the speech of Fahrettin Altun, the Head of the Directorate of Communications of Türkiye, but a carefully placed framework that signals continuity in the reflection of common communication spaces. 

The main call from this programme was about building a media space as a means of stabilisation, networking and protection from disinformation pressures. 

Through platforms such as TRT Balkan and Anadolu Agency, which operate in the languages ​​of the countries of the region and invest in training and infrastructural support for local newsrooms, Türkiye is developing a model that, instead of claiming dominance and imposing itself as the unquestioned authority, gives the impression of an equal partner interested in building joint capacities on the ground.

Following the Ankara forum, a Turkish delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Mehmet Kemal Bozay attended a conference titled ‘Mostar 2025: Dialogue for the Future’, held on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the inscription of the old bridge on the UNESCO World Heritage List. 

The symbolism of the chosen location as a geographical, cultural and historical hub served as a context in which Türkiye’s engagement in the field of cultural diplomacy gains additional credibility and legitimacy. 

The Old Bridge, built during the Ottoman Empire and rebuilt after its destruction in the war with significant contributions from Türkiye, has become a concrete point of convergence between historical ties and contemporary foreign policy messages. 

While the symbolism of a common cultural heritage was articulated in Mostar, a business forum was taking place in Sarajevo on the same day, which carried similar messages about the long-term orientation of Türkiye’s presence in the region. 

At the Sarajevo Business Forum, where Türkiye was represented by Deputy Trade Minister Mahmut Gurcan, the emphasis was on the continuity of economic cooperation as well as on the importance that Türkiye attaches to platforms that have the potential to shape investment flows and regional economic relations in the long term. 

Gurcan recalled that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan personally attended the first edition of the forum fifteen years ago. 

Official data showing bilateral trade exceeding $1 billion, intensive tourist flow and expansion of the free trade agreement to the agricultural sector testify to Ankara's efforts to build a stable and mutually beneficial economic network with regional partners. 

In this context, institutional infrastructure, such as Ziraat Bank with 35 branches in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was highlighted as a concrete support for such a policy. 

In line with this expanded focus, which also includes health as a strategic area of ​​cooperation, a concrete step forward was made through the opening of medical and dental faculties in Sarajevo, in cooperation with the International University of Sarajevo (IUS) and the University of Health Sciences (SBU) from Türkiye. 

This is a joint study programme within the newly established Faculty of Medical Sciences at IUS, which offers students from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the region, Türkiye and beyond the opportunity to obtain a double degree - one issued in Sarajevo, the other in Istanbul. 

Stability as a political currency

Thanks to a wide range of foreign policy instruments, Türkiye has managed to build a network of presence and influence that has rarely been so geographically and thematically widespread in its history. 

With a total of 252 diplomatic missions, Türkiye today has the third most extensive diplomatic network in the world. The number of its embassies in Africa alone has more than tripled since 2002 – from 12 to 44. 

In recent years, Ankara has also established itself as a credible mediator in political crises, such as the case between Ethiopia and Somalia. 

This foreign policy engagement is further supported by strong cultural exports, in which Turkish TV series with global recognition stand out in particular. 

The presence of four high-ranking representatives of the Turkish government in Bosnia and Herzegovina within a few days should not be seen as an isolated diplomatic moment, but as a concise overview of a broader, carefully articulated foreign policy practice. 

Through a series of parallel and interconnected activities, the model of action that Türkiye applies across its foreign policy horizon is clearly evident. 

Bosnia and Herzegovina is not an exception, but a mirror of a broader pattern in which Ankara simultaneously invests in infrastructure, education, culture and economy, transforming diplomatic gestures into concrete mechanisms of influence and cooperation.

An additional dimension to this approach is revealed by the multi-year cooperation with the Srebrenica Memorial Center, which will reach a milestone with the opening of the Genocide Museum on July 11. 

This project not only testifies to a long-term engagement, but also to an essential sensitivity to the local context through the trust that the community can articulate its own narrative, without external imposition.

Such an approach, in which the local story is not taken over but supported, is an illustration of Türkiye's broader strategy to build a sense of common belonging through the appreciation of existing specificities and concrete motives.

And in times of uncertainty and unstable circumstances, constancy is the most sought-after and most valuable political currency – whether it is reflected in deep institutional cooperation in the Balkans or at the negotiating tables of the largest global crises.