Assessment of the future of NATO in line with the changing policies of the new US administration

Introduction

The whole world is bewildered by the extraordinary, dizzying, successive statements and developments since Trump assumed the presidency. What the unpredictable Trump will say and do cannot be predicted in any way. Diplomats, strategists and intelligence officers are very busy trying to cope with the unpredictability in this environment created by Trump, and to draw a road map under unpredictable conditions.

Let us first analyse the crisis with Ukraine and its leader Zelensky as a case study in the light of the new policies and strategies of the US, which have emerged under Trump. In this crisis, I visualised the United States not as a country but as an international company and Trump as its manager. Why? Trump's management of the negotiations with the logic of a company, of course.

Ukraine, especially the eastern part of the country, the Donbas region, has Europe's largest reserves of titanium as well as lithium, a key ingredient in electric batteries.

It also holds mineral deposits from which rare earths are extracted, essential for some high-tech industries, including defence and renewable energy. Wasn't this the main reason for Russia's occupation of this region? In addition, 40 per cent of these rare elements and minerals are found in the territories under Russian occupation. After Zelensky's recent statements that I am ready to sign, it seems highly likely that after the US and Ukraine agree and sign on this issue, this time the US will force Russia to leave these occupied places.

On Friday 28 February 2025, live on television from the Oval Office of the White House, the US-Ukraine delegations and their presidents Trump, his deputy Vance and Zelensky's exchange in front of the press and the eyes of the whole world, which astonished the whole world.... In the face of Zelensky's refusal to listen to everything he was told and his courageous speaking of certain truths, the US President said that the Ukrainian leader should be ‘grateful’ for this unexpected behaviour and accused Zelensky of being ‘disrespectful’ and ‘gambling with World War III’.

This is because Zelensky inevitably demands certain guarantees and assurances from the United States regarding the security of his country in return for signing a precious metals treaty. This is perfectly reasonable. But how dare a weak country against the United States put forward such a precondition...... Immediately, of course, Trump put Ukraine on the hook for the $300 billion in US aid to Ukraine during the Biden era. Subsequently, the US President announced the cancellation of the rare earth elements agreement with Ukraine and, more importantly, Washington's military support to Ukraine. It went even further. According to the New York Post, a source close to Trump claimed that Zelensky had told him that he should ‘immediately’ leave Ukraine and move to France in order not to interfere with peace talks with Russia.

What happened in the end? After his White House outburst, the Ukrainian leader Zelensky, unable to get the support he had hoped for beyond advice from the European states that had supposedly welcomed him, swallowed his words and said: ‘I am ready to work with my team under the strong leadership of President Trump for a lasting peace.’ Zelensky also went further and thanked the US for its support during the war and announced that Kiev was ‘ready’ to sign the mineral agreement proposed by the US.

Trump's discourses that astonished and horrified the world did not stop there. He made interesting, mind-boggling and rather frightening statements about Gaza, Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada.

Now let's come to Trump's statement on NATO, which is on another agenda...

I believe that my assessment of this statement will be very appropriate and will contribute to possible developments. Because I served in NATO between 1993 and 2000. I actively participated in all planning, exercises and operations of the organisation. I also served as a military diplomat for four years as ‘Head of the Centre for Arms Control, Verification and Verification’ in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is in close cooperation with NATO.

We are facing a situation in which the existence and function of the NATO defence alliance, on which the US has shouldered the heavy burden since World War II, is being questioned. As a matter of fact, Trump recently declared that the 32 NATO member states should allocate 5 percent of their Gross National Product (GNP) to the defence budget. Currently, according to the decision taken by NATO heads of state and government in 2014, member states are required to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defence.

Source: NATO, 18.01.2025 (1)

It is obvious that Trump's statement will add momentum to the statements and assessments made by the member states of the alliance regarding the future of NATO in recent years...

A brief history of NATO from its foundation to the present day

The Cold War period was a period of international political and military tension between the two superpowers, the Western Bloc led by the United States and the Eastern Bloc led by the Soviet Union, from the declaration of the Truman Doctrine (1947) until the dissolution of the USSR (December 1991). During this period, a bipolar order emerged in Europe. On the one hand, the Atlantic bloc based on liberal economics and led by the USA, and on the other hand, the opposite bloc led by the Soviet Union.

At the beginning of this period (Cold War), the USA and its allies in Europe signed the North Atlantic Treaty (2) on 4 April 1949 with defence and security concerns against the threat of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and established the NATO organisation.

At the end of the Cold War period, the communist regimes in the Soviet Union, Mongolia, Cambodia and South Yemen collapsed. As a matter of fact, the USSR officially disintegrated in December 1991 and the 15 countries that declared their independence formed the ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’.

As a result, the United States of America managed to survive as the world's sole superpower and the Cold War came to an end.

Immediately afterwards, the US rolled up its sleeves to establish a new world order with its institutions based on liberal economy and free trade in order to shape the world according to its own interests. In this direction, it decided to fully implement the ‘Anglo-Saxon System (3)’, which was initiated with the UKUSA Treaty signed with the UK during World War II.

NATO, which was established against the Soviet threat at the beginning of the Cold War, was an organisation that offered security and defence commitments for its member states, primarily to serve the new world order established by the USA and US interests. The main purpose of the organisation was to ensure the security of the Atlantic geography. This organisation was needed against the USSR and the member states of the Warsaw Pact (VP) (4), which was considered a threat in post-World War II conditions.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the VP, the threat that was the subject of NATO's founding purpose disappeared. So what would be NATO's future position? The organisation could not be expected to continue on its way with an outdated and unacceptable purpose. Different threat elements that would pose a danger to the common security of the members of the Alliance had to be identified.

In this respect, a new vision and concept was rapidly initiated within NATO. In threat assessments, the USSR dissolved and the Russian Federation (RF) and 15 independent countries emerged in its place. Subsequently, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was established with the participation of 11 of the 15 states that separated from the USSR. (5) As such, in the light of the threat assessment made by NATO, the RF could perhaps not be categorised as a ‘Threat’, but it should still be considered as a ‘Potential Threat’ or ‘Risk’. As a matter of fact, this is what happened. NATO categorised RF as a ‘Potential Threat’, initially as a Risk, and later as a ‘Potential Threat’ by raising the degree of threat by one degree.

On the other hand, as the saying goes, ‘You will be closer to your enemy than your friend’. In this context, NATO has developed a new policy and strategy against the strengthening and resurgence of Russia. In 1998, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established. Russia opened a NATO Information Office in Moscow. A NATO Military Liaison Mission was established in Moscow. However, NATO's decisions to strengthen its eastern flank, the accession of Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020 to NATO increased the tension in NATO-Russia relations again. In October 2021, Russia decided to suspend the work of its diplomatic mission in NATO and closed the NATO Information Office in Moscow. Russia also asked NATO to suspend the work of the NATO Military Liaison Mission in Moscow, thereby abolishing this post-Cold War structure.

This time, the big brother countries in NATO, led by the USA and the UK, ensured NATO's survival to this day by convincing other member states and supporting the one-notch lower threat rating of Russia with artificial threats.

Later on, since the US considered the perception of the Russian Federation as a potential threat and the survival of NATO to be in its own interests, it continued to expand NATO eastwards by including the former Warsaw Pact member states into NATO membership.

The ‘Asymmetric Threat’, which took the stage in the 1900s, has forced the countries of the world and international organisations, especially NATO, to completely change their threat perception and methods of struggle.

Within the scope of Asymmetric Threat / Unconventional Warfare, new searches have been made in NATO since the classical methods and strategies in the Fight against Terrorism / Terrorist are outdated.

In parallel with these efforts, in order to keep NATO alive, it has been witnessed that the organisation has been used outside of its mandate defined in its establishment. Especially since the 11 September Terrorist Attacks in the USA, expectations for NATO's mission have also changed. How? For the first time, the Allied countries have authorised the use of NATO forces in Afghanistan by enacting Article 5 (6) of the NATO Treaty. In other words, new tasks and missions were attempted to be assigned to NATO in regional conflicts and in the fight against international terrorism. This, in turn, strengthens the prediction that it will lead to serious problems between allies with different interests and political understandings.

With the ‘Terrorism Threat’ taking the first place in Threat Assessments after the disappearance of the USSR threat, NATO published its ‘Counter-Terrorism Concept’ in May 2012.

Currently, engagement in crisis and conflict zones is not carried out by NATO, but on the initiative of the countries themselves.

With this concept, an ‘Intelligence Sharing Centre’ was supposed to be established within NATO to strengthen cooperation in the fight against terrorism (supposedly and in planning, but not in practice) and a ‘Special Mission Coordinator’ was to be appointed.

The implementation of this concept has not yet taken place.

This concept of NATO is the same old same old. This is because military elements will not be directly involved in hot conflicts on NATO's behalf.

Within the framework of the Counter-Terrorism Concept, it will be primarily orientated towards providing intelligence and training, and mainly logistical support.

On the other hand, the implementation of this concept is made difficult by the problem of mutual trust in an environment of diverging special interests and policies among the allied countries. This leads the Alliance to drift rapidly towards an uncertainty in which its raison d'être and future within the framework of concrete objectives are being questioned.

NATO is, after all, an organisation in which there is a voice from every head and in the end the US has its way. However, to be objective about this issue, ‘whoever pays the money, especially if he is powerful, blows the whistle.’

How can NATO's Article 5 (4) principle of collective defence (an attack on one or more member states shall be considered as an attack on all states) be put into practice if a terrorist organisation and its elements, which is considered terrorist by a NATO and UN member state and even listed as terrorist in NATO documents, are regarded as freedom fighters by some NATO members?

This principle was first put into practice after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 (Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all members).

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) condemned the attacks and declared its readiness to take any military action ‘to combat terrorism’.

The same was the case with the terrorist attack in France.

But when it comes to us, even our justified and legal counter-terrorism cross-border operations are hindered, let alone supported. They go even further and patronise and support the bloody terrorists we are fighting against.

Turkey and NATO

In the geopolitical conditions of the Cold War era, Turkey was fully engaged in the Atlantic structure as a member of NATO. In that period, Turkey was recognised as a European country by assuming the security responsibility of Southeastern Europe as a wing country within the Atlantic structure.

As a result of NATO's changing threat perception and the world conjuncture evolving into a different area, Turkey is perceived as a Middle Eastern country within the Atlantic structure and gains importance as a buffer between the unstable Middle East and Europe.

In addition, Turkey is very important for the members of the NATO alliance and especially for the United States, as it is located in a critical region in NATO's line of containment of Russia.

In the current geopolitical conditions, the attitude of key NATO member states such as France and Germany, which are far away from the new front line and do not consider Russia as a threat, and Turkey, which has good relations with Russia, disturbs the US. This is because NATO must survive for the needs of the American defence industry, and Russia must continue to be perceived as a threat to ensure this.

Therefore, the US is trying to encircle Russia on a new front, on the Baltic countries-Poland-Romania-Romania-Bulgaria-Bulgaria-Black Sea-Turkey-South Caucasus-Afghanistan line, forcing Russia to take countermeasures.

The US and Europe wanted Turkey not to approach Russia and not to buy S-400 and MiG fighter jets... Because S-400 will protect us against the US-West and Israeli attack... It will also put a serious barrier to the dreams of the West's potential subcontractor Greece to attack us...

Turkey has to resist the US impositions in order to preserve the strategic relations it has developed with Russia in recent years, considering its own survival and national interests. Because inter-state relations are not conducted on emotional platforms. ‘I offended that state, would this be done to us? Where's the brotherhood, chivalry, friendship and partnership?’, such words reeking of hamasas have no validity. The win-win principle is valid in inter-state relations and mutual interests are essential.

On the other hand, on the one hand, the USA is in competition and co-operation with Russia, trying to control the rising China and not to lose the oil and natural gas energy resources in the Middle East to anyone.

European countries are on the verge of disintegration among themselves. They want to establish a European Army equivalent to NATO, but they cannot.

In Syria, Turkey first co-operated with the USA and then with Russia... In any case, eternal friendships and enmities have never existed throughout history. Friends and enemies have always changed according to history and era.

The US-Israel and some well-known European countries are trying to realise the project of establishing a Kurdistan based on YPG/PKK armed forces in the region in order to break Turkey's power and claim in the region... They say they are doing this in the name of protecting the Kurds... A multi-faceted game...

As long as Israel and the USA exist in that region, they will never give up the Kurdistan project and the Israel+Kurdistan, i.e. the Greater Israel project, which controls the water and oil by dividing and fragmenting Turkey. As a matter of fact, in this context, Mazlum Abdi, the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)(7), which is an extension of the PKK in Syria and controls the northeast of Syria, said, ‘The PKK's call to lay down arms concerns them, not our forces in Rojava.’ In any case, the SDF cannot make such a statement on its own initiative and with its own mouth without the permission and authorisation of the US.

On the other hand, in line with the latest developments in Gaza and Syria, the USA, which paved the way for Israel in Gaza and provided all kinds of material and moral support, and Israel, which created the ‘David Corridor’(8) with a fait accompli in the south of Syria, are realising the ‘Greater Middle East Project (BOP)’ step by step.

The US-Israeli co-operation now aims to divide, disintegrate and, if necessary, strike Iran, which it sees as a closer threat...

US President Donald Trump sent a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei urging a new nuclear deal to rein in Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear programme. Trump added that he had also made it clear in writing that the threat of military intervention was on the table if talks did not begin. ‘I hope you negotiate, because if we have to intervene militarily, that would be a terrible thing,’ Trump said. ‘We will not enter into any direct negotiations with the United States as long as they continue their policy of maximum pressure and threats,’ the Iranian Foreign Minister responded.

French President Macron said that there was no coordination in strategic decision-making on Operation Peace Spring, adding: ‘What we are experiencing now is the brain death of NATO.’

Photo: NATO Headquarters, Brussels/Belgium

Trump has declared that NATO's 32 member states should allocate 5 percent of their Gross National Product (GNP) (currently two percent) to the defence budget. With this statement, Trump wants to say ‘I am the main burden of NATO, why should I pay more for the security of Europe than the European states?’. But this is not the essence of the matter. As we said, ‘Trump sees his country as a giant international company and himself as the boss/CEO of this company.’

From this point of view, the hidden purpose behind Trump's call for NATO partners to allocate 5 percent of their GDP to defence instead of 2 percent is as follows: ‘European states will increase their defence spending and turn to purchases from American arms companies as the only arms market that complies with NATO standards. In fact, Trump is already alleged to have raised arms prices with his statements. While the arms race in Europe is accelerating with the threats and policies of the US, the shares of arms producing companies traded on stock exchanges are reacting to the latest news from Washington with significant price increases.’

The future and structure of NATO, and in particular the decision-making mechanism of the alliance, are now being debated.

What is being discussed? The requirement that all decisions in NATO must be taken by the alliance and the level of financial contribution to NATO defence by the member states. If an agreement is reached on these issues, it is imposed that NATO will continue to exist.

In the run-up to the last NATO summit, France proposed a ‘small group of wise men’ to discuss a vision of ‘NATO's values’, while Germany proposed the establishment of a group of ‘NATO experts’, led by the Secretary General, to ‘initiate a political debate on strategic decision-making in the Alliance’. It should be emphasised, however, that these proposals are not new. They have a 14-year history. The main objective is to exclude Turkey from the decision-making mechanism. Because in the medium term, the aim is to make first the Greek Cypriot Administration and then Israel a member of NATO.

However, for some reason, such insidious projects within NATO can be implemented slowly, gradually or by using them as a trump card, exerting pressure and forcing them to be realised eventually. For example, as part of Israel's goal of NATO membership, plans were drawn up in 2005 to bring Israel closer to NATO, and all European leaders gave their ‘consent’ to this. Now, the implementation of this project is being carried out under the radar (9). Again, the Mediterranean Dialogue Project aimed to bring France back to the military wing of NATO because of the role it plays together with Israel. That goal was quietly fulfilled at the NATO Summit in 2009, without any veto action by Turkey. On the other hand, after Finland, which supports terrorism, Sweden's membership to NATO was also accepted. (10)

In dollar terms, the United States represents about two-thirds of NATO countries' annual defence spending, with an estimated budget of $967 billion. (11) Unwilling to be burdened with this burden any longer, US and NATO officials have frequently called on member states to increase their defence spending since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Trump criticised the contribution of European countries to the NATO alliance and demanded that NATO members allocate 5 percent of their GDP to defence. According to NATO's estimates of defence spending, while only 3 NATO members met this requirement in 2014, this number increased to 10 in 2023 and 23 last year. European NATO countries - Croatia, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain - and Canada have yet to meet the current 2 per cent target. Turkey, on the other hand, spends 2.09 percent of its GDP on defence. A 5 per cent target is therefore ‘both politically and economically’ unfeasible for the vast majority of NATO countries, and would require hundreds of billions of dollars in additional financing for member states. (12)

CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION

First of all, I would like to state that our NATO alliance was a right decision in the years of its establishment and in line with its founding objectives. Indeed, in line with this observation, we must acknowledge that if Turkey had remained outside NATO when Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago and had thrown itself under that roof for dear life, just like Finland and Sweden, the probability of being left out in the cold would have been dominant. Unlike in 1952, in 2022, the weight of the US would not have been enough to convince European allies of Turkey's geostrategic importance.

Today, we are talking about what a NATO without the US or a European defence architecture without NATO would look like and how it would be built. The speech by US Vice President Vance in Munich, the meeting in Riyadh between the US and Russians to talk about Ukraine without Ukraine and Europe without Europe, the failure to hold a joint press conference with Zelensky during the visit of Special Representative E.Lieutenant General Kellogg to Kiev, Trump's insulting behaviour and remarks against Zelensky, all of them came one after the other. Trump's attempt to seize Ukraine's underground resources was also exposed. While Macron is at the forefront on the defence of Europe, Starmer is at the forefront on the threat posed by Putin's Russia. However, the actions of both are mere rhetoric. (13)

So what can we propose for the future of NATO?

First of all, NATO, as everyone would mostly agree, has drifted away from its founding purpose with the collapse of the USSR. Although we do not have an enemy pact, the Russian Federation is still there. On the other hand, the United States, NATO's pillar, and its President Trump are trying to imply that the issue of European security is the problem of European countries rather than his own country, since he knows that Russia is now very weakened and cannot pose a THREAT to him. Moreover, he is trying to bring both Ukraine and Russia to their knees and manage the situation in line with his national interests and selfish policies.

From now on, European countries must take matters into their own hands in terms of their own security. Big brother USA wants Europe to stand on its own feet.

The European countries, mainly the countries of the European Union, initiated the establishment of their own army in Strasbourg in May 1992 under the leadership of France and Germany. This military force, organised under the name EUROCORPS, was joined in turn by the other member states of the European Union (EU). Thus, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg joined between 1993 and 1996, and Poland joined in 2022. On the other hand, Austria, Greece, Italy, Romania, Romania and Turkey are also Partner Countries of EUROCORPS.

The SACEUR agreement signed between the European Corps and NATO on 21 January 1993 allowed EUROCORPS to be placed under NATO command if necessary and regulated the exchange of information and training between the two partners in peacetime. In addition to this agreement, in 2002, EUROCORPS was certified under the NATO umbrella as a High Readiness Force (HRF - Rapid Reaction Corps). (14)

The bottom line is that it is very difficult for Europe to come together and form its own military force without the US or without the US. The attempts of the EU countries to form a European Corps, described in the paragraph above, ultimately ended with their coming under the umbrella of NATO.

So, does the NATO Alliance need the USA, but does the USA not need an organisation like NATO at all? In my opinion, of course it does. For one thing, the US can use the territories of NATO member states as bases. Logistics is very important in an intercontinental operation. On the other hand, thanks to NATO, the USA ensures that the decisions to be taken on international issues are in line with the interests of its own country.

On the other hand, the Russian-Chinese and Iranian navies will hold a joint exercise called ‘Security Belt 2025’ in mid-March. The exercise, which aims to increase mutual military trust between the three countries and improve co-operation between the navies of the participating countries, will require the US to make new calculations.

After all, there can be neither NATO without the United States nor the United States without NATO. However, a change in NATO is now a must.

The events unfolding within NATO, the decisions taken and, more importantly, the situations we are witnessing compel us to agree with the assessment that the rumours that the alliance is a "no action talk only ’ organisation, that it is an organisation in which there is a voice from every head and in the end, what the US says is what the US says is somewhat justified. Therefore, if NATO is to continue as it is, it is essential that the organisation be subjected to a change in all aspects, especially in its decision-making mechanism. Another solution is a new European-centred military organisation for security and cooperation, based on the view that NATO has outlived its usefulness.

In this respect, I am of the opinion that today, rather than establishing two opposing blocs or a separate European security organisation, a joint organisation that includes all countries would be the most reasonable and valid security and cooperation structure. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (15), a political organisation, is right in front of you. Since NATO is brain dead, the purpose of the alliance, its functionality and its structure are subject to the objections of the majority of the alliance members. So why not propose an alternative solution?

Photo: OSCE/OSCE Headquarters, Vienna/Austria

I believe that the restructuring of NATO as the military power of the OSCE is extremely important in terms of putting an end to the understanding of ‘opposing blocs and forces’ in the world and making the settlement of disputes in international relations through negotiations dominant and effective. The OSCE's functioning, decision-making mechanisms, main organs and subsidiary organisations are very effective. The Organisation has a total of 68 member states, 57 participants, 6 Mediterranean and 5 Asian Cooperation Partners. Apart from minor disagreements on the follow-up, supervision and monitoring of the Disarmament Treaties (Vienna Document, Open Skies Treaty, Dayton Treaty, AKKA Treaty, etc.), the harmonious inter-state work of the Organisation is very successful. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that the inclusion of NATO, RF, Asian and EU countries as well as member states of other alliances of the world within the organisation and the integration of a possible NATO military force as a participant into the OSCE under a different name will benefit the decision-making mechanisms in the new formation not only for one country but also for the benefit of European and world security as a whole and for the effective and timely resolution of disputes.

Footnotes

(1) Anadolu Agency, https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/trump-in-natoda-savunma-harcamalarini-yuzde-5-e-cikarma-istegi-tartisma-konusu/3454306, Access Date: 09.03.2025.

(2) The North Atlantic Treaty is the treaty signed in Washington on 4 April 1949, establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The Treaty is part of the US collective defence arrangement with European powers. Members aim to promote stability and prosperity in the North Atlantic region, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. With the accession of Finland and Sweden, NATO now has 32 members.

(3) Anglo-Saxon Intelligence System The Five Eyes alliance, founded by the United States and the United Kingdom after World War II, is a technical intelligence co-operation mechanism between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The main objective of the Anglo-Saxon intelligence approach is to ‘preserve the privileged position created to protect and safeguard Western civilisation and Western strategic interests by using all means at its disposal’. The Anglo-Saxon intelligence logic aims ‘to change the course of history in its favour by taking it under control, not to leave it to its own devices’.

(4) Warsaw Pact, the military and political union established by the ‘Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance’ signed by eight socialist countries in Warsaw on 14 May 1955. The signatories were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the USSR.

(5) There are currently 9 member states in the Community due to the secession of Turkmenistan, Georgia and Ukraine. (Azerbaijan, Moldova, Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus)

(6) Article 5 defines casus foederis. Each Member State undertakes to recognise an armed attack against one of its Member States in the areas defined by Article 6 (which covers only the territories of Member States in Europe, North America, Turkey and the Atlantic islands) as an attack against all of them. In the event of such an attack, each Member State must assist by taking ‘any action it considers necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area, including the use of armed forces’. Although this article has only been invoked once, it has been considered in many other situations.

(7) The backbone of the SDF is the People's Protection Units (YPG), the armed wing of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), which Turkey recognises as an extension of the PKK.

(8) In addition to the water resources in southern Syria, Israel aims to reach the Euphrates through the ‘David Corridor’.

(9) ‘Israel's EU and NATO membership’ was discussed at a meeting on ‘Europe and Israel: Towards Membership’ held at the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on 9 July 2008. During the meeting, it was emphasised that a different model should be considered for Turkey, whose EU membership is now becoming more difficult, and that this model should also be considered for Israel, in short, Turkey and Israel should be subjected to another form of relationship that is not ‘full membership’.

(10) Dikkaş, Murat, ‘Anglo-Saxon Approach in Intelligence, Turkey and NATO’, 14.01.2014

https://strasam.org/strateji/istihbarat/istihbaratta-anglosakson-yaklasimi-turkiye-ve-nato-2795

(11) The next four countries that spend the most in dollar terms are Germany with $97.7 billion, the UK with $82.1 billion, France with $64.3 billion and Poland with $34.9 billion. Poland is followed by Canada with $30.5 billion and Turkey with $22.8 billion. Source: https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/trump-in-natoda-savunma-harcamalarini-yuzde-5-e-cikarma-istegi-tartisma-konusu/3454306, Access Date: 08.03.2025.

In terms of the ratio of defence expenditures to GDP, Poland is the leader with 4.12 percent, followed by Estonia with 3.43 percent, the USA with 3.38 percent, Latvia with 3.15 percent and Greece with 3.08 percent.

Luxembourg with 1.29 per cent, Slovenia with 1.29 per cent and Spain with 1.28 per cent are estimated as the countries spending the least.

(12) https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/trump-in-natoda-savunma-harcamalarini-yuzde-5-e-cikarma-istegi-tartisma-konusu/3454306, Access Date: 08.03.2025.

(13) Tan, Namık, https://www.msn.com/tr-tr/haber/yazarlar/abd-siz-nato-nato-suz-t%C3%BCrkiye-savunmas%C4% B1/ar-AA1zCTy8?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=4df10c691f0340f2859 af91ec910f464 &ei=30, 24.02.2025.

(14) https://www.eurocorps.org/about-us/contributing-nations/, Access Date: 08.03.2025.

(15) OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe): The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) emerged as a negotiation forum and conference diplomacy during the Cold War period with the aim of reducing tensions and points of disagreement by establishing a regular dialogue between the blocs and thus increasing security in Europe. This process evolved into the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) with the decision taken at the 1994 Budapest Summit. The OSCE is the only and largest regional security forum that includes members of the European Union (EU), the Balkan countries with the perspective of EU and/or NATO membership, as well as the USA, Russia, Canada, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. In addition to this feature, its comprehensive security approach including political-military, economic, environmental and humanitarian dimensions, its experience in the fields of early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation constitute the comparative advantages of the organisation. Source: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/turkiye-ve-avrupa-guvenli-ve-isbirligi-teskilati-_agit_.tr.mfa, Access Date: 08.03.2025.