NATO chose to protect Eastern Europe

The Summit Meeting of NATO Heads of State and Government is continuing in Warsaw. Due to the Ukraine and Crimea crises, the protection of the union's eastern borders and the security of the Black Sea were on NATO's agenda even before the summit started. Accordingly, NATO was expected to take concrete steps like deploying the union's forces in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland against Russia. Since the U.K.'s leaving the EU – dubbed the “Brexit" – is closely related to the future of U.K.-EU and U.K.-NATO ties, it was one of the first topics on NATO's agenda at this year's summit. Because union idea that was built by the West in nearly 70 years took a serious blow with the U.K.'s decision to leave the EU, and the best way to heal this injury could be through more unity and more NATO.

With the Ukraine crisis and Black Sea's security issues, the NATO Summit was foreseen to lead to steps and decisions being taken to provide military security for Eastern Europe against Russian aggressiveness and expansionism and hence, creating a balance in the region. It did happen... But the evaluations made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel ahead of the summit indicated that this would happen without turning Russia into an enemy. Merkel both held Russia responsible of the loss of security in Eastern Europe and said permanent security in Europe would be possible through dialogue with Russia, not by standing against it. She stressed that with Russia in question, deterrence and cooperation were not things that negate each other.

The union taking steps to provide Eastern Europe security on one hand and abstaining from taking an enemy attitude toward Russia, has been a step that – really – supports the purpose of Turkey, which is both a NATO member and a country trying to fix its relations with Russia. While our relations are still considerably sour with Russia due to the plane crisis and the current government wants to fix this situation, a picture within a formation that is clearly against Russia, I guess, would not really have served Turkey's interests, at least in this conjuncture.

NATO forces for Eastern Europe

In addition to the heads of state and government of 28 NATO-member countries including President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from Turkey and U.S. President Barack Obama, top-level representatives from organizations such as the U.N., EU, IMF and World Bank are also attending the summit. At the time this observation was being written, the last day of the summit had not yet started, but the decisions made on the first day gave some idea about the direction of the NATO Summit's conclusion.

According tot he statement made by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenber after the first day's sessions, NATO agreed to increase military presence in Eastern Europe. Based on this decision, multi-national military forces are going to be deployed in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland. Whether NATO forces will increase military presence in the Black Sea will be discussed at the meeting to be held in October.

As for the terrorism problem, which is closer and increasingly savagely threatening Turkey and actually the entire, Stoltenberg said: “We strengthened the airspace of Turkey which is most affected by the crises in the south."

Which terrorism and how will NATO fight?

Who knows how the second day of the summit will end, but looking at the first day, it is not possible to say an effective conclusion was reached in relation to the global terrorism positioned in the south of Turkey and threatening the entire world. This is exactly what Ankara was complaining about as it was unable to receive the required support from its NATO allies until now in regards to many topics ranging from the border security in Syria to the refugee crisis. Ankara believed that NATO needed to fulfill its “We are in solidarity with Turkey" message.

As journalists, we hope to receive the answer to whether the expectations were met from President Erdoğan on the way back. But as is, it is clear that Turkey's expectations do not headline the agenda. In order for this to happen, NATO forces would first need to unite on a common definition of terrorism and terrorist. Whereas the approach of both the U.S. and U.K. – the dominant forces of NATO – to the subject of terrorism has long been extremely controversial and these two countries underhandedly support or at least overlook terrorist organizations they are either able to control or which serve their interests in one way or another.

How will the U.S. fight global terror while helping the PYD?

We do not know how the second day of the summit will end, but it is no secret from the first day that the U.S. is supporting the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which Turkey lists as a terrorist organization, treating it like a legally organized force, especially in Syria, based on the justification that it is fighting against DAESH. The sympathy in Europe toward the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which massacres innocent people through suicide bombings and ambushes, was being grown with care until it was shaken with the Brussels attack. Waiting for military cooperation against global terrorism under these conditions is a little too optimistic, don't you think?