Contrary to what is written in its founding charter and press releases, or what its proponents claim, NATO is no ordinary defense and security organization. It is far more than that. It is a multidimensional, multifaceted organization driven by distinct ideological, political-economic, and class-based preferences. Moreover, as an organization born in the early stages of the Cold War, while its primary objective was ostensibly defined as “opposing the USSR and communism,” its actual function went far beyond this: it served as a mechanism to keep alliance members aligned with and under the control of the United States. Through NATO, the US has established immense influence not only over the defense, security, and foreign policies of member states, but also over their domestic politics, economic policies, educational institutions, universities, academia, think tanks, trade unions, and cultural industries.

As the apparatus of aggression and occupation of US imperialism, NATO launched its first out-of-area military operation in the mid-1990s in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Balkans. This was followed by the intervention in Kosovo in 1999. In the Gulf War of 1990–1991, during the US assault on Iraq, NATO was not directly involved as an alliance or a corporate entity. Instead, there was a US-led coalition that included numerous NATO members. At the time, NATO provided air defense systems to Türkiye but did not launch a direct military attack on Iraq.

In those years, with less than a decade having passed since the end of the Cold War in 1991, liberals and neoliberals alike were busy extolling the virtues of a single-centered, monocentric world order (note: not a “unipolar” world order, as a “pole” logically requires at least two opposites; to call it unipolar is incorrect both linguistically and logically). A tempest of liberalism, capitalism, postmodernism, globalization, and the “New World Order” was sweeping the globe. The United States had triumphed. The USSR had dissolved. The Warsaw Pact had collapsed. The Eastern Bloc had been consigned to history. The Berlin Wall had fallen. Socialism and communism had been defeated.

Under those circumstances, since NATO’s raison d’être had ceased to exist, it should logically have been consigned to history as well. Its utility was being questioned; people were asking whom it would protect, and against whom. Consequently, there was an active search for an enemy—or enemies—for NATO. And indeed, they were found.

Weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass persuasion

NATO—which stood idly by, biding its time and waiting for the right conditions while Yugoslavia was being torn apart, its people massacred, and ethnic cleansing and mass rapes were being carried out—finally mobilized at the exact moment and under the specific conditions dictated by US imperialism, delivering a clear message to the world. It announced to the globe that its mandate now encompassed missions such as “peacebuilding, peacekeeping, and combating radical movements and terrorism.” This, of course, aligned seamlessly with the rhetoric of “human rights, freedom, democracy, and the civilized world” championed by the United States as NATO’s founding leader. For the United States cast itself as the guardian of these values and concepts; yet in their name, and hiding behind them, it attacked, bombed, and occupied other nations. It would go so far as to first instigate disputes and conflicts in target nations, lay the groundwork for ethnic, religious, and sectarian strife, actively encourage and provoke these clashes, and then proceed to occupy those countries under the pretext of resolving these very problems and restoring stability.

And there were millions of people across the world who believed these American lies. In particular, the US media, along with global outlets, academics, non-governmental organizations, and think tanks supported by Washington, operated virtually as weapons of mass persuasion, designed to convince and deceive the public.

The United States grew so arrogant in this policy that US Presidents began to declare this mission to be far more than a mere political duty—it was, they claimed, a religious, divine, and moral responsibility. The US peddled this falsehood in Iraq, as it did in Yugoslavia. As Yugoslavia was disintegrating—or being disintegrated—NATO sought to project an image and send a message that, as an alliance whose sole Muslim member was Türkiye, it was defending Muslim Bosniaks and Kosovars against Christian Serbs, thereby shielding the righteous and oppressed from the unjust and tyrannical.

The collapse of the Atlantic system

Years have passed. The global balance of power has shifted. The imperialist dominance and hegemonic capacity of the United States have eroded and continue to decay. Russia, particularly after Putin took power, staged a rapid recovery starting in the 2000s. It consolidated its influence, beginning with its near abroad. China, alongside its economic prowess, expanded its political, military, scientific, and technological power, emerging as the primary competitor and most worrisome adversary of the United States. Within the Atlantic system and the Western alliance—whose rules and institutions were established by the US itself—deep-seated divisions have emerged, running parallel to its fragmentation and loss of power. Under these conditions, the United States is both failing to manage its own deep internal fault lines and socio-class contradictions, and experiencing major friction with its allies. Its intent to reduce Canada to a mere province, its ambition to annex Danish-administered Greenland, its barbarism in Venezuela and Palestine, its joint aggression with Israel against Iran, and its threats directed at Cuba must all be interpreted through this lens.

In the past, an imperialist power would at least superficially fabricate lies to rationalize, justify, and legitimize its invasions, aggression, plunder, and barbarism. For instance, when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, immediately following the September 11 attacks, it cited the presence of Osama bin Laden—the Saudi leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network—in Afghanistan as its justification for the invasion. Similarly, during its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US propagated the lie that “Saddam Hussein possesses chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction.” When the German dictator Adolf Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, and the Italian dictator Mussolini invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, they too presented historical, political, and geopolitical pretexts, however fabricated, to justify their actions.

Today, US imperialism does not even feel the need to construct such lies or manufacture pretexts. US President Trump openly talks of withdrawing from NATO, while scolding member states and insulting European leaders with arrogant remarks.

For this reason, NATO must be analyzed not by reading the words written in its founding treaty, but by grasping the shifting needs of US imperialism.

Beginning in late 2025 and extending throughout 2026, one of the most striking developments in world politics has been the successive convergence of major powers upon Beijing. Direct, high-level engagement with China by actors at the very core of the global system—such as the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—is widely interpreted as a potent signal of a shifting international order. These visits are indubitably far from routine diplomatic encounters. Rather, they represent symbolic and strategic maneuvers indicative of a fundamental realignment of the world’s power centers. In particular, the intensive engagement with China by four of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council within a brief window demonstrates that Beijing has evolved far beyond a mere economic powerhouse, establishing itself as a principal locus of global diplomacy.

For decades, the global order was predominantly US-centric. Following the end of the Cold War, the United States attained an unrivaled position militarily, economically, and diplomatically. China, conversely, was viewed as a rapidly growing economy defined primarily by its manufacturing capacity and cheap labor force. While Beijing possessed influence within the global system, the primary decision-making mechanisms of world politics remained firmly anchored in Washington. However, the transformation of the past two decades has elevated China from a mere economic giant to the epicenter of global strategic competition.

Today, China stands as one of the most pivotal actors in world trade. The vast majority of global supply chains are intricately linked to Chinese networks. Across a multitude of critical sectors—ranging from electric vehicles and battery technologies to artificial intelligence and solar energy—China has established itself as both a dominant producer and a global standard-setter. This immense economic capacity has naturally engendered commensurate political and diplomatic leverage. Global leaders now recognize that international challenges cannot be effectively managed by bypassing or ignoring China.

It is precisely here that the core significance of these recent visits to China becomes apparent. Donald Trump’s journey to Beijing to meet with Xi Jinping underscored that despite the intense rivalry between Washington and Beijing, direct engagement has become an absolute necessity. Similarly, while Vladimir Putin’s strategic alignment with China has long been established, Moscow’s deepened cooperation with Beijing in the wake of its profound crisis with the West has significantly bolstered China’s geopolitical weight across Eurasia. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s visit was interpreted as a sign of Europe pivoting toward a more pragmatic trajectory in its policy toward China. The prior engagements of French President Emmanuel Macron had already demonstrated that Europe has no desire for a complete decoupling from China. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s discussions in Beijing were particularly noteworthy from an economic standpoint, as the Chinese market remains indispensable to German industry. Furthermore, the intensive diplomatic relations maintained by Serbian President Alexander Vučić with China demonstrate that Beijing’s influence on the European continent is by no means confined to major Western European states. Through infrastructure investments, transport projects, technology transfers, and defense cooperation in recent years, Serbia has emerged as one of China’s closest partners in Europe.

The common denominator among these visits was the pursuit of direct engagement with Xi Jinping. Xi is no longer viewed merely as the leader of China; for many nations, he has become a preeminent figure shaping the future of the global system. The transformation of China under Xi into a more centralized, visionary state structured around long-term strategic planning has magnified the personal significance of his leadership. Today, the international community is intensely focused on Xi Jinping’s decision-making. Consequently, pilgrimages to Beijing represent an effort to establish a direct, unmediated channel to Xi himself.

Symbolism is of paramount importance here; in international politics, the optics of “who travels to meet whom” are central to the perception of power. If global leaders continuously travel to Beijing while Xi travels sparingly—yet remains the figure everyone seeks to audience with—it naturally reinforces the message: Xi Jinping is no longer just the leader of China, but a chief architect of the global system. Remarkably, Xi’s reduced international travel has not diluted China’s influence. On the contrary, Beijing’s emergence as the primary destination of diplomatic pilgrimage projects an image of profound self-assurance. To many observers, this stands as one of the most visible symbols of a shifting world order. By rendering their respects in Beijing as much as in Washington, global leaders signal that the global equation is now being formulated here.

This shift is driven by tangible geopolitical realities. The contemporary world operates within a highly interdependent framework. While intense competition defines US-China relations, their economies remain deeply intertwined, rendering total decoupling virtually impossible. Across a vast spectrum of critical arenas—including trade, semiconductor technology, artificial intelligence, energy security, the Taiwan question, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Iranian crisis, and global supply chains—China has emerged as a decisive actor. Consequently, no major power, including Washington, can formulate a viable global strategy by sidelining China.

For Europe in particular, the China question has grown increasingly complex. The period between 2022 and 2024 saw Europe adopt a more hawkish and distant posture toward Beijing. However, slowing economic growth, energy crises, and trade frictions with the United States have compelled Europe to seek a more balanced approach. The pivot of European leaders toward Beijing reveals that complete economic decoupling from China would carry prohibitive costs for Europe. This dynamic also underscores the divergent internal priorities within the US-led Western bloc.

China’s rise should not be viewed solely through the prism of its relations with the West; the sphere of influence Beijing has cultivated across the Global South is of equal significance. In recent years, Chinese influence has expanded dramatically across Africa, Latin America, Central Asia, the Gulf States, and South Asia. Within this context, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to China carries profound weight. The China-Pakistan relationship has long been characterized as an “ironclad friendship.” Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China has constructed ports, railways, energy facilities, and critical infrastructure in numerous countries, most notably Pakistan. Furthermore, unlike Western financial institutions, Beijing extends credit and investment with fewer political conditionalities. Consequently, many developing nations view China not only as a vital economic partner but also as a geopolitical counterweight to the West.

All of this inevitably raises the question: “Is China ascendant?” Based on the current landscape, the answer must be in the affirmative. For global leaders, Beijing has now emerged as a diplomatic hub as critical as Washington. Moreover, beyond its sheer economic scale, China is increasingly distinguished by its capacity for conflict resolution. Its pivotal role in facilitating the Iran-Saudi Arabia normalization, coupled with its close ties to Russia and its sweeping influence over the Global South, has significantly amplified Beijing’s diplomatic gravity.

The diplomatic traffic observed throughout 2026 highlights a fundamental truth: the world is no longer unipolar or monocivilizational. Opposite the United States stands a China capable of challenging it economically, technologically, culturally, and diplomatically. Consequently, this new era diverges sharply from the unipolar structure of the “American Century,” resembling instead a multipolar, multi-civilizational order where all actors cooperate and compete with one another simultaneously.

Xi Jinping’s position is central to this paradigm shift. For many leaders today, meeting with Xi in Beijing is not merely a matter of bilateral diplomacy, but a strategic imperative for positioning oneself within the global balance of power. This has immensely enhanced Xi’s personal prestige. Within the international system, there is a growing consensus that on most critical issues, “if Beijing is not at the table, no resolution can be complete.” The acceleration of visits to China since late 2025 is not merely a reflection of a crowded diplomatic calendar; it must be understood as a tangible indicator of a shifting world order. Beijing has transcended its status as an economic core to become one of the primary power centers of global politics. Consequently, Chinese President Xi Jinping is emerging as one of the most influential figures of this new, multipolar, and multi-civilizational world order.

Today, the diplomatic traffic directed toward Beijing is by no means limited to the United States, Russia, or the major European powers. The efforts of leaders from a vast geographical span—from Serbia and Pakistan to the Gulf States and African nations—to establish direct contact with China render Beijing’s central position in the global system increasingly conspicuous. Consequently, these recent visits are interpreted as signs that the power map of the new international order is being redrawn. For many capitals, the path to understanding global developments and formulating future strategies now runs through Beijing as much as it does through Washington. Thus, the adage “All roads lead to Beijing” is rapidly transforming from a rhetorical trope into a defining reality of contemporary international politics.

Umur Tugay Yücel – Political Scientist & Author of the book “The Decline of American Power and the Rising Powers” (China-Russia-India-Brazil).

X: @umur_tugay

In remarks to the American media, Israel’s genocidal prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared: “The war with Iran is not over. The enrichment facilities must be dismantled, and the highly enriched uranium must be eliminated.” He insisted that the permanent destruction of Tehran’s nuclear capacity was imperative.

The broader picture in the Middle East is this: the United States is simultaneously attempting to make Israel more effective, more powerful, and territorially larger, while also attacking those countries that unsettle Israel or resist its regional influence. It fragments them, destabilizes them, occupies them. What occurred in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, as well as the joint American-Israeli aggression directed at Iran, must be understood from this perspective no less than from any other.

We know that Israel exercises enormous influence over the United States. The effects and reflections of that influence are visible even in Washington’s relations with Türkiye. Israel influences the United States to such an extent that America loves whom Israel loves and rejects whom Israel rejects. American presidents hesitate to take a step in the Middle East without first consulting Israel or securing its approval. For that reason, it is especially noteworthy that, in recent months, many American experts, politicians, and commentators have openly said of the attacks on Iran: “This is not America’s war; it is Israel’s war. It is wrong for the United States to place itself so completely under Israel’s direction and follow in its wake.” For the first time, Israel is being criticized this openly and this loudly within the United States itself. For the first time, America’s limitless and unconditional support for Israel is being questioned so directly.

The extent of Israel’s hostility toward Türkiye

Israel’s influence over the United States, as seen in the joint American-Israeli aggression against Iran, also became apparent during the ceasefire negotiations. Israel did everything in its power to prevent the United States from accepting a ceasefire. Although Pakistan succeeded in persuading both Washington and Tehran to accept a regional ceasefire, Israel immediately pressured the United States and ensured that Lebanon was excluded from the scope of the agreement.

Israel’s hostile posture toward Türkiye is likewise striking. By supporting terrorist organizations operating against Türkiye, Israel seeks to force the country to exhaust its energy and resources in prolonged struggles against armed groups both domestically and along its immediate periphery. In this regard, the most functional and useful instrument at Israel’s disposal is the PKK terrorist organization. The United States also supports the PKK. Accordingly, the American-Israeli axis jointly backs structures affiliated with the PKK, namely the PYD-YPG in Syria and PJAK in Iran. It will be recalled that Israel also supported the 2017 independence referendum organized in northern Iraq under the leadership of the Barzani administration. Israel announced that, should the referendum produce a declaration of independence, it would be among the first states to recognize an independent Kurdish state separating from Iraq.

The American economy Is not on a healthy trajectory

From an economic standpoint as well, the United States is compelled to wage wars, launch attacks, create new customers for its arms industry, and secure fresh military contracts. The American economy has become dependent on war. Within the country’s dominant sectors, the military-industrial structure occupies a singularly privileged and strategic position. U.S. public debt has surpassed 39 trillion dollars. Private-sector debt, including household debt, has reached 42 trillion dollars. The budget deficit approached 1.8 trillion dollars in 2025. Last year, the trade deficit climbed to 901.5 billion dollars. At the same time, the country’s productive capacity and competitive strength continue to erode.

By attacking Iran alongside Israel, the United States sought not only to neutralize Iran’s missile capacity and nuclear capabilities, but also to alter the regime in Tehran and, if possible, even redraw the country’s borders. It inflicted severe damage on Iran and struck heavy blows, yet failed to force capitulation. It achieved neither its military objectives nor its political aims.

Another American calculation was this: by striking Iran, which sells 90 percent of its oil exports to China, Washington hoped to open a serious breach in China’s energy supply chain. China obtains nearly half of the oil it consumes from Gulf countries such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Altogether, 45 percent of the oil China uses passes through the Strait of Hormuz. It should also be noted that the Strait of Hormuz is critically important not only for China, but also for Asia’s major economies such as Japan, India, and South Korea. One must not forget that all three maintain close relations with the United States.

While attacking Iran, the United States also sought to weaken China — and failed

While calculating that Iran would emerge weakened, the United States also intended to batter China in the process. It failed. That failure rendered Washington even more aggressive and drove it into deeper panic. For regardless of what the United States does, the trajectory of history continues to favor China.

Consider the figures. In 1990, China accounted for just 1.8 percent of the global economy. Today, that figure stands at 18.5 percent. In other words, over the past thirty-six years, China’s share of the world economy has increased tenfold. The United States, by contrast, accounted for 34 percent of the global economy in 1985; by 1990, its share had already fallen to 26 percent. Today it has declined further, to 22 percent. As can clearly be seen, America’s share has been steadily diminishing. Across the Atlantic, Europe’s decline has been even more pronounced. In 1990, the European Union accounted for more than 27 percent of the global economy. Today its share has fallen to 17 percent. In other words, over the past thirty-six years, the European Union has contracted by ten percentage points.

This decline in Europe inevitably weakens the European Union’s appeal while simultaneously intensifying internal disputes within the bloc. It has also emboldened those advocating withdrawal from the Union. Following Britain’s departure from the European Union through the 2016 Brexit referendum, similar debates have proliferated across Europe. Those advocating France’s withdrawal speak of “Frexit,” while proponents of Sweden’s departure invoke the term “Swexit.”

These debates are not confined to the European Union alone. Parallel discussions are also emerging within NATO, particularly as President Trump publicly humiliates NATO members and even suggests that the United States itself could leave the alliance. Slovenia, for example, one of NATO’s smaller members, is debating the possibility of putting withdrawal from the alliance to a referendum. For a small-scale country, this is undoubtedly a bold and highly consequential discussion.

What ultimately becomes visible is this: as the United States weakens, the fractures within the Atlantic alliance deepen, and disputes within major Western institutions such as NATO and the European Union grow increasingly severe. The joint American-Israeli attacks against Iran, together with Iran’s resistance, are making those fractures even more visible.