By Sefa Yürükel
The historical accounting of the North Atlantic Alliance has often been built on a narrative of gratitude that does not correspond with reality. Western centred security literature has for decades coded Turkey as a wing country that could exist only under the alliance’s umbrella, in need of protection. Yet the concrete reality on the ground says the exact opposite of this narrative. Turkey, at the alliance’s most critical geographical intersection, single handedly bore its southeastern flank; after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it gained strategic depth for the alliance by confronting the spirals of instability in the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. At the stage now reached, the cost to Turkey of sustaining this asymmetrical burden sharing has far exceeded the assumed benefit. It has now become a historical imperative for Turkey to leave NATO, declare its strategic independence, and position itself as an independent actor within the rising geopolitical architecture of Eurasia.
The Historical Anatomy of Asymmetrical Burden Sharing
Turkey’s position within NATO has, since its foundation, been not a partnership among equals but a unilateral order of sacrifice based on geographical rent. From the losses suffered in the Korean War to the risk shouldered in the Cuban Missile Crisis, from the Jupiter missiles deployed throughout the Cold War to the missile shield radars of today, Turkey has signed up to engagements that jeopardise its own security. In the alliance’s military planning processes, Turkey’s threat perceptions have often been sacrificed to the strategic priorities of its allies. During the decades long struggle against the PKK terrorist organisation, the concrete solidarity expected from European allies did not materialise; on the contrary, the logistical and financial networks of the organisation were tolerated within the alliance’s geography. During the Syrian civil war, Turkey’s border security concerns could not be addressed by alliance solidarity but only through the skill of cross border operations developed on national initiative. All of these concrete records confirm the truth that it was not NATO that protected Turkey but, on the contrary, Turkey that sustained NATO through its military capacity, geographical location and political will. While the alliance cannot realise any strategic projection concerning the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean or the Middle East without Turkey, Turkey has repeatedly proven its ability to exist and struggle without NATO.
The Geopolitical Rationality of Strategic Independence
The concept of strategic independence, beyond being merely a choice of military doctrine, is a comprehensive framework that defines a state’s mode of existence within the international system. Turkey’s exit from NATO is the first and most critical step in bringing this framework to life. An independent defence industry, a threat assessment capacity not dependent on outsiders, and a diplomatic manoeuvring space freed from the shadow of alliance obligations will be the concrete gains of this exit. Turkey has already built the level it has reached in unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare systems and air defence technologies despite the NATO framework and sometimes directly against it. The CAATSA sanctions and the incident of being removed from the F-35 programme have demonstrated how fragile and conditional intra alliance solidarity can be. These experiences reveal that strategic independence is not a choice but a necessity. Exiting NATO will transform this necessity into a virtue; it will make Turkey a sovereign state that acts with its own mind in every field from defence planning to foreign policy formulation.
The Rise of Eurasia and Turkey’s New Position
In this historical period when the global centre of gravity is shifting from the Atlantic to the Asia Pacific, Turkey’s remaining trapped on the NATO line would be geopolitical blindness. Eurasia today is the epicentre not only of economic growth but also of institutional innovations and alternative security architectures. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road initiative have created a new ecosystem developing outside and parallel to the Western centred system. Turkey’s full participation in this ecosystem will not be possible as long as its NATO membership continues. For the institutional logic of the Atlantic alliance erects invisible walls that prevent member states from engaging with the platforms of the rival pole. An independent Turkey that has left NATO, however, will be able to join the rising institutional architecture of Eurasia as an essential founding actor and will have a voice in shaping energy corridors, trade routes and security arrangements. This positioning will remove Turkey from being a forward outpost of the West and turn it not into a bridge between East and West but into the centre itself.
The Strategic Contribution of an Independent Turkey to the Eurasian Equation
Turkey’s leaving NATO and adopting an independent line within the Eurasian ranks will be a strategic gain not only for itself but also for the new platforms it will join. Turkey possesses the second strongest army in NATO, proven combat experience and a rising defence technology export capacity. When these qualities become part of Eurasia’s security architecture, they will turn into a guarantor of regional stability and will function as a balancing power across a vast geography stretching from the Caucasus to Central Asia, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Turkey’s presence in the Eurasian ranks will also make it more difficult for these platforms to be stigmatised by the West as a mere authoritarian bloc; the participation of a country with democratic institutions, integrated with the market economy and possessing a modern army will add legitimacy and diversity to Eurasian formations. From this perspective, Turkey’s exit from NATO is not merely a departure but also the moment of birth of a new geopolitical synthesis.
Conclusion
NATO’s security narrative inherited from the Cold War has long since lost its ability to respond to Turkey’s genuine strategic needs. The historical record shows that Turkey protected NATO, while the alliance exported restrictions and impasses to Turkey rather than security. The time has now come to end this asymmetrical dependency relationship, to declare strategic independence, and to take a place in the Eurasian ranks as an independent, sovereign and self confident actor. This exit will remove Turkey from being an object of the international system and turn it into its subject; it will enable Turkey finally to assume a role compatible with its historical depth, geographical advantage and military capacity. The new world order is opening space not for allies that dissolve within a bloc but for independent powers that can chart their own course. Turkey possesses more than enough of all the qualifications to be one of the foremost actors in this space. The time for decision has come.
References
Davutoğlu, A. (2001). Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Öniş, Z. & Kutlay, M. (2017). “Global Shifts and the Limits of the EU’s Transformative Power: Turkey’s Drift towards Strategic Autonomy.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 25(2), 179-195.
Sakwa, R. (2017). Russia against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stronski, P. & Sokolsky, R. (2020). “The Return of Global Russia.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Working Paper.
Ülsever, C. (2022). “Türkiye’nin Çok Boyutlu Dış Politikasında NATO’nun Konumu.” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 19(74), 45-67.
Walt, S. M. (2018). The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Yeşiltaş, M. & Pirinççi, F. (2020). Küresel Dönüşüm Sürecinde Türkiye’nin Büyük Stratejisi. İstanbul: SETA Yayınları.
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA)
Aarhus University, 1997
Independent Researcher
Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
Bir yanıt yazın