By Sefa Yürükel
In the post Cold War period, the transatlantic alliance has constantly needed a threat narrative to legitimise its existence. This military mechanism, which has gone beyond its founding philosophy, has over time ceased to be merely the collective defence reflex of member states and has become an instrument for implementing strategies of engagement and encirclement on a global scale. When the deep codes of this structure are examined, it becomes apparent that the organic bond the United States has established with its Anglosphere ally Israel is designed to strategically align and encircle a vast geography that also encompasses Western Europe and Canada. This project, in which Turkey has also served as a critical hinge within this equation, has for many years been positioned as an apparatus of control and threat directed towards the depths of Eurasia. However, the recent geopolitical earthquakes have shaken the foundations of this unipolar domination project.
The Strategic Defeat of the Historical Bloc
The long term strategy of attrition and encirclement pursued by the United States and Israel, which extends beyond NATO’s formal boundaries and targets in particular the Iran centred Axis of Resistance as well as China, Russia and North Korea that indirectly nourish this axis, has faced a concrete defeat on the ground. This defeat is not limited to military engagements alone; it also signifies the failure of narrative wars, economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation efforts. The objective of dismantling the Axis of Resistance has, on the contrary, pushed this structure towards a geopolitical bloc formation; the exclusionary policies of the West have turned platforms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS+ into the new centres of gravity of global opposition. On this plane, the tactics of the United States and Israel based on uncontrolled use of force have triggered a profound process of questioning in global public opinion and within the domestic public opinions of the Western bloc itself. The wave of questioning rising among the peoples has caused the threat scenarios long employed by the Atlantic centred security bureaucracies to lose their credibility.
The Search for a New Equation in Ankara
This crisis of legitimacy within the alliance and the strategic deadlock on the ground are setting the stage for a new show of moves. It is assessed that the United States and Israel, in order to regain the lost momentum, intend to mobilise NATO’s new members and to open a final strategic card in Eurasia. The meeting to be held in Ankara is, in this context, a symbolic and operational turning point. By utilising Turkey’s geographical and political capacity, the aim is to create a collective point of resistance against the Axis of Resistance, particularly Iran, as well as the BRICS countries and the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. This move simultaneously seeks to suppress Europe’s quest for strategic autonomy and to realign Turkey back onto a rigid Atlantic line. The gathering in Ankara can be read as a rehearsal for mending the cracks within the alliance and slowing the transition to a multipolar world. Yet this show carries the risk of not being able to go beyond being a belated reflex in the face of the strategic depth gained by the Axis of Resistance and the rising powers.
The Dilemma of Europe and Turkey on the Threshold
Europe’s position in the coming days contains a critical ambiguity. Continental Europe, grappling with energy crises and economic contractions, is trapped between engaging in the adventurist military agendas of the United States and Israel and integrating into the rising economic corridors of Eurasia. Europe’s full support for NATO’s new policies of confrontation would mean accepting a rupture from global supply chains and a deep economic collapse. Turkey, on the other hand, is at a far more sensitive threshold. On one side lies the inertia of being part of the centuries old Western institutional structure, and on the other, the Asian centred platforms towards which regional realities and economic rationality are directing it; Turkey will have to make a choice. Turkey’s adopting the role of subcontractor to the Atlantic project at the Ankara meeting harbours the danger of turning it directly into a frontline state against the Axis of Resistance and the rising Asian states. In contrast, a Turkey that preserves its politics of balance and deepens its relations with the BRICS and Shanghai processes will both be a guarantor of regional peace and will eliminate the risk of remaining on the losing side.
The lifespan of the Western centred exclusionary security umbrella is being limited by historical and economic realities. The losing side, led by the United States and Israel, is the side that insists on imposing unilateral interests and resists the multipolar reality. The positions that Europe and Turkey will take in the forthcoming period are hidden in the answer they will give to the question of to what extent they will continue their organic ties with this losing side. If, instead of transatlantic impositions, they adopt a line that prioritises their sovereign national interests and the inclusive economic architecture of Eurasia, these actors will not remain on the losing side but will, on the contrary, enter among the founding actors of the new world.
References
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
Parsi, T. (2017). Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy. Yale University Press.
Sakwa, R. (2017). Russia against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order. Cambridge University Press.
Kissinger, H. (2014). World Order. Penguin Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2016). The Euro: How a Common Currency Threatens the Future of Europe. W. W. Norton & Company.
Karaganov, S. (2021). The Military Underpinning of the New World Order. Russia in Global Affairs, 19(2), 24-41.
Uluslararası Kriz Grubu. (2023). Türkiye’nin Dış Politikada Denge Arayışı. Brussels: ICG Reports.
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