Associate Professor Dr İsmet Akça, Political Scientist
When we look at the process referred to as ‘NATO 3.0’, the US is seeking to counterbalance its declining hegemony within the global system. The US’s primary target is China. For this reason, it also wishes to shift its military-political centre of gravity to the Asia-Pacific. In doing so, it seeks to reduce the obligations it has assumed to date. Two of these regions are Europe and the Middle East. This NATO summit was primarily concerned with European issues. It is precisely for this reason that concepts such as the ‘Europeanisation of NATO’ were discussed.
Essentially, the discussions centred on what Europe’s new security architecture would look like, and how Europe should shoulder a greater share of this architecture—in financial, organisational and production terms. This is the outcome that emerged. The Defence Industry Forum was held for the first time, and it was announced that procurement worth over 50 billion euros would take place. The greatest catalyst for Europe’s remilitarisation and its assumption of the security umbrella within NATO is the War in Ukraine. A commitment of 70 billion euros’ worth of military equipment to Ukraine has been made for 2026. The fundamental issue here is the reconstruction of European security within the restructuring of the global imperialist system. Indeed, the meeting proceeded along these lines.
It is certain that the process the world is undergoing is not a process of peace. The world is experiencing a widespread process of militarisation. The biggest pledge up to 2035 is this: to increase military spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The world is experiencing a process characterised by military spending, investment and warfare.
The US has also suffered a defeat regarding the Iran issue. Iran did not secure a victory, but it has undermined the US’s definition of itself as a ‘hegemonic power’. I believe Trump is struggling to sell this war to the American public. In my view, Trump is sending this message to NATO, just as the pie is being divided up amongst everyone: “I’ll do this; you’re part of it, and you can’t criticise it.”
The government, for its part, got what it wanted from the summit in terms of ideological propaganda. It held a NATO summit where it could carry out its propaganda. Time will tell what the benefits of this will be. Türkiye wants to be a key element in the newly established security architecture. In particular, it wants a share in new projects within the European defence industry. Whilst some collaborations have taken place, Türkiye will also face certain veto barriers. As global military spending rises, Türkiye has developed its capabilities over the last 10–15 years with drones, unmanned combat aerial vehicles, and land and sea vehicles, and will seek to secure a share of the pie with these assets.
After his election, Trump gave the Erdoğan regime a blank cheque in domestic politics. For example, we cannot consider the events of 19 March and the move to annul the CHP’s election victory independently of this blank cheque. Both Trump and Barack made this clear. They stated that what Erdoğan needed was legitimacy and that they would provide it to him. Consequently, Türkiye has adopted a foreign policy aligned with the US-NATO axis.
The F-35 and CAATSA sanctions are a somewhat more contentious issue. Congressional procedures will need to run their course. Time will tell how these play out. For now, the regime has secured something it can use for propaganda purposes. Trump also said of Erdoğan, “He got what he wanted.”
There are, of course, consequences to this. With regard to the Black Sea, in particular, Türkiye is assuming responsibilities on the front line against Russia. There is talk of establishing a naval command in the Bosphorus Strait. The establishment of a headquarters in Adana is also being discussed. This situation demonstrates that NATO’s borders now extend into the Middle East. This, in turn, assigns Türkiye a role in the Middle East.
The process currently being presented as a victory will, once it begins to take effect, lead to conflicts and wars. The meeting indicates that Türkiye will allocate its resources not to social needs, healthcare or education, but to military expenditure.
Since his election, Trump has been facilitating Erdoğan’s moves in domestic politics. Indeed, the opposition is already undergoing a period of immense pressure. Is the basis for the government’s ability to carry out these actions international support? No, we are already in the midst of such a process, though it certainly makes things easier for them. Looking at the prevailing narratives in European public opinion, Türkiye is viewed as an authoritarian, unstable and problematic country; yet they say, ‘We need Türkiye for the European security architecture because of the Russian threat.’ This is an accepted reality, but it has been confirmed once again that the US grants legitimacy to the regime.
The opposition’s dilemma, however, is that NATO argues: ‘Türkiye would serve the alliance better if it were a democratic state governed by the rule of law.’ NATO, however, is not an organisation dedicated to the pursuit of democracy. Ultimately, it is a military alliance. For this reason, the opposition finds itself in such a dilemma.
Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Türkiye’ye Ortadoğu’da rol biçiliyor, published in BirGün newspaper on July 10, 2026.
Yorumlar