Introduction East and West Blocs reveals the capacity of
these two superpowers. In this respect, NATO,
THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM THAT as a military organization tool of the Western
emerged after the Second World War caused Bloc, has acted in this direction and become an
the world to be stuck between two poles, and in important instrument to continue its deterrence
these two poles, the dominant powers directed instead of an open challenge. However, despite
or influenced the other powers. Historian all this time, it has become questionable
A.J.P. Taylor said, “The purpose of great power whether NATO will continue to exist as a
is to be able to make great wars. But the way deterrent power instead of a fighting force as in
to remain a great power is not to enter such a the first days of its establishment. The potential
war.” This reminds us that the post-war order loss of power in the current situation, especially
is an important issue (Heilbrunn, 2018: 9). The with war and regional conflicts, has raised the
bipolar world order led by the Soviet Union issue of whether the Alliance is in a phase of
and the United States of America (US) as the disintegration and division.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, first, the The Foundation of NATO and
unipolar world dominated by the US and then the the Position of the US
multipolar new world order, which has gradually
become more prominent in the current period, After World War II, the US signed the North
perhaps gave NATO back its lost reason for existence. Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949 for the “protection of
We have seen a NATO that enlarges, transforms into Europe” and to balance the Soviet military presence.
an independent structure from thirty-one member The treaty entered into force on 24 August 1949.
states, and becomes rivals to Russia and China in Although the purpose of the Alliance is collective
different dimensions instead of the Soviets. And at the defense in the text of the treaty, it is designed as
moment, sustainability is one of the most important a complement to the Marshall Plan, which is a
issues that needs to be addressed for NATO and the product of the US’s effort to revive Europe against
states that comprise the organization. the Soviet Union (Hobsbawm, 2006:322). In this
With the impact of the Russia-Ukraine tension context, NATO took its place on the stage as an
that emerged in the first months of 2022, a war actor in the play, whose script was written by the
environment is being experienced in a part of the US.
international system. For NATO, the former “enemy” The US, which took the place of England after
superpower is at war, which is being waged against a World War II, has taken the strategic idea of the
country that has expressed its desire to join NATO. former hegemonic power, which is pushing the
This situation, similar to the Cold War years, caused Soviet Union back, preventing its access to the sea,
the US, the leader of the other pole, NATO under and keeping it fragmented for the continuation of
its leadership, and indirectly European countries to the hegemonic order. Therefore, after the war, it
position on the other side of the war. As a defense was decided to accept Spykman’s Rimland theory
organization, will NATO protect its allies against war first and implement Kennan’s strategy to contain
and conflict, as discussed in the 2022 concept? Or the USSR, and communism was chosen as the
will this organization, which has expanded its field ideological enemy. NATO was designed as a tool
of interest and activity with a global approach and for the implementation of such hegemonic thinking
whose goal is to expand, be dragged into new wars? (Gürdeniz, 2022Gürdeniz (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). In Spykman’s Rimland Theory,
In other words, will NATO take a positive the region extending from the east of Europe, which
role in ensuring world peace and continue its we can define as Eurasia, to Siberia and China is also
development, as it did in the Cold War era, or will defined as the Heartland, and it is stated that coastal
it begin the process of disintegration as a growing regions are the key to controlling the World-Island
and expanding organization? In this analysis, first of (Foster, 2006Foster (2006). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). The edge region, namely Eurasia,
all, the establishment of NATO and the position of includes the Heartland, and whoever controls this
the US in the organization will be briefly discussed, region will eventually control the World-Island,
and then the decision-making mechanisms of Spykman says. Whoever controls the World-Island,
the organization and its blockage points will be will soon control the world. Therefore, NATO’s
examined. Finally, the question of the future of enlargement policy can be interpreted as controlling
NATO will be discussed. the Heartland (Erenel, 2021: 11).
Rimland Theory Map. (BRIQ , 2023)
The US has always been the most important international organization, NATO has gradually
member of NATO compared to other member states. turned into a general security organization (Irondelle
In the words of Lord Ismay, NATO’s founding secretary and Lachmann, 2011; Polat, 2020:335-336).
general and military adviser to Churchill during the The fact that the US determines policies and
war, “NATO was established to keep the Americans strategies on problems and issues concerning the
inside, the Russians outside, and the Germans under entire Alliance without adequate dialogue shows
control”. Later, the purpose of its existence was lost and the organization’s founding purpose. At the NATO
became questionable (Maunders, 2016; Guérot, 2016: Summit held in London in 2019, the “plan to
55). However, this ontological wavering was short- designate the PYD/YPG as a terrorist organization”
lived. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO presented by Türkiye was not accepted, and only a
tried to transform itself rapidly, especially in the general statement was used in the summit’s final
1990s, in the face of various threats. With the historic declaration, such as “the alliance will continue to fight
decisions taken at the 1999 Washington Summit, all forms of terrorism”. Although there is discussion
the Alliance could carry out “out-of-area” military among its members, in the final declaration, in line
operations. In this direction, NATO became usable with the desire of the US, the statements of “acting
for solving crimes and problems such as weapons of together as an alliance against China” and “safe and
mass destruction, international terrorism, the drug flexible systems should be trusted in the transition
trade, racism, and human trafficking. Thus, after the to 5G technology”, again against China, indicate that
1999 Summit, the organization’s job description and decision-making mechanisms are not functioning
operation area changed, and the mission undertaken in coordination, and rhetoric and actions that
was designed in accordance with the new conditions do not take into account the interests of the US
of the period. Defined as a defense and military cannot find a place in the alliance (Alpar, 2021Alpar (2021). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.).
This shows that NATO’s concerns and interests has grown excessively while trying to adapt to
regarding other European states are kept in the environmental conditions on the one hand, grows
background behind the interests of the US. In other old on the other, and is experiencing the Behemot
words, it can be concluded that security concerns may Syndrome, which means that the speed of reaction
be valid for other states within limits set by the US. In to events decreases as a result of the overgrowth of
these examples, it’s clear that NATO’s decision-making the organizational structure, becoming unwieldy
mechanism differs in formality and operation. (Fasola and Lucarelli, 2008Fasola and Lucarelli (2008). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). 2020; Keçecioğlu,
2008:192). The most effective example of a low
NATO’s Decision-Making Mechanism reaction rate is the necessity of taking decisions
unanimously. At its establishment, the ninth
Although NATO’s decision-making mechanism article of the North Atlantic Council officially
has remained stable in its basic lines since its states that decisions are to be taken unanimously
establishment, it has undergone partial changes and that it meets regularly twice a year with
in the face of some unexpected situations. the participation of the member states’ foreign
NATO’s highest decision-making body is the ministers. While unanimity is emphasized in
North Atlantic Council, where every member of the decision-making process, open voting is not
the Alliance has one vote. Decisions in the North carried out. An agreement is reached on whether
Atlantic Council are taken unanimously, not by a there is an objection through negotiations with
majority (NATO, 2022NATO (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). Therefore, the approval the members. Negotiation and dialogue methods
and vote of all the member states are required. are used to overcome objections (Özsoy, 2022:
This situation changed due to the tension between 105).
NATO and France during the Charles de Gaulle If one of the member states uses its veto
period of France, which was called the Fifth right only for political or legal reasons, NATO’s
Republic and switched to a semi-presidential decision-making mechanism and process may
system. Charles de Gaulle, who did not want to be interrupted and blocked. For example, North
be a symbolic president, proposed a new foreign Macedonia has been waiting years to become
policy doctrine for France with the new French a member due to the Greek veto. Suppose a
regime. In this direction, he tried to put France country vetoes any NATO decision for political
in a prime position in the bipolar world in a way or private reasons. In that case, that country
that would not be too close to or engaged with can be questioned (Tarakçı, 2016:1). Because all
any pole. This has worked. Therefore, France the decisions to be taken in the North Atlantic
under Charles de Gaulle left the military wing Council must be accepted by the member
of NATO in 1966 (Vasse, 2009Vasse (2009). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). The Defense states, the council cannot pass the decision.
Planning Committee was established to handle Again, as a good example, Sweden and Finland
military issues while the North Atlantic Council quickly applied for NATO membership after
remained. After the return of France to the the Ukraine War, but Türkiye’s attitude due to
military wing of NATO in 2009, this situation Sweden’s supportive position towards terrorism
was no longer concerning (Chevènement, 2009Chevènement (2009). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). interrupted the membership process and,
It is considered that NATO, as an organization, indirectly, the decision-making process.
Finland accession ceremony to NATO, Brussels, Belgium. (Estonian Foreign Ministry, 2023Estonian Foreign Ministry (2023). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.)
Similarly, Türkiye declared that it did not want continue to be experienced to a large extent. In
Rasmussen, the former NATO Secretary General, other words, NATO, when viewed as a whole, has
to be involved but had to accept it when it was a multinational structure that includes military
alone in its request (Kool et al., 2021Kool et al. (2021). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). After NATO’s and civilian personnel from many nations. Because
Bucharest 2008 Summit, Albania and Croatia different cultures’ human resources work in the
joined the alliance, and rhetoric that Ukraine and same channel, countries have different perspectives
Georgia could become NATO members began to on security problems, their geopolitical importance,
emerge. However, after Russia’s harsh reaction to proximity to the forces identified as threats, and
the participation of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, tensions between countries can seriously delay joint
the attitude towards the membership of these two decision-making.
countries has changed in the alliance’s member As the number of member states increases,
states. Even though the Cold War is over, the danger NATO’s decision-making mechanism becomes
that is insisting on an issue that will disturb Russia more debatable. The fact that the alliance, which
and even seeing it as a national security problem that started with twelve founding members, continues
may cause new crises in the international system to exist with twenty-eight member states today and
has been one of the most important obstacles in the expectation of an increase in the number of
opening the path to membership for Ukraine and members in the near future may make it increasingly
Georgia. difficult to take a unanimous decision. The veto
At the same time, NATO has the appearance rights of each member slowed down the decision-
of a multinational company due to its structural making process regarding some crises and conflicts,
features. The problems these companies experience especially in the post-Cold War period. US political
scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski proposes that their ideological powers to new heights. It is seen
decisions in NATO should be taken by a majority that they rely on the rule-based international
instead of a unanimous vote (Brzezinski, 2009: order they have determined. However, the extent
15; Tarakçı, 2016:1). to which this system is complied with when it
comes to Atlantic interests has also been seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and in
With the end of the Cold War, the Türkiye in the 15 July Fethullahist Terrorist
bipolar international system ended, Organization (FETO) coup attempt and the
conspiracy cases before it (Gürdeniz, 2022Gürdeniz (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). and the USA remained the only With the end of the Cold War, the bipolar
superpower in the world. international system ended, and the US
remained the only superpower in the world. As
Changes in environmental conditions, stated by John O’Sullivan, one of the intellectual
organizational corrosion caused by aging, and supporters of the seventh President of the US,
expansion that is difficult to manage have caused Andrew Jackson, a “vigorous and fresh country
NATO’s effectiveness to decrease and become presented by God” had a “sacred duty on behalf of
unwieldy. In the unipolar world order after the the nations of the world” (Wilsey, 2017; Gomez,
Cold War, the US’s strategies to create a New 2012). With the disintegration of the USSR, a
World Order were reflected in the organization’s group calling themselves the neoconservatives
existence. Aiming to take precautions against the put forward the New American Century Project
threats it has identified with seven concepts since (Al-Kassimi, 2017Al-Kassimi (2017). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). In a study they presented
its establishment, NATO is about to prepare the to the Pentagon in 1992, Vice President Dick
eighth one with the vision of NATO-2030. It will Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz argued that in
probably revise this concept with the start of the the post-Cold War period, the US needed to
Ukraine-Russia War.1 Frequent concept changes lead in a way that would realize its interests by
delay the war preparation and adaptation process, establishing a unipolar order (Gaddis, 2002: 50-
making testing and developing the concept with 57; Gözen, 2014:120).
joint training and exercises difficult. It is seen that the emphasis on the unanimous
decision-making mechanism and presenting
The Future of NATO NATO as a defense organization where the
members have the right of veto is to cover up
NATO’s new roadmap is clearly included in the the US’s aim of using the organization as an
2022 Strategic Concept. In this concept, NATO attack and occupation device. Throughout the
is presented as a kind of combined military seventy-three-year history of NATO, despite
power of the US and the European Union (EU), many demands, the question of why Article 5 of
where the US and the EU focus on maintaining the treaty has not been applied to other members
the global leadership of the Atlantic system in other than the US clearly shows that NATO is a
an integrated manner, despite the declining US-based organization and that the interests of
military, economic, and political powers, and put other member countries remain insignificant.
In the post-Cold War era, in which US to states and regions. For example, it is quite
hegemony indisputably dominated world natural that the level of security attributed to
politics, conflicts or wars were not absent; on France, which attaches great importance to the
the contrary, many military operations were Mediterranean politically, economically, and
carried out under the name of combating socially, is not the same as that of Germany.
terrorism. From the end of World War II to the NATO has serious problems reaching a
period of the 11 September attacks, the data of consensus on any certain threat, which causes
the International Institute for Strategic Studies NATO to become dysfunctional and only
in London reveal that 22,456,000 people lost habitually survive (Erenel & Gedik, 2022Erenel & Gedik (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.).
their lives, and there were 188 military conflicts NATO tends to be an increasingly globalized
in ninety countries during this fifty-five-year organization under the influence of the US. On
so-called peace process after World War II the other hand, for France, NATO’s mission for
(Degirmencioglu, 2007:85). European defense is inadequate and American-
Another important issue is the perception centered (Casin & Gedik, 2019Casin & Gedik (2019). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). Therefore, it
of security and the perceptions of the member is necessary either to “Europeanize” NATO or
states towards any phenomenon or event. The to have Europe be defended by the European
security perception of each country differs states themselves. Macron’s discourse on
according to its geographical, political, and NATO in 2019—which also inspired the title
cultural conditions. Although security threats of this work—points to exactly this. Regarding
are often general, this issue can become Gaullism, which constitutes French foreign
subjective when national interests come into policy, the defense of Europe should be left to
play. The changing and differing perceptions of Europeans, not Americans. This foreign policy
the members on security also cause collective strategy of France, which we can define as
difficulties in producing solutions against exceptional, continued throughout the Cold
security threats. In other words, it is impossible War period (Bozo, 2008Bozo (2008). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). Being “friend, ally,
for terrorism and acts of terrorism in a region and disconnected” from the US created an
to be perceived or accepted as a threat or a area of action for the French in the bipolar
problem for all members of the organization. world (Védrine et al., 2018Védrine et al. (2018). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). For this reason,
According to classical realism, states US hegemony in NATO is not something that
inevitably use or manage non-state actors member states accept unconditionally.
for their national interests in a system where The US’s intervention in the Middle East after
chaos is dominant. So, if turmoil in one region 9/11 under the umbrella of NATO, benefiting
is necessary for one state’s interests, it may from the organization’s facilities and military
threaten the interests of another state. It has capacity and reflecting its national interest as
not been possible to create and implement a the general interest of the organization, caused
common security policy not only for NATO the reaction of France and the then President
but also for the EU, despite all the integration Jacques Chirac (Lequesne, 2007Lequesne (2007). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). It has led to
efforts of the union. Here, too, similar reasons harsh criticism not only from Chirac but also
lie in the change of security policy according from other EU countries.
The US is also looking for a legitimate basis for the military ecosystem is the same in all member
its hard power by using NATO military support countries. However, as a natural result of growth and
in operations such as the Iraq and Afghanistan expansion, its mobility decreases and the decision-
interventions. In short, the US does not hesitate making mechanism is exposed to entropy. To avoid
to instrumentalize NATO in line with its national this, the organization seeks areas to use its unused
interests. For example, the NATO member states energy and, so to speak, opens up problem areas.
provided all kinds of support, especially military and It also needs conflicts and tensions to keep itself
medical aid, to the Afghanistan Operation. However, more dynamic and active. As the Russia-Ukraine
the process of initiating operations by the US has War shows, there is also the issue of creating more
developed somewhat within the framework of the tension than usual and increasing the size of the
fait accompli method. A similar phenomenon was threat (Akdeniz, 2022: 13).
experienced in the Libyan Intervention. Here, not In an interview he gave in 2019, Macron made a
the US, but France, under the leadership of Nicolas remarkable description of NATO’s impasse by saying,
Sarkozy, who returned to the military wing of NATO “What we are experiencing right now is NATO’s
in 2009, started the intervention in Libya on 19 brain death,” referring to the Trump administration’s
March 2011, with the support of the US and England, decision to withdraw its forces from Syria without
and NATO officially took over the operation on 30 consulting NATO. In addition, the subject of the 56th
March 2011. Therefore, the legal procedure came Munich Conference held in 2020 was determined to
from behind the actions to legitimize them. be “Westlessness” (Courmont and Deportes, 2022;
Baverez, 2020; Tokatlı, 2022: 75). Members of the organization are reluctant to
The USA does not hesitate to implement the choices they support due to different
instrumentalize NATO in line security perceptions. An example of this behavior
with its national interests. is the decision of NATO member countries at the
2014 summit to allocate 2% of their GDP to defense
NATO accepts members with an open door spending over ten years until 2024 (NATO, 2014NATO (2014). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). In
policy. That is, it has a positive approach towards theory, the target was approved as a resolution, but
countries that want to become members and wants there were no legally binding provisions to impose
the alliance to expand until it holds the Heartland. sanctions on countries that did not comply with their
NATO is not just a military organization. Under obligations. Consequently, failure to bear these costs
current circumstances, NATO offers its members reflects the reluctance of the majority of members to
an ecosystem. This ecosystem includes arms trade, fulfill their obligations to NATO.
technology transfer, credit, and economic aid and It is known that the former president of the US,
support (Akdeniz, 2022: 13). While NATO aims to Donald Trump, who has undertaken almost all the
continue its expansion and growth with its open costs of the Atlantic Alliance alone, has expressed
door policy, it also tries to avoid being an introverted his desire to leave NATO many times throughout
ecosystem. The military technology and weapons 2018 (Ucler and Bulut, 2021: 44; Béraud-Dureau
used are transferred to the member countries. In and Giegerich, 2018). The fact that the US has
fact, it is desired to provide sustainability so that brought this idea to the table for the first time since
France's President Emmanuel Macron meets with visiting NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg at Elysee Palace in Paris, France, Nov. 28, 2019. (Xinhua/Gao Jing)
the establishment of NATO can be seen as the in its sixtieth year (1944-2004) (Değirmencioğlu,
beginning of an important paradigm shift in terms 2007:87).
of questioning the alliance’s future. However, According to the American economist Herbert
it is not yet clear to what extent the US, which Stein, “If something cannot continue, it will stop.” It
withdrew from many agreements in 2018, will be is clear that the US cannot continue with its current
able to implement this idea. policies and economic structure (Perry, 2018: 52-
Today’s world is too complex for a single 54). Unrivaled power has begun to prepare its own
nation to rule. Although the US has won the end. The US’s economic, military, technological,
wars it entered militarily, it has not reached the and political superiority may continue in the
desired end state. This shows that the US lags next twenty to twenty-five years. Still, with the
behind the colonial British Empire in dealing increasing power of its rivals (EU, the People’s
with various ethnic groups. Despite successful Republic of China, Russian Federation, India)
colonial administrations in places like India, the and with the effect of anti-US sentiment in world
British Empire only survived for a little more public opinion, it is considered that the powers
than a century (1815-1918). The US Empire, on will be more balanced over time (Değirmencioğlu,
the other hand, started to show signs of collapse 2007: 91).
The hegemonic entity, which can be defined 2023; Upadhyaya, 2022). Although AUKUS is a
as the Western or Euro-Atlantic structure, tripartite military agreement between these three
makes move after move to delay the decline and states, it has not yet become an alliance. This
collapse in the inevitable global leadership war. agreement complements ANZUS, the military
In a press conference with the NATO Secretary alliance between Australia and the United States
General, Biden’s use of the words “NATO instead in force since 1951, while excluding New Zealand,
of Finnization of Europe”, making a scathing which has denied nuclear ships access to its
reference to the Finnish model, which means territorial waters under the nuclear-free zone
neutrality policy in European security jargon, policy implemented in 1984 (Cheng, 2022Cheng (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.).
summarizes the situation. Now the Third World Concerning NATO’s survival, forecasts are
(Hybrid) War has officially begun. States are primarily influenced by the ongoing Russia-
taking positions; the ranks are becoming clearer. Ukraine War and a potential Asia-Pacific war
The situation is not much different from the involving China. Given this new strategic vision of
polarization of the First and Second World Wars NATO, two major events are likely to significantly
(Gürdeniz, 2022Gürdeniz (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). impact how the organization will evolve in the
future. The first is that NATO will continue to function due to the US alliance with the EU and
Today’s world is too complex for a NATO during the Russia-Ukraine War. The fact
that Sweden and Finland started the process of single nation to rule. Although the joining the organization as soon as the conflict
US has won the wars it entered started is an indicator of this (Akdeniz, 2022:
militarily, it has not reached the 16). This process is envisaged to equip fourteen
desired end state. members with USSR weapons (many of which
were once part of the USSR), to equip potential
To increase its dominance on the Asian new members with Western/NATO weapons, and
continent in the face of rising powers, the US to be completed in fifty years, given the life-span
has begun to participate more in the alternative of these weapons. This growth will undoubtedly
formations it has built outside of NATO. While depend on the US maintaining its place as the
the US guarantees its national security with the dominant power in the world. Although it seems
new formations QUAD (Quadrilateral Security unlikely, the EU is far from achieving the goals
Dialogue) and AUKUS, which it tries to establish set out in its strategic orientation and the creation
by collaborating with its allies in the Asia Pacific of a European Army. Although China, its biggest
region in the face of the rising Chinese threat, it global rival, is very close, it has not yet been able to
tries to limit the movement area of the rising or prevent the US desire to rule the world militarily.
rival powers (Tokatlı, 2022: 80). New Zealand, The second potential development concerns
South Korea and Vietnam later joined QUAD, the problems that all major organizations may
which consisted of Australia, India, Japan, and experience due to disorder. In this context, the
the US. AUKUS, on the other hand, consists division or disintegration of NATO is the most
of Australia, the US, and England (Martynova, important question (Akdeniz, 2022:16).
Quad Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, inter-governmental security forum countries. (BRIQ , 2023BRIQ (2023). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.)
Conclusion they can gradually increase their efforts to re-
turn to a Europe without the US. Due to the
The US’s distrustful behavior towards NATO’s administrative difficulties brought about by
EU member states has accelerated the efforts the seventy-three years of NATO’s life, it can
to create a new European Security Architec- now be predicted that such organizations with
ture autonomous from the US. The Strategic broad participation, especially those for secu-
Compass, issued to direct the activities, con- rity purposes, may be replaced by regional and
tinues the efforts to create an autonomous smaller organizations.
military force. While discussing the future of If England is considered the master of
NATO after the Ukraine-Russian War, it is diplomacy in the West, then China is the master
considered that the shaping of the EU secu- of diplomacy in the East. In the last hundred
rity architecture will gain momentum. NATO and ninety-five years, the country that has
will not have much importance for the United participated in or started the most wars and
States after the problems with Russia are so- conflicts in the world is England, the symbol
mehow resolved. Both its financial resources of Western civilization. China ranks tenth in
and the difficulties it faces as a global power initiating conflicts and fifth in participating in
can pull the US out of the hegemonic seat of any of them (White, 2017White (2017). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.; Henrich, 2020Henrich (2020). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). In
power. Western countries are also aware of general war tendency, England ranks first, the US
the approaching reality, and it can be said that fifth, and China tenth (Akgül, 2015: 503-510).
As a temporary solution, it is reasonable to Alpar, G. (2021). “Batının Yeni Küresel Risk Algıları ve
Münih Güvenlik Konferansı”, Stratejik Düşünce Enstiassume that China will refrain from engaging tüsü, Erişim Adresi: https://www.sde.org.tr/batinin-ye-
in such a war until it reaches a certain level ni-kuresel-risk-algilari-ve-munih-guvenlik-konferan-
of naval and air competency. The United si-bolgesel-analiz-261.
Baverez, N. (2020). “Macron: bilancritique”. Commentai- States can put pressure on NATO, even if it is re, 43(1), 188-189.
inappropriate for NATO to take any action that Béraud-Sudreau, L., &Giegerich, B. (2018). “NATO defen-
provokes China. A closer relationship between cespendingandEuropeanthreatperceptions”. Survival,
China and Russia could emerge due to political 60(4), 53-74.
Bozo, F. (2008). “Allianceatlantique. La fin de l’exceptionf-
pressure from the United States and potentially rançaise?”, Document de travail, Fondationpourl’inno-
NATO. This could lead to a return to bipolarity vationpolitique, février. 3-15.
in the world. Brzezinski, Z. (2009). “An agendafor NATO: Toward a glo-
bal security web”. ForeignAffairs, 2-20. Bustamente, P. (2022). “Sommet de l’Otan: lesÉtatsmemb- Notes res de l’Allianceatlantiqueaugmententleursbudgetsmilitaires”, RTBF.BE, 24 Mart, Erişim Adresi: https://www.
1 NATO’s Seven Strategic Concepts define the rtbf.be/article/sommet-de-lotan-les-etats-memb-
res-de-lalliance-atlantique-augmentent-leurs-bud- Alliance’s strategy and outline NATO’s enduring gets-militaires-10961850.
purpose and nature, its key security tasks, and the Caşın, M. C. & Gedik, A. (2019). “Kamu Güvenliği ve Te-
challenges and opportunities it faces in a changing rör Olayları Açısından Fransa”, Kamu Güvenliği Poli-
tikaları Yerelden Küresele, Ankara: Nobel Akademik security environment. It also identifies elements of Yayıncılık, 502-529.
the organization’s approach to security and provides Cheng, M. (2022). “AUKUS: TheChangingdynamicandit-
guidelines for its political and military adaptation. sregionalimplications”, EuropeanJournal of Develop-
ment Studies, 2(1), 1-7. The first Strategic Concept was published in 1949, Chevènement, J. P. (2009). “Le «retour» de la France dans
the second in 1950, during the Korean War, the l’OTAN: unedécisioninopportune”. Politiqueétrangère,
third in 1954, the fourth in 1966, the fifth in 1991, (04), 873-879.
Courmont, B. &Deportes, V. (2022). “L’OTAN est-elle the sixth in 1999, and the seventh in 2010. Finally, vraimentsortie de son état de mort cérébrale?”, Atlanti-
another document was published in 2022, called the co, 24 Mart, Erişim Adresi: https://atlantico.fr/article/
New Strategic Concept. decryptage/l-otan-est-elle-vraiment-sortie-de-son-e-
tat-de-mort-cerebrale-guerre-en-ukraine-paix-europe-diplomatie-solutions-crise-frontieres-alliance-vla-
References dimir-poutine-joe-biden-volodymyr-zelensky-barthe-
lemy-courmont-vincent-d Değirmencioğlu, İ. B. (2007). “Rakipsiz Kalan Güç Kendi- Akdeniz, H. (2022). Dünden Yarına NATO’nun Yönetimi, ni Yok Eder: ABD İmparatorluğu”, Güvenlik Stratejileri Yayımlanmamış Makale. Dergisi, 3 (6), 71-93. Akgül, Ö. (2015).“Devletlerin Savaş Yatkınlıklarının Öl- Erenel, F. (2021). “Jeopolitik teoriler ve Avrasya'nın merçülebilirliğine İlişkin bir Yaklaşım”, Uludağ Üniversitekezinde güç savaşları”,Avrasya Dosyası, 12(1), 1-29.
si Sunum Metni,503-511 Erenel, F. & Gedik, A. (2022). “Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejileri
Al-Kassimi, K. (2017). “The US informalempire: US ve Güvenliğin Sağlanmasında Yeterlilikleri”, Strateji-
AfricanCommand (AFRICOM) expandingthe US den Politikaya Güvenlik, 159-174.
economic-frontierbydiscursivelysecuritizingAfrica- Fasola, N., &Lucarelli, S. (2020). “NATO-RussiaRelations-
usingexceptionalspeechacts”. AfricanJournal of Poli- throughthePrism of Strategic Culture”. İçinde Rekind-
ticalScienceand International Relations, 11(11), 301- lingtheStrongState in RussiaandChina (pp. 223-248).
316. Brill.
Fipeco. (2023). Lesdépensesmilitaires. Erişim Adresi: ht- Maynders, J. (2016). “‘KeeptheRussiansout, theAmericans
tps://www.fipeco.fr/fiche/Les-d%C3%A9penses-mili- in, andtheGermansdown’: a pottedandbloodyhistory
taires of Nato”, Counterfire, 29 Ekim 2016, Erişim Adresi:
Foster, J. B. (2006). “The new geopolitics of empire”. https://www.counterfire.org/article/keep-the-russi-
Monthly Review, 57(8), 1. ans-out-the-americans-in-and-the-germans-down-a-
Gaddis, J. L. (2002). “Grand Strategy of Transformation”. potted-and-bloody-history-of-nato/
ForeignPolicy, 133: 50–57. NATO. (2014). “WalesSummitDeclaration", 5 Eylül, Eri- Gedik, A. & Kayalı, Ö. (2023). “Fransa’da Terör ve Terörle şim Adresi: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offici- Mücadele Stratejileri”, Terörizm Üzerine Güncel Yakla-
şımlar, Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, 127-143. al_texts_112964.htm?selectedLocale=en
Gomez, A. (2012). “DeusVult: John L. O’Sullivan, ma- NATO. (2022). “Prise de décisions par consensus à l'O-
nifestdestiny, andAmericandemocraticmessianism”. TAN”, 14 Haziran, Erişim Adresi: https://www.nato.
AmericanPoliticalThought, 1(2), 236-262. int/cps/fr/natohq/topics_49178.htm
Gözen, R. (2014). Amerikan Dış Politikası, Anadolu Üni- Özsoy, B. (2022). “NATO’nun Genişleme-
versitesi Açık Öğretim Fakültesi Yayınları, 3. Baskı, si ve Kazakistan Olayları Bağlamında Kolek-
Eskişehir. tif Güvenlik Antlaşması Örgütü’nün Geleceği”.
Guérot, U. (2011). “Europeansecurity in NATO'sstrate- Журналроссийскихисследований, (8), 101-125.
gy”,IstitutoAffariInternazionali (IAI), 55-60. Perry, B. (2018). “Central EuropeanRegimes”. Harvard In-
Gürdeniz, C. (2022). “NATO ve 3. Dünya (Hibrid) Sava- ternational Review, 39(2), 12-14.
şındaki Rolü”, Veryansın, Erişim Adresi: https://www. Polat, Ş. P. (2020). “NATO’nun Geleceği ve ABD’nin Etveryansintv.com/ nato-ve-3- dunya-hibrid-savasindakisi, Yeni Güvenlik Ekosistemi ve Çok Taraflı Bedeli”, ki-rolu/
Heilbrunn, J. (2018). Power Play. TheNationalInterest, İçinde TASAM Yayını, 333-347.
(158), 5-9. Tarakçı, N. (2016). “Türkiye’nin NATO’dan Çıkma Zama-
Henrich, J. (2020). TheWEIRDestpeople in theworld: nı Geldi Mi?”, TASAM, Erişim Adresi: https://tasam.
How the West becamepsychologicallypeculiarandpar- org/tr-TR/Icerik/28856/Türkiyenin_natodan_cikma_
ticularlyprosperous. Penguin UK. zamani_geldi_mi.
Hobsbawm, E. (2006). Kısa 20. Yüzyıl: 1914-1991 Aşırılık- Tokatlı, S. G. (2022). “NATO’nun Sistem İçerisindeki Dö-
lar Çağı, Everest Yayınları, İstanbul nüşümü ve Geleceği”, UPA Strategic Affairs, 3(2), 61-
Irondelle, B. &Lachmann, N. (2011). “L’OTAN est-elle en- 84.
corel’OTAN?”, Critiqueinternationale, (4), 67-81. Ucler, G., & Bulut, U. (2021). “Re-examination of theCon-
Keçeçioğlu, T. (2008). “ÖrgütBüyüklüğününÖrgüt Yapı- vergence in MilitaryExpendituresacross NATO Count-
sına Olan Etkileri ÜzerineÇok Boyutlu Yaklaşımlar”, ries: Do DifferentApproximations in ModelingStructu- Gazi Üniversitesiİktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi ral Breaks Matter?”. AppliedEconomicsJournal, 28(1), Dergisi, 10(2), 179-207. 43-62. Kool, D., Bolder, P., &Dogan, M. (2021). “Türkiye’sRecal-
citranceandNATO’sNuisance”. HagueCentrefor Strate- Upadhyaya, S. (2022). “Do the AUKUS and Quad deter
gic Studies. Chinese aggression against India?”. Australian Journal
Lagneau, L. (2022). “La France pourraitaugmenter ses dé- of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 1-13.
pensesmilitairesd’environ 30% sur la période 2024-31”, Vaïsse, M. (2009). “La France et l’OTAN: unehistoire”. Po-
ZoneMilitaire, 28 Eylül, Erişim Adresi: https://www. litiqueétrangère, (04), 861-872.
opex360.com/2022/09/28/la-france-pourrait-augmen- Védrine, H., Boniface, P., & Lequesne, C. (2018). “La poli-
ter-ses-depenses-militaires-denviron-30-sur-la-perio- tiqueétrangère de la France en débat”, Esprit, (3), 103-
de-2024-31/ 116.
Lequesne, C. (2007). “La politique étrangère de Jacques White, P. B. (2017). “Crisesandcrisisgenerations: The-
Chirac ou la France sans surprise”. (DGAP-AnalyseF- long-termimpact of internationalcrises on militarypo-
rankreich, 2). Berlin: Forschungsinstitut der Deutscliticalparticipation”. Security Studies, 26(4), 575-605. hen Gesellschaft für AuswärtigePolitike.V. 5-12. Wilsey, J. D. (2017). “Our Country Is Destinedto be the Martynova, E. S. (2023). “QUAD and AUKUS andthe-
Balance of Power in theAsia-Pacific Region: Prospe- Great Nation of Futurity”: John L. O’Sullivan’sMani-
ctsforRussia, Chinaand ASEAN”. Outlines of global festDestinyandChristianNationalism, 1837–1846. Re-
transformations: politics, economics, law. ligions, 8(4), 68.
