NATO is presently endeavoring to determine and solidify its future strategy. Concurrently, the organization is grappling with significant internal debates while striving to restore its global standing.
Nevertheless, NATO persistently serves as the backbone of Euro-Atlantic security. Particularly after the Ukraine crisis, European countries have come to acknowledge their long-standing insecurity. They recognized their significant lag behind in both military and defense industry domains. Therefore, there is a growing need for a new concept of defense and deterrence under the collective security framework. In today’s multipolar world, 31 NATO member countries and 70 affected countries are endeavoring to establish a novel security strategy that is gradually taking shape from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific region. This reconstructed security complex that NATO aims to establish will be its most significant challenge in the upcoming period.
As a member of NATO, Türkiye acknowledges the evolving global landscape and the changing needs of the alliance. Türkiye boasts the second-largest army in NATO and has emerged as a technology powerhouse, uniquely qualified to lead the military transformation process. While the rest of Europe has enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity since the end of the Cold War, Türkiye’s fight against terrorism has unexpectedly created a favorable opportunity structure. Türkiye is regarded as a nation that advances its allies in the collective forward defense strategy. It recognizes that it is one of the few countries within NATO capable of doing so.
Nevertheless, it is conscious of Türkiye’s conflicting interests with its allies in NATO. Türkiye’s strategic adaptation policies are capable of overcoming these conflicts arising from NATO’s political framework. President Erdogan’s visit to Greece may signal the start of improved relations between Türkiye and Greece, an issue that has strained Türkiye’s participation in NATO.
NATO’s changing security perception
In 2014, NATO’s security approach began to shift after Russia annexed Crimea. This event prompted the creation of a new military strategy in 2019, and later, in 2022, Russia’s war in Ukraine led to the development of a new strategic concept during the Madrid summit. Following the summit, NATO identified two primary threats, namely Russia and terrorist groups. In this context of implementing new regional plans, command and control systems, and force structures, NATO aims to address existing crises while focusing on deterring new ones. Of course, the debate on force structures remains NATO’s bleeding wound. This issue was addressed at the Force Generations Conference, but actors like Türkiye are needed to solve it. It is evident that NATO will require more force structures in the near future. This is foreseen as a dynamic that will shape the future operational plan.
On the other hand, one of the central discussions within NATO concerns China. Given that the U.S. views China as a significant threat in the current era, it aims to incorporate China within NATO’s purview through the Indo-Pacific strategy. The U.S. security elites underscore that the safety of navigation, posing a danger that can impact the Western world comprehensively, is particularly important. Furthermore, they highlight that with the impending American elections, the Republicans’ potential victory may lead to decreased interest in NATO. In this respect, it is emphasized that China should be one of NATO’s important agendas to make NATO relevant for the American electorate. France has vetoed the Indo-Pacific strategy up to this point. Still, it is acknowledged that European security cannot function without the U.S. Therefore, NATO may not play a major role in terms of an anti-China behavior pattern in its current form. Still, this agenda is expected to become more central as the process progresses.
Understanding Türkiye’s behavior
Türkiye is well represented in NATO by its permanent representative of Türkiye and the Turkish Military Representative Mission to NATO. This representation prioritizes Türkiye’s national interests within NATO. Although Türkiye has not had a director-level representation in the military wing since 2007 due to internal elections, the actors representing Türkiye refrain from implementing anything that does not align with Türkiye’s goals.
Recent developments, which can also be observed in Sweden’s NATO membership process, have now created an opportunity structure in Türkiye’s favor. Türkiye possesses a strong military and growing industrial technology capacity, making it a country that NATO will inevitably require for its future strategies. In an intellectual environment where the future of warfare is being analyzed, Türkiye has the potential to take the lead in developing future warfare tactics. Furthermore, Türkiye can effectively communicate its allies’ interests to various actors across the Middle East, Caucasus and Turkic regions.
Türkiye’s ascent naturally generates apprehensions and concerns among Western nations, particularly among major powers. Türkiye wants to clarify that its rising status poses no threat and offers benefits for all. Instead of severing ties, it seeks to resolve issues. As Türkiye’s permanent representative to NATO, Levent Gümrükçü says this reflects the stamina theory. Essentially, Türkiye will persistently and unyieldingly pursue what it believes to be right. At the same time, this policy aims to demonstrate how the interests of all parties can be protected.
Recent developments in Syria, Libya and Azerbaijan support the efficacy of Türkiye’s approach. Those who previously questioned Türkiye’s involvement in these regions now acknowledge the validity of Türkiye’s stance. Türkiye’s contribution to stability in the fight against the Wagner Group in Libya, positive discussions about the New Silk Road corridor in Azerbaijan, and prevention of a potential new wave of 1 million refugees from Syria is belatedly being recognized. This highlights the importance of not prejudicing against Türkiye’s policies, which have shown to have a better understanding of the region due to the West’s lack of strategic foresight.
New era in counterterrorism
Terrorism remains a central challenge in NATO’s new security outlook. Since 2001, NATO has addressed terrorist threats such as al-Qaida and Daesh. Türkiye has been among the countries most affected by terrorism. However, for many years, NATO did not assume responsibility for Türkiye’s prolonged struggle against PKK terrorism. Türkiye’s military efforts against terrorism lacked support from other countries, while the U.S. provided arms assistance to the organizations Türkiye was fighting against.
Many European countries defended terrorist members within their own borders and aided the organization in perpetuating itself. Türkiye sought to raise awareness of the matter by vetoing Sweden’s NATO membership, which appears to have played a crucial role in effecting a significant shift within the organization.
NATO’s new security approach provides a redefined view of terrorism. Terrorism was previously addressed solely within the context of military conflict.
However, the revised definition of terrorism encompasses all socio-political factors, including the financing of terrorism, propaganda and deradicalization procedures. While this new definition is undoubtedly favorable to Türkiye, it will also enhance its capabilities in combating the underlying causes of terrorism in Europe. Moreover, appointing a Special Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Vilnius Summit will again initiate a process that benefits Türkiye. Although counterterrorism is one of NATO’s main priorities, the victimized countries have lacked any interlocutors within the organization until now. With the new coordination, nations can engage in discussions regarding terrorism with both their domestic and foreign counterparts.
For the first time, allied nations can convene and arrange recurrent meetings for counterterrorism. All the recent advancements, which will enhance Türkiye’s ability to combat terrorism, have the potential to significantly contribute to the cessation of terrorism, which has been a major drain on the nation’s resources for numerous years, and can provide a more practical basis for the “Century of Türkiye.”
*Assistant professor at Joint War Institute, National Defense University of Türkiye
Be First to Comment