The two-day NATO Summit in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius represents a critical juncture in many respects. The fact that Turkey green lighted Sweden’s membership in the alliance, Ukraine will be given security guarantees but has not yet been accepted as a member, and the new defense concept sets many targets, especially China and Russia, and makes the whole world a part of military planning stand out as important topics.
Prof. Tarık Oğuzlu from the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Istanbul Aydın University thinks that it is plausible that there is a negotiation between the US and Turkey over Sweden’s NATO membership. Oğuzlu argues that with this bargain, Turkey is sending a message to the Western bloc that “If you want me, you have to give something in return” when it comes to new geopolitical tensions, and that Washington seems to have decided not to lose Ankara to the Moscow-Beijing axis.
Noting that Europe does not seem to have the capacity to defend itself, Oğuzlu underlines that the US is currently the master of the Old Continent. Pointing out that NATO has created a great dependency relationship in Europe, Oğuzlu believes that Germany and France cannot imagine a Europe without the US.
Finally, Oğuzlu notes that even if NATO will not start a war of aggression with its new defense concept, the new planning has left almost no region in the world that has not been included in military planning and everything has been ‘securitized’. Oğuzlu also comments that the US does not want to start World War III by bringing NATO into a direct war with Russia, but may be considering a war of attrition that will hurt Russia as much as possible.
‘TURKEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO BREAK TIES’
Turkey, together with Hungary, has long objected to Sweden’s NATO membership. Ankara expressed reservations about the ‘fight against terrorism’, while Budapest, as the current EU President, blocked the membership due to Stockholm’s criticism of the ‘rule of law’. Apparently with the intervention of the US, first Turkey and then Hungary gave the green light to Sweden’s NATO membership. The US says they did not negotiate anything. Do you think this is credible? Is it possible for Turkey to unblock Turkey without getting anything from the US?
I think it is not possible. This would be in line with the nature of international politics. Countries are involved in different international organizations, and they can use their institutional privileges in an instrumental logic to get results. It is natural to negotiate.
Turkey, in principle, has never been against NATO enlargement. In fact, when there was a consensus within NATO, Turkey did not, and still does not, use a veto policy at the risk of being left alone. Nothing has changed. But Sweden and Finland’s desire to join NATO came up in a special conjuncture. There is a war in the Black Sea that directly affects Turkey’s security, between Ukraine and Russia, and both countries have serious positions on NATO’s expansion. Therefore, Turkey preferred to eat the yogurt by blowing it out.
We also know that there has long been a coldness, if not a crisis, between Turkey and the United States, NATO’s largest and most powerful country. The sale of F-16s, the two countries’ different policies in Syria, Turkey’s non-participation in the sanctions against Russia, and the failure to extradite FETÖ-linked individuals from the US to Turkey were among the points of tension. Therefore, it doesn’t seem absurd to me that Turkey would give the green light to Sweden’s NATO membership in exchange for getting something from the US.
There were also elections in Turkey. The AKP, together with the MHP, won a parliamentary majority and Erdoğan will rule the country as President for another five years. In this new era, Turkey seems determined to put its relations with the West on a firmer footing. There are also economic challenges. Turkey clearly did not want to risk breaking ties with Sweden and Finland.
I think it was very important that the Turkish side demanded the revitalization of the EU membership process. This is something that we have not noticed in the discussions so far. I interpret this as follows: There is a new Cold War environment. Between the liberal-democratic western world and the illiberal-autocratic Chinese and Russian axis. Turkey may also want to send a message to the West: If you want to cooperate with an important country like me in this struggle and you want to see me on your side, especially if you expect me to approve the expansion of NATO at this point, it will not be cheap, I will have some demands from you. As part of the southern, European wing of NATO, I need F-16s to strengthen it. This is important, because in addition to Turkey’s national defense, it also contributes to NATO’s southeastern flank. In this context, you will lift the veto on the F-16s and do what you can in Congress.
MESSAGE TO THE WEST: DON’T TRY TO MAKE CHINA OR RUSSIA OUT OF ME
Plus, I don’t want a transactional, give-and-take relationship with the EU anymore. I want to get closer to Europe within the framework of a mechanism that is redefined within the framework of EU membership, that is on a firmer ground, that is more solid, where I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Otherwise, this give-and-take relationship, transactional cooperation produces crises. Because short and medium-term interests exist today but may not exist tomorrow. Parties acting too pragmatically may not produce good results.
Therefore, this can also be interpreted as Turkey wanting to rejoin the western world. Turkey is saying to the West, “Keep me with you in this geopolitical struggle. You will benefit from this. Don’t lose sight of me. Don’t try to create a Russia out of me, a China out of me.”
This too seems to have been bought. Biden says that we support Turkey’s EU membership and we will do our best in this regard. This is also in line with US national interests. The US has always acted like this, it has always supported Turkey’s EU membership. In Helsinki in 1999, the US lobbying activities were instrumental in Turkey becoming a candidate for EU membership. There is nothing new here. What is new here is that the West seems to have decided to pull Turkey away from the Russia-China axis to its own side.
In short, Turkey is saying, “I support NATO’s Northern European wing; I intend to do the same in NATO’s southeastern European wing.” Relations with Greece have also improved. He wants them to help him buy the air defense systems he needs.
It is already understood that some influential senators in the US Congress are still blocking Turkey, but Bob Menendez has signaled that he will remove this obstacle next week. The Biden administration seems to break this resistance in Congress.
It looks like he will break it, and frankly, the Erdoğan government has made Biden’s job easier by approving Sweden’s membership. This is a green light, a declaration of goodwill. Sweden is saying I will work for you in the EU. Turkey wants to be a member of the EU and at the same time it is sending the message that it cares about NATO’s security as much as the US.
This is already what the US wants to see, because the geopolitical perception of the US in recent years is based on a bipolar world order and it wants to establish a strong western bloc. And it wants Turkey to be in this bloc.
Also, the strengthening and expansion of NATO is a tremendous opportunity for the US arms industry. Many NATO countries are modernizing their militaries by buying American weapons. The European arms industry is not as developed as the US.
‘NATO HAS CREATED A TREMENDOUS DEPENDENCY RELATIONSHIP’
With the new defense concept, are we entering a period in which the US is consolidating its dominance in Europe? Western media reports before the summit repeatedly drew attention to the US share of NATO defense spending, which has reached 70 percent. Is the US pulling the strings tighter and centralizing command?
The answer is a resounding yes. The war in Ukraine, Russia’s military expansionism, the attacks on the European security architecture, the fact that Europe has seen that it cannot meet these attacks with its own capabilities and capacities, the fact that Central and Eastern Europe, in particular, are too concerned about the security guarantees they receive from the United States and do not have much faith in the guarantees that Germany and France will provide; moreover, it seems that Germany and France are not willing to do much in a military modernization that does not involve the United States.
There was an article in the New York Times today. The author asks a question like, “What do you think NATO is?” What is NATO actually? It is an alliance that legitimizes US military hegemony on the European continent, enables American arms companies to profit from selling more weapons, and provides a platform for Washington to recruit allies for its military interventions on a global scale. The essence of NATO is that it makes it possible for the US to be the most important security actor in Europe. NATO has created a tremendous dependency relationship.
Let me give you a statistic: In 2008, the US national wealth was 14.5 trillion dollars, while the EU’s was 16.5 trillion dollars (including the UK). 15 years later, the US had grown to $26.9 trillion, while the EU, including the UK, had grown to $19 trillion. The gap has widened in favor of the US. If you add to this the fact that after the Ukraine war the military division of labor between the two sides has widened in favor of the US, you can see how difficult it is for Europe to ensure its own security. That dream exists, I don’t deny it, but it is not feasible. Right now, the US is the master of Europe.
There is the Ukraine issue connected to this. In the run-up to the summit it became clear, more or less predictably, that Kiev’s NATO membership was not going to happen immediately, mainly because of the objections of the US and Germany. With Biden putting NATO’s unity at the top of his agenda, would a stumble on the Ukraine issue undermine NATO’s internal cohesion?
I don’t think the Ukraine issue will harm NATO’s internal cohesion. Ukraine has nothing else to do. It is important for Ukraine that NATO members continue to provide military support. NATO members say they will continue to support Ukraine. They also say that they are abandoning the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Ukraine’s invitation became possible without the MAP, if NATO members agreed unanimously. There are also plans to establish a council between NATO and Ukraine. These are positive developments for Ukraine.
But there is also reality. The US is not out of its mind either. A possible escalation could lead to World War 3 and the US does not want that.
Whether the US wants to prolong the war or not is also under discussion. It could also be inferred from this decision that it wants a war of attrition, that it wants to neutralize Russia a little more. The US, which wants a diplomatic solution, may not act in this way. It may be the US’s goal to prolong the war, to further batter Russia, to increase the cracks between Russia and China.
It must also be said. Ukraine’s lack of full membership indirectly gives Putin leverage. If the war does not end, Ukraine’s membership will not become a reality and Putin may never end the war. This would make the war permanent. There is also such a risk.
So is it better for Ukraine to join NATO now, or after the war is over and an agreement is reached? These debates are ongoing.
‘THERE IS NO PLACE LEFT THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN MILITARY PLANNING’
Finally, about NATO’s new defense concept, is the new concept real war planning? NATO is also planning to increase coordination between national defense industries and increase the production of weapons and ammunition. 100 years ago, this was called ‘war economy’. Do you think this is what NATO is preaching?
If you asked Stoltenberg this question, he would probably answer something like this: “We are doing this to strengthen NATO’s deterrence, to scare our enemies, to intimidate them, to show them how costly it would be to attack us.” It is unlikely that NATO will be able to mount an attack through the new regional commands.
But this kind of military organization makes every aspect of life a subject of security. NATO has gone beyond traditional state-to-state attacks and has entered into a securitization of almost every field, everything is a subject of security. This may trigger blocs, polarizations and military conflicts at the level of the international system in the coming years. Because countries like China, Russia in particular, will not be happy with this new concept. There is also the question of NATO’s presence in the Indo-Pacific region. Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan were invited to this summit as NATO’s global partners. This suggests that NATO could be used in the Indo-Pacific region as an outpost of the US, as part of its strategy to encircle China. This could be read as causing global instability. We are talking about a military planning spread over a very large area. NATO leaves almost no geography that is not included in military planning on a global scale. My personal opinion is that this is not very good.
