Today’s international relations are undergoing a “transition period” in which existing power balances are being reshaped. During this process, new global powers are emerging and uncertainties are increasing. Consequently, in the global and regional distribution of power, so to speak, “the pieces have not yet fallen into place.”
During the Cold War, the “deterrence” provided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ensured “high security guarantees at low cost” for European countries. However, the rapid rise of China in particular, along with the emergence of countries such as India, Türkiye, Brazil, and Russia as medium-sized regional powers, has led to the weakening of the United States (U.S.) in the face of both Russia and China. This situation has heralded the end of NATO’s former deterrence.
Global warming, climate change, migration, food security, cyberattacks, energy security, the arms race, and gender-neutralization projects pose an ever-greater threat to global security with each passing day. Regional and global conflicts over trade corridors, energy reserves, and logistics hubs will bring about profound and radical changes and transformations in the coming years. These potential radical changes and transformations include:
- The collapse of the United States and its potential division into 50 states,
- NATO could disintegrate,
- The European Union (EU) could disintegrate,
- The global economic crisis will escalate rapidly and will be very difficult to overcome,
- Russia, with a land area of approximately 17 million square kilometers, a population of 140 million, and a significant portion of its population being Turkish and Muslim, could disintegrate,
- The United States and China, falling into the Thucydides Trap, may go to war with each other,
- Following a potential war between China and the United States, as the parties will weaken each other’s power, a new power could emerge and rise from the fray,
- Terrorism and terrorist movements will spread worldwide,
- The risk of nuclear war will increase,
- A new ideology may emerge,
- New technologies that will completely transform human life may emerge,
- A new energy source that could replace oil and natural gas may be discovered.
Global Security Risks and Shifting Balances
NATO members find themselves caught between the “familiar comforts” of the Cold War era and the “rising security risks” of today. With the exception of Türkiye, all NATO countries, particularly EU members, enjoyed a “luxurious lifestyle with low defense spending” during the Cold War. Security risks are growing even further in the face of the increasing threat from Russia and China’s rising power within the international system. To address these risks, NATO members must increase their defense spending and tighten their belts. This situation is causing significant backlash and unease, particularly among the public in EU member states.
There is a great deal of mistrust among NATO members regarding the sharing of the financial burden. Although members are being asked to increase their contributions by 5%, the following questions remain on their minds:
- Will security be ensured simply by providing funds?
- Will the funds collected actually be spent on defense?
- Or, as in the past, will a large portion of these resources be used unilaterally for the U.S. defense industry?
During the Cold War, NATO members were able to secure high levels of security at low cost. Today, however, it is not possible to obtain a definitive security guarantee even with high levels of spending. Furthermore, Donald Trump’s remarks about wanting to annex Greenland and Canada to U.S. territory are creating serious mistrust among all NATO members.
Conflicting Interests Within NATO
There are many unresolved issues within NATO. Chief among these is whether the U.S. truly intends to provide security guarantees to Europe. Looking at the Russia-Ukraine War, Ukraine’s plight is clear. Moreover, the fact that the United States, a NATO member, wishes to occupy Greenland, which belongs to another member, Denmark, or views Canada as its 51st state, contradicts the spirit of the alliance. The foundation of the NATO Alliance’s institutional identity and collective defense philosophy is the principle enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, to put it simply, “one for all, all for one.”
The United States’ fundamental demand of NATO is to contain a rising China and to direct all its power toward this region. The recent memorandum of understanding signed between the U.S. and Iran, despite Israel’s objections, is noteworthy. This move indicates that the U.S. has not only abandoned the defense of Europe but has also pushed the priority of protecting Israel to the background. Washington wants to see NATO by its side against Beijing. In contrast, the EU and the UK demand that the alliance focus entirely on Russia. Looking at the situation in Ukraine, EU countries believe that NATO will not defend them adequately against Russia.
Türkiye’s expectations of NATO, however, are very different. Ankara is seeking the alliance’s support against the expansionist policies of France, Israel, Greece, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, and India in the Eastern Mediterranean.
However, the situation is quite complex. When Trump visited China on May 14–15, 2026, he left “defeated” because it became clear that the U.S. was a “paper tiger” in the face of Iran. Similarly, Trump will arrive at the NATO Summit in Ankara on July 7–8, 2026, as a politically weakened and defeated leader.
Threats in the Eastern Mediterranean and Türkiye’s Position
The spirit of solidarity within the NATO Alliance has been seriously undermined. France, a NATO member, is establishing a military base in the Greek Cypriot Administration against Türkiye, another member. France and Greece, both NATO members, are attempting to form a military bloc in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea alongside Israel, the Greek Cypriot Administration, and India, none of which are NATO members, against Türkiye, a NATO member.
Furthermore, NATO members have failed to support Türkiye against terrorist attacks by the PKK, PYD, and YPG; on the contrary, many members have backed these terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, Greece continues to rapidly militarize the Aegean Sea, which is supposed to be demilitarized under the terms of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne and the 1947 Treaty of Paris.
Today, the Republic of Cyprus hosts military bases belonging to the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and France. Consequently, Türkiye faces increasingly profound security risks in the Eastern Mediterranean with each passing day. This situation not only threatens the security of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) but also directly undermines Türkiye’s rights to its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the Eastern Mediterranean. In short, the moves by NATO members France and Greece against Türkiye contradict the spirit of solidarity within NATO. This contradiction is weakening NATO day by day.
