According to Joschka Fischer the “sick man of Europe” was coined for Ottoman Turkey’s imperial decline during the late 19th and early 20th century. The French, British and Russian were watching closely when the immense and crumbling empire was abolished by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924. The Eastern Question that haunted the chancelleries of 19th-century Europe has now returned to haunt EU leaders.

For half a millennium, The Ottoman Empire had ruled areas that are now conflict zones today: the Balkans, the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. Yet, regardless of the Ottomans’ demise, Turkey had not ceased to exert its influence on Europe –historically and politically. Under Erdogan it has abandoned its “zero-problem with the neighbours” foreign policy, expanding its clout in the region. At home he is creating a new sense of nationalism with a dose of Islam, in an effort to reclaim the Ottoman Empire.

The “sick-man-of Europe” title has been passed around ever since, with several European countries experiencing a time of economic difficulty or impoverishment. Germany in the 1990s grappled with the immense costs following the reunification. France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal had been hard hit by the Eurocrisis. Now Turkey under Erdogan is on its way to reclaim the title. Despite having Nato's second largest army, it is no longer its “critical” ally, nor does it harbour respect for secular democracy, since returning to its Islamic roots.

Due to its geostrategic significance, the author says, it would be unwise to ignore and alienate Turkey, whose instability is “the last thing Europe needs.” The currency crisis and economic woes are entirely of Erdogan’s own making. He is fully aware that Europe’s “own security depends heavily on Turkey, which has absorbed millions of migrants and refugees fleeing conflicts in the Middle East in recent years.” And he knows how to use them as bargaining chip in his attempt to extort concessions from EU.

The author says: “For the sake of both European stability and Turkish democracy, the EU must confront Turkey’s crisis with patience and pragmatism, based on its own democratic principles.” Indeed, Turkey’s ambition to join the EU might still be a remedy, as it would be the climax of its intent to become a Western, democratic state aspired by General Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who in 1923 created a modern Turkey from Ottoman ruins. Since then, he became the guarantor of secularism, making the army as keeper of the flame he lit.

Then came Erdogan in 2002, and the Arab Spring in 2011. Before the war in Syria, Turkey was already a maverick. The US did not approve of Erdogan seeking closer ties to Iran. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel were not enthusiastic about Turkey’s bid for EU membership. There was fear that European policy would drive Turkey into the arms of Russia and Iran. This fear still persists today.

Although Turkey’s economy thrived during Erdogan’s first decade in office, its growth was debt-fuelled. Yet he grew “overconfident during the boom” which remained resilient after the 2008 financial crisis. But Turkey can not afford to pay for his crazy mega-projects. As the economy overheated, the central bank failed to rein in double-digit inflation. Trump’s tariffs on Turkish imports to the US added fuel to the fire.

The other problem is that the New Sultan is a thin-skinned narcissist, hungry for power. He relies on a divide-and-rule strategy to garner popular support. Dividing “his loyalties between East and West,” he pits the two sides against one another. His campaign against the Kurds in Syria “ risks destabilizing the Middle East even further.” At home he cracks down on the Kurds, critics and opponents, imposing a state of emergency after the failed coup in 2017.

The author says Erdogan “came to resent the West, owing to the humiliation of the stalled EU accession process and his own authoritarian ambitions,” which became worse since the failed military coup in the summer of 2016. Indeed, Erdogan’s “sins” should not be visited on the entire nation, as nearly half of the Turkish population does not support him. But he has “squandered a unique opportunity for both Turkey and the Muslim world generally,” and there is little hope that he will change course, as it would amount to admitting mistakes. Thanks to his recklessness, “Turkey has become part of the problem in the region, rather than the solution.”