REPORT: Turkish defense exports approach $11 billion

Ankara at the Center of NATO’s Diplomatic Map

Hosting the NATO summit gives Turkey exceptional diplomatic visibility, which Ankara seems determined to turn into a concrete commercial advantage. The release of these record figures just before the summit opens reinforces the image of a country that is no longer content with merely playing a strategic geographical role between Europe and Asia, but is also asserting a leading industrial role within the Alliance.

This dual role—as both diplomatic host and military supplier—places Turkey in a unique position among NATO members, capable of influencing both political discussions and the military procurement decisions of other allied capitals.

A position that is not without tensions

Turkey’s commercial rise, however, coexists with persistent tensions, particularly regarding the Russian S-400 systems still held by Ankara, which, according to several U.S. lawmakers, is blocking its full reintegration into the F-35 program. This contradiction illustrates the complexity of Turkey’s position: an increasingly indispensable trading partner, yet still subject to security reservations on the part of certain allies.

Despite these persistent frictions, the overall trade momentum of Turkish exports does not appear to be slowing down, driven by growing demand from allies that seems to take precedence, for now, over concerns regarding the Russian equipment still in Ankara’s possession.

I remain clear-eyed about Turkey’s contradictions: a country that sells massive amounts to NATO while retaining controversial Russian systems. This ambiguity deserves to be clearly acknowledged rather than swept under the rug in the name of mere commercial success.

The Spearheads of the Turkish Defense Industry

While official figures from the Anadolu Agency do not break down the exact contribution of each company, the boom in Turkish defense exports relies heavily on companies that have become global leaders in the sector, particularly in the fields of drones and electronic defense systems. These companies have built their international reputation largely through their documented role in the conflict in Ukraine, where their equipment has demonstrated recognized operational effectiveness on the ground.

This reputation, earned in real theaters of operations, serves as a powerful sales pitch for winning over new customers within the Alliance who are seeking equipment whose effectiveness has already been tested under wartime conditions rather than through mere laboratory demonstrations.

A Reputation Forged on the Ukrainian Battlefield

The use of Turkish drones by Ukrainian forces since the start of the Russian invasion has significantly bolstered the international credibility of the Turkish defense industry. This operational validation, achieved in the most demanding context imaginable—a high-intensity war against a major military power—is a commercial asset that few competitors can claim with the same legitimacy.

It is this combination of proven combat performance and competitive pricing that largely explains NATO countries’ growing appetite for Turkish equipment, amid widespread rearmament in the face of the Russian threat.

I believe that Turkey’s commercial success owes a great deal, indirectly, to the courage and effectiveness of the Ukrainian forces, who have put this equipment to the test under the worst possible conditions. There is a certain strategic irony in seeing the Ukrainian resistance become, unwittingly, a selling point for the defense industry of a third country.

Diversifying Suppliers Has Become a Necessity

Turkey’s growing commercial influence is part of a broader trend observed throughout the North Atlantic Alliance: the need to diversify military supply sources in the face of Western production chains that are at times overwhelmed by demand related to support for Ukraine and the general rearmament of the European continent since 2022.

This diversification does not call into question the central role of the American and European defense industries, but it illustrates a pragmatic shift: faced with security emergencies, Western capitals are increasingly prioritizing efficiency and speed of delivery—criteria on which the Turkish industry has successfully positioned itself.

U.S. Uncertainty Benefits Ankara

The sometimes contradictory signals sent by the Trump administration regarding the U.S.’s long-term commitment to NATO have accelerated this drive for diversification among European Allies. Without calling into question current U.S. military support for Ukraine, this structural uncertainty is prompting several capitals to move away from relying exclusively on a single supplier, however powerful it may be.

Turkey, thanks to its geographic location, its rapidly expanding industry, and its status as host of the summit, finds itself ideally positioned to capture a portion of this demand for diversification, further strengthening its economic influence within the Alliance.

I’ll remain cautious about Trump: his administration is, for now, maintaining the framework of military support for Ukraine, which deserves recognition. But the uncertainty he creates regarding the U.S.’s long-term commitment has tangible consequences, such as this accelerated shift toward suppliers like Turkey.

Industrial Interdependence That Strengthens Ties

Paradoxically, this growing dependence of several NATO countries on Turkish exports could strengthen, rather than weaken, the Alliance’s cohesion. Greater industrial interdependence among members creates concrete common interests that go beyond mere political declarations, particularly in the context of a persistent Russian threat that requires a rapid and coordinated collective response.

This trade dynamic could also encourage Turkey to align its foreign policy more closely with the Alliance’s collective priorities, as its economic success now depends largely on the trust placed in it by its Western partners.

A Test of Western Industrial Solidarity

The Ankara summit offers an opportunity to gauge whether this growing commercial interdependence also translates into a strengthening of Turkey’s political and military commitments to the Alliance’s shared priorities, notably continued support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

It is this interplay between commercial interest and strategic solidarity that will ultimately determine whether Turkey’s industrial boom constitutes a lasting asset for Western cohesion or merely a short-term economic opportunity.

I believe that the real question raised by Turkey’s commercial success is not economic but political: Will Ankara transform this industrial success into a firmer strategic commitment to Ukraine and collective deterrence against Russia, or will it continue its usual realpolitik between Washington and Moscow?

Figures That Don’t Tell the Whole Story

Despite the accuracy of the figures published by the Anadolu Agency, several uncertainties remain regarding the exact breakdown of these exports among the various types of equipment, as well as the precise identities of all NATO customers. This partial lack of transparency is common in the defense sector, where sensitive contractual details are often kept confidential for legitimate strategic reasons.

This methodological limitation calls for caution in analysis: the overall figures, impressive as they may be, do not allow for a precise assessment of the impact of each individual contract on the Alliance’s collective defense capabilities.

Transparency Could Be Improved, but Clear Trends Are Evident

Despite these limitations, the overall trend remains indisputable: Turkey is establishing itself as a major defense industry player within NATO, with growth that far exceeds that of many traditional Western competitors. This reality deserves to be rigorously documented, without succumbing to either blind enthusiasm or systematic skepticism toward Turkey’s industrial ambitions.

It is this balanced approach that allows for a full understanding of the stakes at the Ankara summit, where diplomacy, the arms trade, and strategic solidarity are intertwined more than ever.

I remain committed to this methodological rigor: acknowledging real commercial success without claiming to know all the contractual details that remain, quite legitimately, beyond the scope of public journalistic analysis.

Order Books Are Filling Up

For companies like Baykar and Aselsan, this commercial upswing is translating into longer order books within NATO itself. These companies, long viewed as regional players, are now being courted by European military leaderships that previously sourced their equipment almost exclusively from established American or Western European suppliers.

This transformation did not happen overnight: it is the result of a decade of sustained investment in research and development, combined with a clear political will to make the Turkish defense industry a pillar of the national economy, just as the aerospace and automotive industries have been for other industrial powers.

Competition That’s Reshuffling the Deck

The emergence of Baykar and Aselsan as preferred suppliers to several European armies is also forcing traditional Western manufacturers to reevaluate their prices and delivery times—a competitive pressure that, ultimately, could benefit all NATO armies by accelerating collective production rates.

This redistribution of market share within NATO illustrates a broader phenomenon: the war in Ukraine has not only changed Western military doctrines, it has also reshuffled the industrial landscape of an entire strategic economic sector, to the benefit of new players such as Turkey.

I see the rise of Baykar and Aselsan as a salutary wake-up call for traditional Western manufacturers: complacency has no place in a context of urgent rearmament in the face of Russia, and Turkish competition could, in fact, force an acceleration that would benefit all deliveries to Ukraine.

Ankara: Between Diplomatic Host and Arms Dealer

The NATO summit in Ankara illustrates just how blurred the line between diplomacy and the arms trade has become within the Atlantic Alliance. The $10.9 billion in Turkish exports announced just before the summit opened is not merely a coincidence of timing, but a calculated demonstration of the role Turkey intends to play in the Western defense architecture in the coming years.

A trend to watch beyond the numbers

It remains to be seen whether this Turkish commercial success will translate into a strengthened political and military commitment to the Alliance’s shared strategic priorities, particularly support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, which—four years after it began—continues to reshape the industrial and diplomatic balance across the entire continent.

I’ll conclude with a simple conviction: the arms trade is never neutral, and Ankara knows this better than anyone. We can only hope that this Turkish industrial success translates, on the ground, into faster deliveries to a Ukraine that has no time to lose in the face of Russia.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist