A reply to /u/hrulj

Considering the enmity lasted centuries, the strategic goals shifted quite a bit. There were two fronts: the Mediterranean, and the Balkans heading toward Vienna.

The Mediterranean saw a succession of Ottoman successes, including the invasion of Famagusta on Cyprus and a raid on Otranto in Italy. At the same time, many local powers in North Africa announced fealty to the Sultan with varying degrees of actual control. This gave rise to Barbary Piracy that threatens powers such as Habsburg Spain and the states of Italy. Ottoman advances continued largely unchecked until Christian victory in the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. The Ottoman loss in Lepanto stopped further plans to invade Italy or even Spain itself. It led to an east-west partition of the Mediterranean, even if piracy continued to be a major problem for a long time.

In the Balkans, the Ottomans faced two adversaries: Poland-Lithuania and Habsburg Austria (I ignore Russia as that's a different discussion altogether). Southern parts of Poland-Lithuania, similar to the Balkans, was a large area with sparse population and limited resources, so it was a natural area for defense in depth, such that Christian powers there could trade space for time, making it difficult to invade given the distances and seasons. It was difficult to supply a large army there, so even if the Ottomans were to win, it would not be economically attractive in the absence of a resource rich area to control. That's why it made sense to invade towards Vienna, a rich Habsburg stronghold, that would open the way to further riches in Silesia, Bavaria, etc.

So there were many factors in consideration, that shifted over time. Just like any other power, the Ottomans adjusted their strategy. We have to be able to read past the rhetoric of both sides while we analyze the decisions.