Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol: NATO Will Persist; The Debate Concerns “HOW” and “WHOSE NATO” It Shall Be
The inquiries regarding the global security architecture, precipitated by the war in Ukraine, are being scrutinized more rigorously within the framework of recent geopolitical shifts, leading to observable strategic maneuvers. The crises between NATO and the US, as well as between the EU and the US, are intensifying. Is the potential disintegration or structural alteration of NATO—as posited by various international media outlets and experts—truly a possibility?
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin Erol, President of the Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Research (ANKASAM), shared his insights with Oxu.Az on the matter:
The global security architecture is undergoing significant debate due to the war in Ukraine. How should we interpret this process?
First and foremost, it must be underscored that the conflict between Ukraine and Russia—compounded by the US/Israel-Iran tensions since 2025—is not merely a regional confrontation. Rather, it represents a fundamental questioning of the post-Cold War order and characterizes the very essence of a new nascent era. In this transition, NATO, like many post-Cold War institutions, is being compelled to redefine its position, particularly regarding the Transatlantic relationship and rising global powers. We are moving toward a more fragmented, multi-layered security architecture characterized by heightened competition. Energy security, supply chain resilience, and technological rivalry have become indispensable components of this new security paradigm. Furthermore, economic sanctions and financial instruments have shifted to the center of security policy alongside military deterrence. Inter-state competition is assuming a more ambiguous and perpetual character through hybrid warfare methods. Consequently, the definition and framework of international relations are being restructured based on alliance dynamics. To put it bluntly, international relations have devolved into “volatile engagements on slippery ground.” NATO is not immune to this trend.
In this restructuring process, toward what kind of future is NATO drifting? Is disintegration or weakening a viable outcome?
The current outlook is not particularly optimistic, especially considering the developments during Trump’s second term. Conversely, it would be overly ambitious to claim that NATO will dissolve or be abolished overnight. The conditions of the Warsaw Pact or the nature of USSR-Eastern Bloc relations do not apply here. Therefore, the disintegration of NATO is unlikely in the short-to-medium term. On the contrary, there is a trend toward expansion, as evidenced by Finland and Sweden, with the potential addition of several states within the former Soviet sphere. However, this does not imply an absence of internal divergence. The US pivot toward the Asia-Pacific is accelerating debates on “strategic autonomy” within Europe. In essence, NATO is undergoing a transformation rather than a dissolution. Intra-alliance cohesion will continue to be tested by differing threat priorities and defense spending. Additionally, shifts in political leadership and public pressure intermittently induce fluctuations in NATO’s decision-making processes. The “Russia Problem” (Ukraine War), the “Iran Problem” (US/Israel-Iran tensions), and the “China Factor” have brought NATO to the forefront of Western discourse. Thus, the “NATO Question” can be interpreted as a broader “Western Question.” The future of the latter will largely dictate the trajectory of the former. Current debates signify the labor pains of a structural transformation rather than a mere procedural change.
What do you mean by this transformation?
I am referring to a more flexible, modular NATO structure. The United States is trending toward establishing smaller, agile, and regional alliances rather than relying solely on the classical grand alliance. While the US seeks to utilize NATO in the Asia-Pacific, this remains a significant challenge. Having struggled to utilize NATO effectively in the Middle East, it is unlikely that the US can do so in more distant geographies. Consequently, the US is pursuing new frameworks, such as AUKUS, which leverage NATO’s capabilities while operating outside its formal bureaucracy. Such “mini-NATOs” reduce costs, increase operational efficiency, and grant the US greater independence from European allies. These “coalitions of the willing” mitigate bureaucratic delays and foster more agile politico-military coordination. This model allows NATO to maintain its institutional gravity while fostering a security architecture capable of more dynamic responses. Furthermore, we observe the construction of new “axes” within Europe that are integrated with NATO, such as the Polish axis. Thus, there is a clear divergence between the US and Europe regarding “what kind of NATO” should exist and “whose NATO” it is—a rift that has become more pronounced with the recent conflicts.
Where do countries that cannot achieve NATO membership stand in this equation?
For countries not admitted to NATO—often due to Russian sensitivities—new pathways are emerging. Indirect integration into NATO is becoming possible through regional alliances, bilateral defense agreements, and partnership programs. This gives rise to a process we call “shadow expansion.” These states integrate into a de facto security ecosystem by aligning their military standards with NATO. This allows the alliance to manage tensions and limit the risk of direct confrontation with Russia while avoiding formal enlargement.
The NATO debate intensified during the Trump eras. What is the fundamental issue between Trump and NATO?
While Donald Trump’s rhetoric often appears radical, his practice reveals a more calculated strategy. It is not rational for the US to completely dismantle NATO; the network of allies is the greatest asset the US holds against China and Russia. A US that loses Europe would be significantly weakened in the global power struggle. Trump’s approach is primarily about “burden sharing.” The objective is to compel Europe to increase defense spending and rearm, thereby increasing their dependence on the US defense industry—an effort that has seen partial success. In this sense, NATO has been used as a bargaining chip not only against Russia but also against Europe. This structural trend is likely to persist in various forms within US foreign policy, driven by domestic political dynamics and budgetary pressures.
Where will the tension between Europe and the US evolve?
France remains a staunch advocate for “strategic autonomy,” while Germany maintains a more balanced stance. This suggests a rebalancing of relations rather than a rupture. Efforts to strengthen the European defense industry may, in the long term, create a more egalitarian Transatlantic balance. However, energy policies, trade competition, and technological regulations remain points of friction. The US expectation for Europe to align more clearly against China could deepen divisions within the EU. Furthermore, debates over digital sovereignty, data security, and AI regulation will continue to generate new areas of negotiation and occasional tension.
Why is the NATO Summit in Ankara significant?
The summit in Ankara holds historical importance as a platform where this transformation will materialize. Given current developments, it will not be an easy summit. However, it is vital both for the future of the alliance and for navigating the uncertainties of global crises. We must consider how secure a world without NATO would be, as issues like hybrid warfare, cyber security, and energy supply come to the fore. Allied nations will likely arrive at the Ankara Summit with this realization. The relationship between “mini-alliances” and NATO, along with new balances in the Middle East, will be on the agenda. The summit could serve as a critical turning point for updating the alliance’s strategic concept, overcoming trust deficits among members, and redefining collective threat perceptions.
What can you say about Türkiye’s role in this process?
Türkiye is undoubtedly a pivotal actor in this new era. As both a NATO member and a regional power, it plays a balancing role. Its mediation capacity, military prowess, and geopolitical position make Türkiye indispensable for all actors. Türkiye’s NATO membership should be viewed as an opportunity not only for member states but for other regional actors as well. The summit may produce decisions that bolster this role, particularly in energy corridors, supply chains, defense industry cooperation, and crisis management.
Finally, what kind of future does the current trajectory indicate?
The reality is that the world is moving away from a monocentric security system. It is time to discard old assumptions. The institutions, rules, and values of the Cold War era are either transforming or facing obsolescence. NATO will persist, but it will evolve. We are entering a more chaotic period of flexible alliances and great power competition. In this new order, power will be measured not just by military capacity, but by the ability to forge alliances. Diplomacy, technology, and economic resilience are becoming as decisive as military force. As global uncertainty increases, the maneuvering room for middle powers may expand, creating new regional balances of power. The struggle for control over strategic corridors and resources is becoming more distinct within the paradigms of unipolarity and multipolarity. Persistent crises necessitate a genuine, trust-based alliance structure for NATO members—a situation that is both a strategic necessity and a foundation for a “forced” unity.
