In our world, the leadership phenomenon has changed a lot. With the end of the Cold War, the existence of collective states, like the EU, has become more evident and tiny states like Kosovo have been configured.

As an image of liberal democracy, this question is in the air: has the end of ideologies sounded the death knell for the nation-state?

The whole world had thought that ethnic identities or small groups would become states. The liberal waves were short-lived: we are entering an era when nation-states have gotten back their strength, as was the case before World War II. More specifically, everybody has become preoccupied with the security of their own nation-state. The U.N., whose missions include the elimination of interstate wars, unjust interventions, invasions, famine, starvation, migration, and malnutrition around the world has gone bust after the end of the Cold War and I do not think even it knows what its function is now.

It has become clear that the U.N. could not make itself heard in cases, such as the massacre in Myanmar, a famine or a civil war in Africa, the invasion of Kashmir; or a veto from Russia or the U.S. that could bring all peacemaking efforts to a standstill in a war, like the Syrian civil war.

The Israel-Palestine question is has made U.N.'s dysfunction clearly visible. It is a well-known fact that the U.N. can never make Israel do what it says.

However, a clear voice from the U.N. podium has diagnosed the U.N.'s condition and delivered an effective speech.

Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has always been a much-debated leader.

The Western countries, regarded as the masters of the world in a classical sense, have always treasured and preferred hearing their own words and considered all other countries as colonies and slaves. Erdoğan has rebelled against this status quo and rejected this culture of exploitation.

He has come out against the Western states speaking of democracy and human rights in international relations while all they do is to preserve their own national interests, rather than democracy. This situation had been tested when the West put Egypt's Mohamed Morsi on a pedestal while attempting to defame Erdoğan.

The Western states, the U.S. and the U.K. in particular, have always prioritized working with the Middle East's dictators and maintaining their power base.

Erdoğan has also brought into question what use international institutions like the U.N. actually serve.

He depicted the states of the oppressed nations in the U.N. one by one and exposed the U.N.'s problems in a way. He won the approval of all oppressed nations. The Palestinians, the Rohingya people, the Kashmiri people, the Syrian immigrants and all the oppressed nations broadcast his words in their media.

In Turkey, the opposition to Erdoğan has reconsidered and even appreciated him, in general.

Yavuz Ağıralioğlu of the Good Party (İP) said he appreciated him and asked why he had not mentioned the East Turkestan question. All the other party members are sighing at the thought, "I wonder if my leader could be that brave at the U.N. pulpit."

James Jeffrey, the former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, had once said Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is throwing our mistakes in our faces while all the leaders of the Middle East are buttering us up.

In our new world where global states are no longer as strong as they used to be and the second group states are no longer as weak as they used to be, international relations are being redefined. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will have a considerable influence over this redefinition. Firstly, Turkey has made the habit of speaking to all states that have relations with Turkey on equal terms, regardless of their sizes. Getting support from its historical accumulation and past mission, Turkey has spoken loudly in its relations with the U.S., Russia, and the other countries, and managed to establish dialogues with the countries it has had problems with from time to time. Slowly, the states of the world have gotten used to this situation.

The Western intelligentsia, which is never accustomed to its defeat, was at pains to struggle with Erdoğan but failed to cause the damage they desired. Although the judicial coup, the attempted coup, efforts to establish political alliances, defamation in the world media, etc. have been effective to a certain extent, Erdoğan will continue to speak of the cruelties inflicted across the world and the cruel and self-interested attitudes of the great powers.