The 36th NATO summit, scheduled for July 7-8 in Ankara, may turn out to be "the last major summit" given the large-scale upheavals in the global power spheres.
Because the world is facing realities that are different in the map of forces of tomorrow. There is growing uncertainty about which country will partner with whom in the future, and these are steps that add fuel to the fire of conclusions that "the Ankara summit will be the last NATO summit". Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, says it openly at the "Global Security and NATO" conference in Istanbul, held on the eve of the Ankara summit on July 7-8. There, NATO's collective will gather to discuss the way forward for an organization that has "lost its legitimacy with the collapse of the USSR and can only justify its existence by reviving the Russian threat through a proxy war with Ukraine, provoking Moscow", says Scott Ritter.
According to him, Europe is behaving like a "rabid dog" and Putin has no choice "but to shoot the European dog". It is difficult to accept the truth that a Russian victory over Ukraine is "inevitable" and any attempt to escalate this conflict will lead to a direct confrontation with Moscow. And it is not certain whether NATO will win. In the event of a nuclear strike, of course. Although tactically, whatever that means. It is more likely to come to a nuclear conflict. This is, in plain language, "a dangerous game of Russian roulette". It means that "the weapon is loaded, and the result is predetermined". Ominous, isn't it? But this is being said at a conference in Istanbul. Where they adopted a declaration claiming that Macron's statement that "NATO is brain dead" and Trump's statement that "NATO is a paper tiger" confirm findings of "deep crisis and turmoil in the Atlantic system". The world is more uncertain because in the "new multipolar world order, the US attempt to control member states through NATO is no longer sustainable".
Therefore, the participants from the US, Germany, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, China, Iran, Italy, Russia, Serbia and Turkey have concluded that it would not be a surprise for the Ankara summit to be the last NATO summit. They stressed that Iran's cooperation with Russia and China has played a significant role in achieving "victory in its resistance to the US-Israeli attack". Then it is emphasized that the axis formed by Turkey, Russia, Iran and China will serve as "the basis for the formation of other regional cooperation". And the collapse within the Atlantic system is accompanied by processes of moral decline, while humanity yearns for a new civilization. It should not be a repetition of the Atlantic system. They definitely discussed not how strong NATO is, but how long it will last. Because the anti-NATO marches in Ankara also give grounds for such conclusions.
And yet, what are the important points that will be discussed in Ankara on July 7-8? They say there were 4 in number. First, to show friends and enemies that the Alliance has not collapsed and that US-European relations have not deteriorated to the point of assuming that security is affected.
Second - to emphasize that Europe's commitments to achieving the defense spending target agreed in The Hague in 2025 will remain the same.
Third - assistance will be provided to Ukraine in the future and that the eastern flank of the Alliance will be strengthened. Fourth - the southern flank is not left alone.
The US is demonstrating a generous political stance in support of Ukraine, but there is also a difference in approach between America and European countries such as Germany, France and Poland regarding support for Kiev. The US confirmed at the G-7 meeting in Evian that its support for Ukraine is beyond doubt, but it is not clear whether the hidden goal is not to distance Moscow from Beijing and therefore return to an understanding with Russia.
And will support for Turkey as NATO's fulcrum on the southern flank not crack if some allies are not tempted again to support the PKK or other groups in accordance with their own interests and expectations. It means always having one thing in mind.
It is striking that analyses in the Western press are increasing about a state of panic and extreme mobility of countries in Europe /and not only!/, which gives rise to fears of a great storm and entry into new searches that will "reject all their sacred values".
In Ankara, they even write that "the geographical map of Turkey and the geographical map of NATO no longer overlap". The very reason for NATO's existence is being debated. But the NATO summit is being given great importance and a near-state of emergency has been declared in Ankara. The meeting is expected to become a turning point in history. It is a meeting that Trump agreed to attend "only because of Erdogan". In fact, how much NATO will be in Turkey's defense aspirations? Especially since it is claimed that from South Asia to East Africa, Turkey is the largest military power and provider of defense resources in the region. Will there be an echo of "Turkey's return to the stage as a major player?" Who will Turkey do business with - the US, NATO or Europe?
There is also the question of whether a new security zone for European defense will be established outside of NATO and will Israel have a role there? Will ties with Europe be built on bilateral relations? Will the Alliance demonstrate in Ankara a force "that projects global security"? Because the Alliance is the only such structure in the world. The only supranational institution of the Western order after World War II and still exists. While Turkey lives with the thought that the Alliance has always perceived it as a "mercenary". NATO has never helped Ankara in its battles with terrorist organizations, it has never stood by it, they say in Ankara. Even at this stage, when Israel openly says that "it will attack Turkey", that "Ankara is next" there is no reaction from the Alliance.
But it is known that they are counting on Turkish soldiers, "who will fight for the interests of the United States and NATO". Some in Turkey complain that NATO members have not helped the country's defense technology or security architecture in general, but this is somewhat similar to Trump's complaints that Europe did not help him with the war against Iran. Which did not turn out to be true, according to Rutte in Washington. He gave the example of Romania, which not only allowed US military aircraft to be stationed at its civilian airport near Bucharest, but even closed the airport for days when there were US attacks on Iran and the aircraft from the airport participated.
Questions are also being asked if the US distances itself from NATO, will Turkey become a "military boss"? There is no such danger, because Washington is unlikely to ever decide to "distance itself" from the Alliance. It is a proven mechanism for influence, pressure and the ability to impose "policy through force". Such are the times. You pay and you lead the dance. However, Europe is looking for Ankara mostly for its support against the "Russian threat".
They do not accept it as an EU member, but they are looking for its role as a military force for the security of Europe. That Europe that is divided between German-French continental politics, Anglo-Saxon Europe and Southern European, led by Italy and Spain. Not to mention Magyar's ideas for reviving the Visegrad Four, but expanded with Austria, Croatia and Slovenia. Maybe with Germany too, so that there are no problems with the Western European EU members. For Turkey, it is important whether there will be NATO support if, God forbid, a conflict breaks out in the Aegean Sea. It wants NATO to be the banana-shaped stabilizing factor and will definitely keep an eye on the reactions. "Trust no one" is in fashion today.
That is why they say that the future of the Alliance is full of great trials. If a conflict breaks out in the Eastern Mediterranean, how will NATO behave? How will NATO react to the ideas launched for a regional partnership between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan? Or will it support Greece and Cyprus? And if England tries to drag Ankara into a war with Russia? Just variants with assumptions, but this is a sign that the disagreements are visible. Turkey has a position that it cannot be a country limited by the EU or NATO.
Is it? But this shows that Turkey's global and regional accounts and its NATO membership no longer fully coincide. The alliance limited Ankara. But this is not news. They have simply always perceived Turkey there as a "frontline country". And Ankara says that it will support Europe, but "it will not be a mercenary". Does this mean that NATO will become a victim of fragmentation in Europe? Will EU members seek different security agreements outside the Alliance's umbrella? Or will they look at their national policies? And what if some prefer to normalize relations with Russia? As they say - everyone with their own interests and their own searches. With their own views on a security shield. Mistrust is growing. Without thinking about leaving NATO. This also applies to Turkey. Although it refuses to get involved in crises with Russia's security.
In fact, the relevant calculations will now be made. To clarify whether the traditional military alliance NATO corresponds to the new global mathematics of forces. The US takes this into account and therefore takes various steps. It is possible that Ankara will continue priority military relations with the US, and not with NATO, but this is after precise calculations. They say that this was a model of a "patron state". It could also change history. Because we live in an era in which everyone who speaks with old truths loses. The conclusion is to "move forward with new sentences". To be continued.