The Middle Power Headway

Present Signal

The Current Trajectory

Middle powers such as Türkiye and Egypt are pursuing greater strategic autonomy by strengthening indigenous defense capabilities, diversifying partnerships, and adopting more proactive regional roles. This will be the trajectory by 2035, where strategic autonomy becomes institutionalized, albeit there is evidence that it reaches that earlier. This trend reflects a broader shift across the Global South, where nations recognize that traditional dependency on major powers constrains their policy options and limits their ability to respond to regional challenges. Strategic autonomy has become a defining characteristic of middle power foreign policy, particularly as geopolitical competition intensifies and economic interdependence creates new vulnerabilities. Middle powers are investing heavily in indigenous defense technologies, establishing alternative economic partnerships, and positioning themselves as critical actors in regional security architectures. The institutionalization of strategic autonomy—embedding it across fiscal, monetary, industrial, and technological domains—represents a fundamental restructuring of how these states organize their economic and security policies. By 2035, this trajectory will likely be irreversible, with middle powers establishing durable institutions, capabilities, and partnerships that reduce their reliance on traditional power centers.

Future Trajectory & Implications

Four Plausible Scenarios by 2035

There are four plausible scenarios by 2035 for "internally" institutionalizing strategic autonomy for a middle power.

First, the full institutionalization of strategic autonomy by middle powers. In such a scenario, middle powers fully institutionalize strategic autonomy across all domestic governance layers. The second scenario is Defensive Institutionalization, in which the middle power institutionalizes strategic autonomy only at the economic and technological levels. The third scenario is Partner Institutionalization, in which middle powers mostly institutionalize strategic autonomy while remaining a supporting partner of a larger/anchoring power. The fourth scenario is that institutionalization becomes a Resilient Bastion. In such a case, the middle power pursues strategic autonomy as a survival strategy rather than a choice, and it is institutionalized across all layers of the middle power's government.

Scenario Analysis: Trade-offs and Implications

Scenario 1: Middle Power Achieves Full Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy

In the full institutionalized scenario, the middle powers adopt a strategic autonomous economic policy in fiscal, monetary (reserve, capital accounts), growth, industrial, trade — selective supply chain — domains. The geopolitical implications of scenario 1 are that domestic-oriented geopolitical leverage will strengthen by 2035, but at the expense of increased diplomatic inflexibility and a reduced global network of alliances. By 2035, technological developments will accelerate middle power resilience and control, but at the expense of innovation and increased interoperability barriers. At the societal level, by 2035, cultural and identity awareness, community cohesion, and locally driven unity will be strengthened at the expense of creativity and minority inclusion. VIEW

Scenario 2: Middle Power Achieves Defensive Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy

Economically, by 2035, Defensive Institutionalization enhances supply resilience but raises costs, creates trade friction, limits liquidity, and diverts capital from growth priorities. Geopolitically, there will be a strategic focus on economic and technological geopolitics, in which influence and power will strengthen — due to issue-based coalitions — but at the same time create conflicting foreign policy crises. From a technological point of view, it is expected that defensive institutional autonomy will increase economic and tech sovereignty by 2035, but it will also increase fragmentation. From a social perspective, it will enhance identity and privacy; however, it will limit social transformation and access to global knowledge. VIEW

Scenario 3: Middle Power Achieves Partner Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy

Economically, market access and stability will be enhanced by the end of the period but contemporarily increasing strategic concessions to anchor power. Geopolitically, security, power, and influence will be boosted at the cost of subordinated national interests. Technologically speaking, technological capabilities will be boosted at the expense of orderly innovation priorities and subordination to the anchor power's Information Technology architecture. From a social perspective, human capital, reach, ties, & understanding, but to the loss of endogenous culture, alignment with anchor power social discourse. VIEW

Scenario 4: Middle Power Achieves Resilient Bastion Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy

Survival strategy is the maxim for the Resilient Bastion scenario. Security will be maximized but at the expense of long-term adaptive capacity, openness, and efficiency. On the economic front, the middle power import substitution strategy and capital account management will enhance pliability and resilience, but this will come at the expense of higher input costs, impeding foreign investment, and the establishment of an effective industrial and manufacturing base. In the geopolitical dynamics, the middle power will pursue/achieve non-alignment strategic autonomy, but in the meantime, its involvement in any collective security architecture will be restricted as the obligations of institutionalized collective security clash with the foundational purpose of non-alignment. At the technological front, the middle power will achieve a sovereign stake — independent technological infrastructure — and thus reduce foreign dependencies, but it will lag in technological innovation due to limited scale; its technological sphere is constrained by its borders, population, and geography, preventing global spillovers of innovation. On the social obverse, identity will be fortified due to the middle power state-driven unity policy, but outdoing critical debates, creativity, ingenuity, and innovation. VIEW

Strategic Takeaway & Provocation

There are four expected scenarios when a middle power pursues strategic autonomy:

• –Full Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy
• –Defensive Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy
• –Partner Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy
• –Resilient Bastion Institutionalization of Strategic Autonomy

A middle power must acknowledge that there are no unique scenarios but must choose or prepare for the one that aligns with its historical legacy and national aspirations, recognizing that there are inherent trade-offs in different strategic autonomy futures or sets. Also, middle powers must examine their strategic dependencies, capabilities, and governance structures to ensure their readiness for such scenarios.