By Sefa Yürükel
The necessity of interpreting the historical dynamics that proclaim the clinical death of an alliance and the moves put forward in its final moments by a political will that cannot accept this death constitutes one of the most striking impasses of contemporary geopolitics. Since the famous “brain death” diagnosis made by French thought, NATO has been trying to stay on its feet as a gigantic bureaucratic body devoid of a common threat perception, where incompatible interests clash. This structure, in which the bond between the strategic mind and the operational body has been severed, has turned into a security apparatus that is forced to constantly invent new enemies in order to sustain its existence. Precisely at this point, the meeting that will take the stage in Ankara, despite the impossibility of resurrecting a dead body, must be read as the most current outward expression of geopolitical denial. This gathering, to be held in the shadow cast by the military, economic and ideological gains of the Axis of Resistance extending to Iran, is a candidate to lay bare in all its nakedness why the effort to rise from the ashes is futile.
Clinical Death and the Myth of Resurrection
The strategic mind representing NATO’s brain lost the other that brought it into existence from the 1990s onwards, and its effort to constantly construct new enemies has reached breaking point like an overstretched elastic band. The experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq have proven to the entire world that this military mind could not convert its conventional superiority into political victory. At the stage now reached, it is not only the operational capacity that has died but the geopolitical spirit of the alliance itself. The logic of collective defence, which was meaningful in the bipolar world of the Cold War, has become dysfunctional in today’s world woven with multipolar and asymmetrical threats. The geography expanded by the inclusion of former Warsaw Pact countries into the alliance has diluted the common strategic culture; this scattered body stretching from the Mediterranean to the Baltic, from the Black Sea to the North Atlantic has become incapable of cohering around a consistent threat definition. The meeting in Ankara is an electroshock trial organised by circles that do not wish to see this clinical death, in the name of resurrecting the body. Yet this trial is being executed in the shadow of the gains of Iran and its allies that are transforming the regional architecture; this situation stands as a reality that refutes the myth of resurrection from the very outset.
The Reflex of the Loser in the Shadow of the Axis of Resistance
The originality of today’s geopolitical equation is hidden in the positioning of the Axis of Resistance. The irregular non state structures taking shape along the line of Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine, and their state allies, have built an asymmetrical depth that will neutralise NATO’s conventional superiority. The Axis of Resistance has not only secured territorial control but has also eroded the legitimacy of the Western narrative. Iran’s status as a nuclear threshold state, the Houthis’ ability to threaten global supply chains in the Red Sea, Hezbollah’s deterrent missile inventory and the institutionalisation of the Hashd al Shaabi structure within the state in Iraq have radically narrowed the room for manoeuvre of the transatlantic power in the region. The Axis of Resistance is also articulated to a global solidarity network through the diplomatic protection and technological transfers provided by China and Russia. The show of moves that the alliance plans to stage in Ankara together with its new members will take place precisely under the heavy shadow cast by this series of asymmetrical victories. With the balance of power on the ground having taken shape so unfavourably, the gathering in Ankara will be unable to have any function other than stirring the deep psychological unease arising from remaining on the losing side, rather than transforming reality.
The Strategic Anatomy of the Futile Effort
The futility of the resurrection effort rests on three fundamental pillars. First, the rise of Asia centred economic and security platforms has nullified NATO’s geoeconomic gravitational pull on Europe and Turkey. The expansion wave of BRICS, the institutionalisation steps of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in the field of energy and security, and the knitting together of Eurasia with iron networks by the Belt and Road project have rendered the alternatives to the Atlantic centred trade and security architecture visible. Second, Turkey’s multidimensional foreign policy line is too complex to allow it to be positioned as a mere Atlantic apparatus any longer. Turkey’s military engagements in the Syria and Iraq theatre, its pragmatic partnerships with Russia in the field of energy and security, its growing trade volume with China and its overt interest in BRICS have removed it from being a predictable ally within NATO. Third, the political and military resilience of the Axis of Resistance has reached a threshold that deters external intervention. Despite years of intense bombardment in Yemen, Ansarullah’s emergence with an increased military capacity is the most concrete indicator of this resilience. With these three realities standing before us, attempting to awaken the dead brain with electric shocks by convening in Ankara will be recorded, at best, as a futile mourning ritual held at a moment of historical void. The presence of the new members Finland and Sweden at this meeting will not go beyond being a symbolic gesture certifying Scandinavia’s break from its tradition of neutrality and will not make a concrete contribution to the balance of power on the ground.
Conclusion
NATO’s brain death is an irreversible geopolitical reality, and every attempt to reverse this reality is doomed, sooner or later, to fall into the historical void. The meeting in Ankara must be seen as an inconclusive reflex attempt trying to move the limbs of a dead body. This gathering, in the shadow of the Axis of Resistance and the multipolar coalition surrounding it, is a state of strategic stirring triggered by the fear of being among the losers. None of the objectives of fortifying the alliance’s eastern flank, pulling Turkey back onto a strict Atlantic line and establishing a deterrent front against Iran are objectives that can find a response in the current era of global transition. Actors such as Europe and Turkey will be condemned to remain on the losing side to the extent that they engage in this futile resurrection effort; in return, should they adopt a sovereign and multidimensional foreign policy line that adapts to the multipolar reality, they will take their places in the new winning ring of history. Recording the meeting in question as the noisy herald not of a beginning but of an ending is the minimum requirement of geopolitical literacy.
References
Macron, E. (2019). “NATO is experiencing brain death.” The Economist, 7 November 2019.
Waltz, K. N. (2000). “Structural Realism after the Cold War.” International Security, 25(1), 5-41.
Parsi, T. (2017). Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sakwa, R. (2017). Russia against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asad, T. (2007). On Suicide Bombing. New York: Columbia University Press.
Karaganov, S. (2021). “The Military Underpinning of the New World Order.” Russia in Global Affairs, 19(2), 24-41.
Ülsever, C. (2022). “Türkiye’nin Çok Boyutlu Dış Politikasında NATO’nun Konumu.” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 19(74), 45-67.
Saikal, A. (2021). Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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