5. Implications for Türkiye’s strategic communication
In this context, Türkiye’s response cannot simply consist of counter‑slogans within the same confrontation logic; mirroring disinformation or civilizational rhetoric would only deepen the erosion of the very legal‑institutional order that has served the Black Sea well. Instead, strategic communication should consistently foreground a narrative of legal custodianship: Montreux as a guarantee for all littoral states, guardianship as equilibrium rather than domination, and Black Sea stability as a public good that benefits allies, partners, and neighbours alike. Practically, this means highlighting concrete instances where treaty‑based decisions and measured restraint have prevented escalation, explaining to domestic and international audiences that Türkiye’s cautious implementation of Montreux protects both national sovereignty and regional order, and insisting that the true “values” at stake are predictability, de‑escalation, and fidelity to international law rather than polarising civilizational narratives. In an era of “wars of meaning,” preserving Black Sea stability therefore requires guarding not only the Straits themselves but also the narrative that law—rather than hate‑based identity politics—is what ultimately underwrites security and equilibrium in the region.