There are three flagship vessels of world politics that steer not by compass but by the direction of the wind. One swings his red tie like a club, another mistakes his staff for a magic trick behind the curtain, and the third wears his black robe like a shroud. Their shared talent is to use words like landmines; the moment you step on them, they explode, leaving behind not truth but only smoke and a few scorched sentences.
When the Iranian minister said, “Trump has lied 35 thousand times,” he was not so much giving a statistic as certifying a record. Yet no one objects to this record, because the opposing teams have their own scorecards as well. Trump’s language is that of a used car salesman: each sentence is a new model with zero mileage, but the engine is always made of the same scrap parts. When he says, “No one has ever told the truth like I do,” he does not realize that he is effectively erasing the statistics of his own lies, because in his world, statistics are merely a club to beat rivals with. He practices lying as a sport; his training is on Twitter, and his matches are on the podium.
As for Erdoğan… He is more than an acrobat in political discourse; he is an engineer of time. He can transform the sentence “I said that yesterday, but today conditions have changed” into a philosophical depth in a single breath. According to his opponents, there is no such entry as “consistency” in his dictionary; to his supporters, however, this is “the art of adapting to a changing world.” But behind the curtain, what becomes visible is this: every speech is the demolition of the previous one; every demolition promises a new construction; and when that construction is completed, you are faced with a wall made of the torn pages of the previous speech. His politics is not chess but backgammon: he rolls his own dice, and his pieces always land on his own square. And most importantly, when he loses, he has the audacity to flip the table and say, “Actually, I won.”
Netanyahu, on the other hand, is the dark magician of this trio. His discourse is like an archaeological excavation; at every layer you find a different fossil of “truth.” At times he relies on biblical kingdoms, at other times he weighs modern intelligence documents on a scale. But his real skill is to process threat like a kneading machine: the larger the threat, the broader his license to justify himself. It is known that while saying “Iran could build a bomb within three months,” he disregards his own intelligence reports; but for him this is not a contradiction, it is a prescription. He has turned lies into a reason for existence, because without threat, the shield would have no meaning.
When you place these three names side by side, what emerges is nothing but a tragicomedy. Each one is a tightrope walker who has received a certificate of mastery from the workshop of rhetoric. Trump has turned lying into a performance art; Erdoğan has turned lying into a governing technique; and Netanyahu has turned lying into a theology. One pounds the microphone and says, “This is not a lie, it is an alternative truth”; another whispers, “My nation believes in me, the rest is detail”; the third takes refuge in the defense that “The world is already against us, so every word is legitimate.” All three converge on the same point: truth, the moment it leaves their mouths, becomes a balloon that changes shape; the more they inflate it, the farther it flies, but in the end it either bursts or deflates. Know this: these three cannot fall asleep on any given day without having lied multiple times. Lies are the name of the sleeping pill that rests them and gives them pleasure. Without lies, Erdoğan, Netanyahu and Trump remain identityless and makeshift. They cannot exist without lies, nor can lies exist without them. Because lies belong to them, and they are the registered property of lies.
And the audience? Ah, that audience… Millions are both victims and accomplices of this game. Everyone cheers for their own acrobat, because the fall of the other acrobat means their own acrobat stays in the air longer. Yet when viewed from the bottom of the tower, all are performing on the same rope; no one looks at the rope itself, everyone just watches the hands. Truth fell into the safety net beneath the rope right from the start, left there forgotten and rotting. The audience applauds, because if they do not applaud, they pay from their own pockets. This is how politics works: lies are presented like a mathematical problem; no one checks the solution, everyone likes their own equation.
Perhaps the most painful part is not the lies of these men, but the gravity of the need for those lies. As societies feed on lies, they lose their immunity to truth. All three leaders compete to collapse this immune system. Trump lies openly; Erdoğan delegates his lies to national interest; Netanyahu bases his lies on divine command. And all of them, amid an avalanche of applause, keep raising the tower they have built. Yet the higher the tower rises, the louder the fall will be. But they love noise, because noise is safer than the reckoning that silence brings.
The outcome? From the top of the tower, these three sages see the same view: the world is round, but they have drawn a flat map. On that map, every country takes shape according to the words that leave their mouths. Yet the map does not show reality, only a navigational tool. And whenever one of them loses his compass, all three cling to their own drawn map and shout, “This is where the truth is!” But the truth lies in the warning written at the edge of the map: “This map is for explorers, not for those who are not ready to get lost.”
So the next time a leader steps up to the podium and says, “I will tell you the whole truth,” know that the curtain is opening once again, but the script is always the same. Truth is not behind the curtain; it is hidden where the curtain is torn. And seeing that tear, unfortunately, falls only to the brave among the audience. Those who are not brave keep applauding, until the tower collapses.
Note: This translation preserves the satirical, sharp tone of the original without adding or removing any substantive content. The text aims to provoke critical thinking through irony and exaggeration, not to offend individual personalities.
Sefa Yürükel Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA) Aarhus University, 1997 Independent Researcher Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology,
Mayor Zohran Mamdani a Hypocrite : Muslim Lives Does Matter.
Mr. Mamdani, Let me remind you that on July 11, 2026 the world paused to remember one of the clearest and most thoroughly documented genocides in modern history. Mayor Zohran Mamdani, your silence on this solemn day speaks volumes and warrants serious reflection.
On July 11, as thousands gather at the Bosnia and Herzegovina , Srebrenica-Potočari Memorial Centre, ten more victims of the 1995 Srebrenica genocide are finally laid to rest. Many were young men whose mothers waited in vain for their sons, wives for their husbands, and children for fathers who would never return.
More than 8,372 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically murdered solely because they were Muslim and identity. This was not merely the opinion of activists or self described scholars. The genocide at Srebrenica was formally recognized by both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) after extensive judicial proceedings, evidence, witness testimony, and legal scrutiny.
Yet you have chosen to remain silent on this proven genocide while publicly promoting recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide a historical claim that has never been adjudicated and established as genocide by an international court through a comparable judicial process.
That inconsistency raises legitimate questions. If your commitment to human rights is genuine, why acknowledge one historical so call claim while failing to recognize another that has been conclusively established by international courts as a proven Genocide? Human rights cannot be selective, and the memory of innocent victims should never depend on political convenience.
July 11th we remember the victims of Srebrenica, stand with our Muslim brother and people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and reaffirm that justice requires consistency. The world honors the truth established by law, not political expediency. Victims of genocide deserve equal remembrance, equal dignity, and equal moral courage from those who seek public office.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), since its establishment in 1949, has defined itself as a defense oriented alliance aimed at ensuring the common security of its member states. This structure, positioned as a counterbalance to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War era, was forced to reproduce its reason for existence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is precisely at this point that the thesis gains strength: NATO has shed its military defense identity and transformed into the largest global arms marketing apparatus of American capital. The fundamental argument of this article is that today’s NATO is not, in essence, a security alliance but a Pentagon centered arms fair and an unlimited customer pool for the monopolies of the American defense industry.
The process that began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is the most concrete proof of this transformation. European countries have been trapped in a climate of fear by the “Russian threat” narrative constantly pumped out by Atlantic centered media and political elites, and within this atmosphere of fear, they have been directed to multiply their defense budgets. The sole and constant winner of the military aid exceeding 70 billion dollars channeled to Ukraine and the billions of dollars in orders placed by European countries with the US to replenish their own weapons stockpiles has been the American arms trusts. European peoples, meanwhile, are paying the bill for this arms race through shrinking social spending, rising inflation, and collapsing welfare systems.
The Power Dependency of Atlantic Elites and the Production of Anti Russia Sentiment
This attitude of political elites in European capitals who defend NATO and the Atlantic alliance unquestioningly stems not from strategic foresight but from the structural dependency of their power. The existing political order in Europe relies heavily on Washington’s economic, intelligence, and diplomatic support. This dependency relationship leads the elites in question to place their responsibilities to their own people on the back burner and to present the interests of the US as if they were Europe’s interests.
Anti Russia sentiment is the most effective ideological apparatus of this dependency structure. European public opinion is constantly presented with a threat narrative suggesting that Russia is ready and waiting to attack the Baltic states, Poland, or other parts of Eastern Europe. Yet, a rational geopolitical analysis clearly shows that a Russia bound to Europe through energy dependency and economic integration would find it against its own interests to drag the continent into a full scale war. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is not an unprovoked act of aggression but a result of NATO’s years long policy of eastward expansion, attempts to turn Ukraine into a forward base, and the systematic disregard of Russia’s national security concerns.
Europe’s elites are not telling their people the following simple truth: enmity with Russia rebounds on Europe as an energy crisis, economic stagnation, and social unrest. The sole mutual winner of this enmity is the American arms monopolies, whose order books swell and stocks soar with every crisis. Giant corporations like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing have multiplied their market value since the start of the Ukraine war, pushing their production capacities to the limit with new orders received from European countries. This picture is the clearest proof that NATO is not a security alliance but a permanent arms fair organized for these companies.
The Ukraine Equation: The Real Winner is the US Arms Industry
The war in Ukraine serves as a case study that exposes NATO’s true function. The total value of military aid provided to Ukraine by the US and its European allies since the beginning of the conflict has exceeded 70 billion dollars. The bulk of this sum consists of transfers made directly from US weapons stockpiles or emergency procurement purchases from American companies. European countries, in turn, turn to the US again to replace the weapons they sent to Ukraine from their own stocks, thus trapping themselves in a double edged dependency spiral.
The new military procurement agreements exceeding 50 billion dollars announced at the latest NATO summit held in Ankara are a new link in this spiral. The commitment by European allies and Canada to increase defense investments by more than 139 billion dollars is presented ostensibly as “burden sharing,” but in essence, it means a colossal financing package to be transferred to the American arms industry. Taxes collected from European peoples are being cut from social security systems, health spending, and education budgets and channeled directly to the arms companies that function as the civilian extension of the Pentagon.
The crucial question that needs to be asked at this point is: Who brought Ukraine to this point? The encouragement of the pro Western coup in Ukraine in 2014, the subsequent emboldening of the Kyiv administration with promises of NATO membership, the suggestions not to implement the Minsk agreements are all parts of the strategy to encircle Russia in a security ring. The primary culprit for the heavy price paid today by the Ukrainian people, the economic collapse experienced by Europe, and the tension on the continent is the Atlantic centered strategic mind that orchestrated these provocative policies. And this same mind is now profiting from the same crisis by selling arms.
Europe’s Welfare Crisis: The Social Cost of Armament
The peoples of Europe are feeling the heavy burden of this arms race, conducted under the guise of NATO, more and more each passing day. At the root of problems such as the postponement of social housing projects in Germany, the raising of the retirement age in France, the collapse of the health system in England, and the reaching of unsustainable levels of public debt in Italy lies the diversion of resources towards armament.
The defense expenditures of European Union countries have increased by more than 30 percent in real terms since 2022. This increase is directly related to the cuts made in social spending during the same period. Every euro cut from a European retiree’s pension, a student’s scholarship, or a worker’s unemployment insurance is going into the pocket of an arms manufacturer across the Atlantic. Yet Europe’s real security need is not more weapons but the opening of dialogue channels with Russia, the reestablishment of energy cooperation, and the construction of a common Eurasian security architecture.
The peoples of Europe must question this false choice imposed upon them: enmity and an arms race with Russia, or dialogue and shared prosperity? The winner of the first option is solely the US and its arms trusts. The second option, however, will allow Europe to return to the stage of history as a truly sovereign actor, to protect the welfare of its people, and to enable the continent to live in peace. But for this, the power of the Atlantic dependent political elites must be shaken, and the peoples must take ownership of their own destiny.
Conclusion: A Call to the Peoples of Europe
In light of the data and analyses presented throughout this article, it is clear that the primary function of NATO today has ceased to be that of a security alliance and has become the global marketplace of the American arms industry. Europe’s political elites, indebted to Washington’s support for their power, continuously market an exaggerated Russian threat narrative to their people and, based on this climate of fear, push defense budgets to astronomical levels. The Ukraine war has been the most destructive manifestation of this mechanism; at every stage of the war, the greatest profits have been reaped by American arms monopolies.
The peoples of Europe must awaken against this order of plunder. They must see that every euro allocated to arms is stolen from their own social security, health services, and their children’s future. They must grasp that enmity with Russia provides no strategic benefit to Europe; on the contrary, it drags the continent into economic crisis, energy dependency, and social turmoil. The sole winner of this process is the arms barons across the Atlantic.
The peoples of Europe deserve the following call as the final word of this article: Wake up and put a stop to this order of plunder. Rescue your own security, your own prosperity, and your own future from the Atlantic elites who deceive you. Not enmity with Russia, but dialogue and cooperation; not an arms race, but social welfare and peaceful coexistence. This is Europe’s true interest.
References
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 77-89. Sachs, J. D. (2023). “The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters”. The Nation, March 2023. Stiglitz, J. E., & Bilmes, L. J. (2008). The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. W.W. Norton. SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). (2025). Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2024. SIPRI Fact Sheet. Kennedy, P. (1987). The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Random House.
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.
In light of retired Colonel Professor Dr. Süleyman Çelik’s testimony titled “Two NATO Memories” and the events that transpired at the 2026 Ankara NATO Summit, this article examines the tension between the legal framework of NATO’s Article 5 and its political implementation. While Article 5 establishes the alliance’s foundational principle of “one for all, all for one” collective defense, its activation is contingent upon consensus and political will. It is argued that Israel and the Greek Cypriot Administration, not being formal members, cannot legally benefit from this article, and that even strategic members like Turkey lack an automatic military intervention guarantee in the event of a material attack. The fragility of NATO’s “security guarantee” discourse against the alliance’s operational flexibility and the interest calculations of member states is revealed.
The Picture Reflected from the Summit and a Historical Testimony
NATO’s 36th Summit was concluded in Ankara with the alliance’s solidarity rhetoric. The final declaration emphasized “unwavering commitment” to the Washington Treaty’s Article 5 and the transatlantic bond, announced that defense expenditures had reached approximately 4 percent of gross domestic product, and stated that new defense procurement agreements exceeding 50 billion dollars had been signed among allies.
However, the most striking moment of the summit occurred during NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s interview with Sky News Arabia. Rutte avoided giving a direct answer to the question of whether Article 5 would be activated in a potential Turkey Israel conflict, instead evading the question by stating that President Erdoğan was a “wise leader” and that Turkey would “avoid entering a situation that would get out of control.” This evasive response constitutes a critical finding confirming that Article 5 is a political decision making process rather than a legal automatism.
This current development must be read together with Çelik’s memory from 1972 in Erzincan. Çelik, then a first lieutenant, was silenced by the colonel next to him and told that this situation was a “NATO secret” when he asked “Is Israel a NATO country?” in response to a scenario implying Israel was under protection during a NATO exercise. Çelik’s visa issue at the Canadian border in 1987 also reveals a similar picture: despite his NATO Travel Order document, Canadian police did not allow him to cross due to Turkey being newly added to the visa list, though the issue was resolved with a 48 hour emergency visa provision. These two events, one historical and one current, lay bare NATO’s dilemma particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East: while the alliance engages in strategic planning for non member actors, it remains ambiguous about how it will fulfill its collective defense commitment to its own members.
Legal Framework and Limitations of Article 5
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty constitutes the legal foundation of NATO’s collective defense principle. According to the article’s text, an armed attack against one or more member countries in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all members. In this case, each member, exercising the right of self defense recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter, has agreed that they will assist the Party or Parties so attacked.
However, the most critical phrase in the article’s wording contains ambiguity regarding how assistance will be provided: “such action as it deems necessary.” This expression envisions that assistance could be military, political, diplomatic, or logistical in nature. Article 5 grants member states broad discretion in how they will assist an attacked ally.
For Article 5 to be activated, two fundamental conditions must be met. The first is that the attack must be a direct and serious attack on NATO territory, military forces, vessels, or aircraft. The second is that the North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s highest decision making body, must decide by consensus whether the attack falls within the scope of Article 5. This consensus requirement transforms the implementation of Article 5 into a political process and can prevent its activation due to a member’s veto or abstention.
Historically, Article 5 has been invoked only once, following the September 11, 2001 attacks, in favor of the United States. In other crises, particularly in response to Turkey’s requests, the consultation mechanism under Article 4 has been preferred. This demonstrates that the implementation of Article 5 depends on political will and that military intervention is not the alliance’s primary preference.
Israel, the Greek Cypriot Administration, and Article 5: Actors Outside Legal Scope
For the article to be applicable, the attacked party must be a NATO member, and the attack must be directed at NATO territory in Europe or North America. This legal boundary makes it clear that actors such as Israel and the Greek Cypriot Administration, even if they have close cooperation with NATO, cannot benefit from the protection provided by Article 5.
However, a striking contradiction emerges here. The “NATO secret” Çelik encountered in the 1972 exercise indicates that Israel is de facto under protection. Although NATO does not provide any guarantee to Israel in formal treaty texts, in operational planning and strategic scenarios, Israel is treated as being under the alliance’s protective umbrella. This demonstrates how the legal text of Article 5 can be suspended or expanded in practice through political preferences.
Exercise scenarios may include allied interests and strategic planning, but they do not create a binding defense obligation. This situation lays bare the gap between NATO’s operational planning and its legal obligations. Law becomes “cuckoo” in the face of political needs; treaty texts are flexibly interpreted in line with the alliance’s strategic interests.
The same situation applies to the Greek Cypriot Administration. Although not a NATO member, it is placed under de facto protection in line with the alliance’s strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and benefits from an unnamed security guarantee. This is another example of how the legal text of Article 5 is circumvented by the alliance’s political preferences.
Rutte’s Response: Article 5 Surrendered to Politics
Rutte’s dismissal of the question posed in Ankara with the response “Erdoğan is a wise leader” is the clearest confirmation that Article 5 is a political tool rather than a legal guarantee. For NATO to be activated in an incident, the attacked country must be a member and the attack must be evaluated within the scope of the treaty; otherwise, Article 5 does not “work.”
Rutte’s approach demonstrates that even the alliance’s most fundamental security promise is shaped not by mutual trust among member states but by the current political conjuncture and the interests of major powers. A concrete threat to an ally’s security can be dismissed with “wisdom” rhetoric rather than direct military intervention.
So how would NATO respond in the event of an attack on Israel or the Greek Cypriot Administration? Rutte’s failure to answer this question suggests that de facto protection for these countries would also be activated with the same political flexibility, that is, to the extent that it serves the alliance’s interests. While Article 5 does not even function automatically for allies, the de facto protection provided to non members is entirely a product of political preference. Law remains secondary in the face of this preference.
The “23 Cent Soldier” Syndrome: Historical Background
When describing his visa experience at the US Canada border, Çelik notes that this situation reminded him of the “23 cent soldier” story. This story points to Turkey’s admission process to NATO and the alliance’s tendency to view Turkey as a strategic “sacrificial pawn.” According to Çelik’s account, the fact that the Turkish soldier, who saved Americans surrounded by the Chinese at Kunuri during the Korean War by sacrificing 745 martyrs, cost only 23 cents compared to an American soldier was one of the fundamental reasons for Turkey’s admission to NATO in 1952. Soros’s later statement that “your best export product is your military” also confirms this reality.
Çelik emphasizes that this historical background fuels distrust toward current relations by stating: “We were supposedly allies, supposedly brothers in arms. But they don’t even let you into their countries. This meant that we are truly just a sacrificial pawn or bodyguard for NATO countries.”
This historical perspective explains the double standard in the functioning of Article 5. While NATO uses Turkey for its own interests, it does not show the same sensitivity to Turkey’s security concerns. Yet the same alliance, due to its strategic interests, provides de facto protection to non member actors such as Israel or the Greek Cypriot Administration, effectively treating them as “secret members.”
Conclusion: The Gulf Between Security Rhetoric and Reality
NATO’s Article 5, while legally a foundational and binding principle, remains in practice overshadowed by political will, consensus, and great power dynamics. The 2026 Ankara Summit and Rutte’s evasive response have definitively demonstrated that this article is not an “automatic military intervention” guarantee, but rather a product of intra alliance political negotiation and interest calculations.
More significantly, Çelik’s memories reveal that NATO experiences a serious contradiction between its legal texts and de facto implementation. Although Article 5 formally only guarantees members, actors such as Israel and the Greek Cypriot Administration benefit from an unnamed protection in line with the alliance’s strategic preferences. This demonstrates that law is sacrificed to politics, and treaty texts to current interest calculations.
Çelik’s 1972 memory shows that although Israel was included in NATO planning, it was legally outside the scope of Article 5; the 1987 Niagara border incident strikingly reveals how even a NATO ally can be treated as “second class” in alliance countries. Çelik’s conclusion from these memories is clear: “We should never forget that we are ’23 cent soldiers’ and never be fooled by rhetoric!”
This political game conducted through NATO’s Article 5 demonstrates how flexible and functional legal texts can be rendered. While the alliance provides security guarantees to non member actors in line with its strategic interests, it can dismiss the security concerns of member countries like Turkey with political courtesy rhetoric.
For Turkey, this situation is a warning that must be heeded. Despite the alliance’s “unwavering commitment” rhetoric, entrusting security solely to the NATO umbrella constitutes a strategic risk. Given the conflict potential in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, the activation of Article 5 is not guaranteed even for member countries, let alone non member actors, particularly for “peripheral” countries like Turkey.
Turkey must strengthen its national power and regional alliances within the framework of Atatürk’s principle of “Peace at Home, Peace in the World,” and define its position within NATO not as an open “ally” but as an actor maintaining the flexibility required by its interests. While NATO’s Article 5 offers a strong guarantee in text, political reality has shown that it will only function when aligned with the alliance’s common interests. In this system where law has become “cuckoo” and political preferences are determinative, Turkey’s most solid guarantee must be its own national power.
References
Çelik, Süleyman. “Two NATO Memories.” Azim ve Karar, July 10, 2026.
Çelik, Süleyman. “NATO: Are We Allies or Sacrificial Pawns?” Google Groups, May 17, 2019.
“Decisions Taken at the NATO Summit in Every Aspect.” Analiz Gazetesi, July 10, 2026.
Türkoğlu, Ertuğrul. “Decisions Taken at the NATO Summit in Every Aspect.” Analiz Gazetesi, July 10, 2026.
“What is NATO’s Article 5 and in What Cases Does It Come into Effect?” Yeni Şafak, March 3, 2026.
Eraslan, Yeşim. “International Law Expert Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erkiner’s Comment on Trump: If America Attacks, Article 5 Does Not Apply.” Türkiye Gazetesi, March 16, 2026.
Özalp, Güven. “What is NATO’s Article 5 and When Does It Come into Effect?” BBC News Turkish, March 4, 2026.
“Analysis of NATO’s Founding Treaty Article 5 in Terms of Acts of Attack.” Journal of Diplomatic Studies, vol.2, no.2, 2020, pp.1-10. Bursa Uludağ University.
“NATO’S MOST CRITICAL ARTICLE! What is NATO’s Article 5 and What Does It Mean for Turkey?” Yeni Birlik Gazetesi, March 4, 2026.
“WHAT IS IN NATO’S ARTICLE 5! What Happens If It Is Activated, Does It Mean Military Intervention?” Yeni Birlik Gazetesi, March 4, 2026.
“WHAT IS NATO’S ARTICLE 5! Will Support Be Given If Turkey Is Attacked?” Yeni Birlik Gazetesi, March 5, 2026.
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.
NATO’s Ankara Summit Declaration dated 8 July 2026 is a contemporary manifestation of the alliance’s aggressive expansionist policies concealed behind a mask of “defence”. Beginning with the rhetoric of “peace, security and prosperity for one billion citizens”, the text displays the fossilised reflexes of the Cold War mentality from its very first sentences. This declaration is not a roadmap to peace; it is a manifesto of provocation and war, drafted for Washington’s geopolitical interests and dragging its allies in its wake.
The essence of the declaration codes Russia as a “long term threat to Euro Atlantic security”, Iran as a nuclear enigma and China as the demon of “strategic competition” between the lines. This approach, as Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova has frequently emphasised, once again confirms the fact that “NATO’s fundamental function has ceased to be a defensive alliance and has become an instrument serving the United States’ global gendarmerie”. In a statement following a similar NATO meeting in 2025, Zakharova noted that the alliance “conceals its existential crisis by fabricating imaginary threats” (TASS, 2025). The Ankara Declaration is the zenith of these imaginary threats.
While the text speaks of “Ukraine’s freedom and sovereignty”, it sanctifies the flow of 70 billion euros in military aid to the Kiev regime. As the Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly underlined, “the security of one country cannot be established at the expense of the insecurity of another” and such colossal arms stockpiling merely prolongs the conflict and amounts to “adding fuel to the fire” (Global Times, 2026 editorial). By stating that “European allies and Canada now finance the bulk of the burden”, the declaration proudly proclaims how Europe has been financially imprisoned in Washington’s geostrategic games. This is not the confession of a sovereign Europe but of a continent governed from across the Atlantic.
The hypocritical stance of calling on Iran to respect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz while ignoring the same Western alliance’s massive military build up in the Persian Gulf draws the ire of the Tehran administration. The Iranian Foreign Ministry characterises such declarations as “unjust interference in the internal affairs of regional countries” while emphasising that Iran’s defence doctrine contributes to regional stability (IRNA, 2026). The nuclear weapons accusation, moreover, is nothing but the hypocrisy of nuclear powers modernising their own arsenals.
The most tragic dimension of the declaration, however, concerns Türkiye. Türkiye, whose geopolitical codes are rooted in balance, peace with neighbours and the principle of “Peace at Home, Peace in the World”, hosting and signing this provocative text is a strategic folly. As former Foreign Minister Yaşar Yakış stated in an interview, “Türkiye’s presence within NATO should serve as a balancing element in its relations with the West; however, becoming the mouthpiece of the alliance’s aggressive policies targeting Russia and China deals a blow to Ankara’s multidimensional foreign policy and its regional mediation role” (Foreign Policy Institute Analysis, 2025). While the ruling power claims to stand “by the side of the US”, it draws reactions from a broad spectrum, from Russia to Iran and from China to regional actors, placing itself unnecessarily on a target board. This posture is a surrender that denies Türkiye’s Asian and European identity and weakens its claim to be a regional power.
The lesson Europe must draw from this declaration is clear: in the emerging multipolar world order where the US is the losing party, remaining captive to Washington’s provocative axis risks Europe’s very existence. Europe must construct a new security and economic architecture based on equality, balance and mutual benefit with Russia, China, Iran, India and the Global South. Otherwise, NATO’s “defence” shield will continue to serve not as a shield of peace for the peoples of Europe but as a lightning rod for new wars. While the world has long understood that the Cold War is over, seeing NATO in 2026 still mired in an impotence that invents imaginary enemies may bring about the end not of the alliance, but of peace.
Sources and Perspectives
Russian Perspective: Zakharova, M. (2025). Russian Foreign Ministry Weekly Press Briefing. TASS News Agency. (Official criticisms of NATO’s expansionist and threatening rhetoric). Lavrov, S. (2025). Assessments on Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept and European Security. Russia in Global Affairs Journal. (Emphasis on multipolarity and equal security).
Chinese Perspective: Global Times. (2026, February). NATO’s Cold War Mentality is the Real Threat to Global Peace (Editorial). (Discourse asserting that the alliance’s mentality poses a threat to global peace and opposing bloc formation). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2026). Regular Press Conference Transcripts. (Official statements on the indivisibility of national security and the diplomatic resolution of conflicts).
Iranian Perspective: Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). (2026). Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Reaction to the NATO Declaration. (Official condemnation text addressing regional intervention and the nuclear double standard). Seyed Muhammed Marandi. (2025). The West’s Hormuz and Nuclear Deal Dilemma. Tehran Times. (Analytical article).
Turkish Perspective (Alternative and Critical Balance): Yakış, Y. (2025). The Place of NATO in Türkiye’s Multidimensional Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Institute Analysis Report. (Strategic assessment arguing that Türkiye’s position within NATO should be balanced). Past analyses from retired ambassadors and academics (e.g. in the archives of İlter Türkmen and Şükrü Elekdağ) regarding the criticism of being “stuck on the Western axis” in Turkish foreign policy.
Multipolarity and Global South Perspective: BRICS+ Research Group. (2026). Debates on the European Security Architecture in the Post NATO Era. Valdai Discussion Club Publications. (Multilateral report on Europe’s strategic autonomy and the future of its relations with Russia, China and India).
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.
Following the end of the Cold War, the world was presented with the promise of a safer, more stable, and more just international order. Yet the picture that emerges today is the exact opposite. Wars are multiplying, diplomacy is weakening, budgets allocated to the arms race are breaking records, and millions of people are paying the price for the geopolitical calculations of great powers.
Among those primarily responsible for this picture, the political and economic elites of the US and Western NATO countries, who define themselves as the “guardians of the rules-based order,” hold a prominent place.
For decades, the Western ruling class has used the discourse of democracy, human rights, and international law as a strategic tool for foreign policy rather than a moral principle. The same action is labeled “legitimate self-defense” when carried out by an ally, but a “grave violation of international law” when carried out by a rival. This double standard erodes the West’s claim to moral superiority with each passing day.
Although NATO initially maintains that it was founded for defensive purposes, over the last thirty years it has built an extensive operational history ranging from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan, and from Libya to military interventions in various geographies. This process has strengthened the perception in a significant part of the world that NATO is not merely a defensive alliance.
The security concept being imposed on European publics today is increasingly based on producing more weapons, making higher military expenditures, and channeling societies’ economic resources into the defense industry. Health, education, the social state, and productive investments are being pushed to the background, while the politics of fear is being turned into the primary tool for shaping public opinion.
While Europe is expected to shoulder an ever-greater military burden in the US’s global strategy, the cost is being placed on European taxpayers. As energy crises, high inflation, loss of competitiveness in industry, and social unrest grow, the profits of the defense industry and large investment funds are rising. This situation inevitably raises the question of who benefits from the war economy.
One of the greatest delusions of Western elites is thinking that military superiority translates into political superiority. Yet history has repeatedly shown the opposite. The experiences of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have revealed that even the world’s most powerful armies may fail to achieve their political objectives. Despite this, the same mindset continues to prioritize military solutions in new crises.
Even more alarming is the gradual normalization of tension between nuclear powers. As the language of diplomacy weakens, the language of threat grows stronger; sanctions are favored over negotiation, and military deterrence over compromise. Such an approach increases the risk of miscalculation and produces a security dilemma that could confront humanity with irreversible consequences.
While Western political elites constantly present the public with the rhetoric of “defending the free world,” they also face serious tests within their own societies regarding freedom of expression, media pluralism, and tolerance for dissenting views. Expanding surveillance mechanisms on security grounds, emergency powers, and increasing censorship debates during times of war raise the question of to what extent liberal democracies are consistent with their own principles.
True security cannot be achieved through an endless arms race, but through robust diplomacy, mutual confidence building, economic cooperation, and the equal application of international law for all. The presentation of their own interests as universal values by great powers only produces new polarizations and new conflicts.
History has rarely vindicated warmongers. Intoxicated by power, arrogance, and geopolitical calculations, political elites who risk the future of societies are sacrificing long-term global stability for short-term strategic gains. The price, however, is not paid by politicians or big capital circles; it is paid by the young sent to the front lines, citizens whose taxes rise, families driven into poverty, and societies devastated by wars.
The world must pursue not new bloc formations and endless proxy wars, but courageous diplomacy, mutual respect, and the truly universal application of international law. Otherwise, while the elites managing power politics believe they control the course of history, they will ultimately be forced to confront the consequences of the instability they themselves have built.
References
Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books.
Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. Metropolitan Books.
Engdahl, F. W. (2004). A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. Pluto Press.
Hudson, M. (2022). The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism or Socialism. CounterPunch Books.
International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2025). The Military Balance 2025. Routledge.
Kiel Institute for the World Economy. (2025). Ukraine Support Tracker. Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault. Foreign Affairs, 93(5), 77–89.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2025). NATO Summit Declaration. Brussels.
Roberts, P. C. (2016). The Neoconservative Threat to World Order. Clarity Press.
Sachs, J. D. (2023). The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order. Consortium of Universities Lectures.
SIPRI. (2025). SIPRI Yearbook 2025: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.
United Nations General Assembly. (various years). Resolutions concerning the situation in Ukraine.
Varoufakis, Y. (2023). Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. Bodley Head.
Walt, S. M. (2018). The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Wolff, R. D. (2023). Understanding Capitalism. Democracy at Work.
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.
