Looking away from Turkey’s June 24 presidential and parliamentary elections and the steps taken to shift to the presidential system and instead focusing on the outside is blinding at first, but... We have to grasp what happened at the NATO summit in Brussels.
We need to understand what U.S. President Donald Trump is doing by taking it to the extent of threatening to leave NATO, and challenging the “armed forces” of the global established order that was founded after World War II especially in terms of Turkey.
Many statements were made at the NATO summit, along with bilateral/multilateral meetings and sessions. We need to see that these do not explain the disintegration in NATO’s global presence, or its relationship model with Turkey.
Meanwhile, the geopolitical terms incorporated into an ordinary welcome speech could make it easier to find “our place.”
One part of the summit tradition is the “family photograph.” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: “NATO is an alliance of 29 countries. Stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea. And from the Arctic to the Mediterranean ... We owe our success to our unity. To our resolve. To our ability to change...”
The unity message is a façade but the rest is important…
When every element of this simple description is associated with Turkey, the difference of the alliance with the other members becomes clear.
I suppose we do not need to say anything about the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, but let us note that it is the center/line of the Artic (North Pole)-Pacific line, as well as the main breaking points that will trigger both these ends.
There are concrete tales that associate each one of the four items with Turkey.
For example, we drew a picture before: The pole, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean are divided into two: First, the Syria-Iraq-Iran line that comes from the Mediterranean through the Caucasus-Azerbaijan-Armenia-Iran join and then goes from Afghanistan-Pakistan-India to China-the Pacific, intersects the Silk Route, produces a new one, then the line that goes from the Black Sea to Georgia thickens in the special balances of Turkic Republics and again, reaches from the Chinese/Uighur border to the Kuril Islands-the sea-the Pacific.
Which shares an interest with the U.S./NATO or is influential in the mentioned regions, Turkey or European countries?
For instance, is the order that comes through the members’ defense budgets more important or the news that Georgia – mentioned in the mini paragraph – will be joining NATO?
As seen in the Ukraine example, while Russia reached for its gun upon NATO’s advance in Eastern Europe, what will it do if it jumps to the Caucasus? What will Turkey do?
Trump’s pressure on NATO members to pay up is not about money only. He wants money from Germany and France, but where are they in NATO?
Likewise, Stoltenberg’s reference to the U.S. saying, “You have no ally other than us,” makes no sense either. These countries are not in the “ally” forces in terms of NATO.
It doesn’t seem like the U.S. can leave NATO for now, but NATO’s interpretations of “it will feel free,” in other words, “its axis will shift”, if it does, are all great lies. NATO’s axis is the U.S. If the U.S. leaves the axis will break.
It’s Turkey that is in the ally forces. The meaning of Trump’s statement, “the leader I get along with most,” is because President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan speaks to him in the language he understands. Trump likes this.
But the New York Post’s statement on NATO is more realistic: “Trump shook off Western allies to speak with Turkey’s strong leader.” “This is ally power.”
The U.S. is interested in the Baltics and the Poles. The first U.K. visit is being exaggerated, but nobody pays attention to why a U.S. president would stay in Scotland for four days.
Of course these moves are a message to Trump’s July 16 meeting in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also, to provide ammunition for the elections to be held at the end of the year and to cover the claims that tease relations with Russia... Outbursts that can be summarized as, “I spoke harshly to the Europeans and they came to reason,” are all Trump’s letter to the U.S.
We can say that like other international establishments, NATO is also going through a “Post-Trump trauma.” But there is one – as a matter of fact, two – definition(s) of the enemy, in other words aims/objectives and it is still being directed by the U.S.
We can check it as follows: If Germany and France present the money wanted to NATO without a word – that’s what German Chancellor Angela Merkel is going to do – will the U.S. stop designing NATO according to the enemy it determines itself?
This is what will happen: While NATO becomes rusty on one side, it is going to polish its relations with “essential” countries/rising powers in the U.S. strategy.
Turkey is one of these rising powers. But it has an exceptional situation. To keep its hand strong when left alone with the U.S., it is going to maintain its relations with the other powers – not with alternatives.
Well, is this possible with the countries on the U.S. and NATO’s target countries?
Yes, as a matter of fact, it’s simple. This is what is exceptional about Ankara.
One other matter we don’t know how to treat is the S-400s. It is clear that the missiles to come from Russia will not consider the U.S. or another NATO member the “enemy.” Is this goo d or bad?
If we wanted to criticize this state, we could find a lot to say, but let’s send a more statistical message. How much of this country’s airspace would you say NATO protects? As much as 30 percent. It is low for a critical NATO member.
We probably need to flip the question: how much of this country is being threatened by NATO-member countries in this or that way?
