NATO’s New Plans for Turkey

The world is shedding its skin. The old world is falling apart. A brand-new world is being built. Just like the Westphalian order established after the Thirty Years' War (1648), the Pax Britannica established after the Napoleonic Wars (1815), and the Pax Americana order established after the Second World War (1945), the world is at the threshold of a new order.

SEIZING GROUND WHILE COLLAPSING

The US is showing all the signs of an empire collapsing under the mortgage of its geopolitical partnership with Israel with each passing day. It is retreating to the Western Hemisphere with moves that will indirectly wound China (such as the Ukraine-Russia war, the intervention in Venezuela, the Iran War, and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz). In fact, Secretary of War Hegseth recently declared that they are expanding said geopolitical sphere of influence by calling it the “Extended Western Hemisphere.” (In other words, while Trump views the Western Hemisphere as a geographical sphere of influence, Hegseth redefines the same concept as an extended security system that also includes maritime transport routes and global logistics networks.) The US is ending the Pax Americana era by using the areas outside its own hemisphere—and the firepower it possesses—through cheap blood-states it has found (Ukraine and Israel) to a level that will turn the world's balances upside down, burning, destroying, and producing instability, first through the Russia-Ukraine war and then through the Israel-US and Iran war. Because with 18% production power and a 40 trillion dollar debt stock, it is in no position to direct the world or produce consent, whether voluntarily or by force. In the final analysis, the US, which is retreating to the Western Hemisphere by disturbing China with the wars it has created and is already shaping its place in the new world order, does not want Russia to enter into energy cooperation with the EU. It never, ever wants the EU to be a commercial rival to itself. It calculates that there will inevitably be a reckoning with China and wants to balance the ever-growing China in the Indo-Pacific by bringing both India and Russia to its side. The US within NATO is also a kind of Trojan horse. Let alone the EU, the US did not even take the UK with it while retreating to the Western Hemisphere. On the contrary, the UK, with the finance capital (City) structure it represents, is now a major risk for Trump. The covers of The Economist magazine for the last 3 weeks are already concrete proof of this assessment.

ISRAEL'S PRIORITIES

Trump had to inevitably start this period of chaos to delay the collapse of the US and to strengthen his hand in the post-American era. On the other hand, it was also necessary for Israel to use the American political and fire power that it had almost completely brought under its control for its own eschatological and geopolitical goals. Netanyahu used Trump first in the Gaza genocide and later in the 12-day Israel-Iran war that took place in 2025. Later, on February 28, 2026, that is, 8 months before the midterm elections in November 2026, he ensured that this war was started while Trump was in a strong position in Congress.

THE UNCALCULATED IRANIAN RESISTANCE

However, the plan did not go as expected. Iran showed resistance. This resistance from Iran was an unexpected situation. Faced with this, the US turned the resulting chaos into an opportunity and turned a blind eye to the global economy being turned upside down, disregarding the interests of its allies such as the EU, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. When Trump saw the Iranian resistance, he called his allies for help, and the answer he received was no. These allies, which had ossified after 1945, not only did not go to his aid but also did not allow their territories to be used for American attacks (Spain, Austria, France, and Italy). If Trump had wanted to after the second week, he could have persuaded Israel to ensure a ceasefire in a short time and prevented the chaos. He did not prevent it. In the end, he was even able to tell his ancient friends to go and get your oil from the gulf yourselves. This situation should be seen as the acceleration of the US's break from the Western world, which is now known as the free world. This sharp stance of the US has started the process of humiliation of Europe and even NATO for the second time after the Greenland and Canada scandals. Trump's moves have been so harsh that they have even been able to declare that they are considering leaving NATO.

ECONOMY OF CHAOS

With the chaos it created in the Gulf, the US wanted to create a position that would contribute to both Israeli geopolitics and the future US economy. It paved the way for the closure of the Persian Gulf, which provides one-fifth of the global energy supply in terms of both crude oil and LNG, and for those outside the US to face serious restrictions. Trump's call to “buy oil and LNG from us” is a result of this conscious chaos. While the US says it is the gendarme of maritime trade choke points, that is, the master of the seas, on the other hand, it cannot prevent both critical choke points like Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb from being kept closed, but despite this failure, it turns the current crisis into an opportunity for its own economic interests. This means a geopolitical loss for tactical economic success, which means the US is no longer a leader. It cannot be under these conditions either.

THE EU AND NATO ON THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS

The EU has not yet determined the new port it will reach and is acting in a structure that loses reputation and value every day. However, it is constructing a failed geopolitical future with an unimaginable and blind hostility toward Russia over Ukraine, to a degree that can only be explained by psychopathology. On the other hand, it can no longer trust the US. Because the US has abandoned the search for partnership with Europe in both defense and economy. On the contrary, it contributes to the decline of the EU in the fields of energy, trade, finance, and defense. Unlike the EU, it is almost indirectly helping Russia. Finally, let us remind you that lifting the embargo/sanctions on Russian oil provides 150 million dollars of support to the Russian economy per day. In short, NATO, which Trump sees as a rival and treats negatively, is truly a paper tiger without the US. Under these conditions, how will the EU/NATO fight against Russia, which they attack with all kinds of provocations every day and which has switched to a war economy in the last 4 years? How long will they continue to provoke Russia to increase their own defense budgets and give momentum to the military industry? In the Cold War, NATO had two important tasks. The first was to ensure sea control and maritime transport in the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea; the other was to carry out tactical nuclear attacks on the rear areas of Central Europe's Warsaw Pact geography by planes taking off from US aircraft carriers stationed in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic while the land war continued on the continent. According to the plans, millions of tons of military equipment and more than one million personnel from the US and Canada were to come by sea to reinforce the European front to maintain the war in Europe. The combat vehicles of just one mechanized division were over 100 thousand tons. According to a NATO report, the amount required for replenishment in the first months at the beginning of such a war was around 25 million tons. The petroleum products needed were 100 million barrels. This did not include the 300 million tons that were the minimum amount required by the European population. This situation would reveal the need for a sea lift that would last for months in the Atlantic and, therefore, the protection of these convoys against a three-dimensional threat. In short, the key to NATO and the US's victory against the Soviets in Europe was ensuring sea control of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and being able to transport the reinforcements and war logistics coming from the US to the European front on time. It should not be forgotten that in both world wars, Germany was against Europe, and both world wars were won only when the US came to Europe's aid. Today, the massive US support in question is doubtful. The EU defense identity has not matured. In other words, the European war with Russia is a big gamble. Those who read a little military history know that in such transition periods, rivals should never be provoked; on the contrary, a moderate policy should be applied until one is ready for war.

TURKEY, UNABLE TO CHART A COURSE

Unfortunately, Turkey presents a picture of a country that is constantly changing course in the middle of a geopolitical storm and has not been able to determine the port it will go to. There are large masses in Turkey, both in the government and the opposition, as well as in the media and academia, who are not yet aware of the speed and acceleration of global change. In the last 80 years, Westernist indoctrination under the influence of the US and Europe has glorified formalist Atatürkism and distanced it so much from Kemalism that a morbid structure has emerged. Today, the mental framework created by conservative values and the deep-rooted anti-Atatürkism in some segments limit an objective view of events. Likewise, circles that define themselves as Atatürkist but act with Westernist reflexes are also tearing Turkish geopolitics away from its own unique axis. Therefore, the drift being experienced is not surprising; it is the result of a historical continuity.

THE DRIFT STARTING IN 1939

The beginning of this drift emerged with the Tripartite Alliance signed with the UK and France in the İnönü era in 1939, immediately after Atatürk's passing. Although active neutrality was maintained thanks to Montreux throughout the Second World War, Turkey followed a distinct swing policy. Ankara, which leaned toward the West in 1939, on the other hand, established a balance against Germany with the Turkish-German Friendship Treaty in 1941 and continued its relationship through chrome trade. With Germany's turn toward the Caucasus, Turkey shifted significant forces to the Kars–Erzurum–Van line. Keeping over 20 divisions in the East showed that Turkey was positioned on the verge of war, even if it was effectively out of the war. Until 1943, a balance policy favorable to Germany was followed; Berlin's intense diplomatic pressure and military superiority were decisive in this. While Turanist rhetoric gained strength internally, some circles saw Germany's victory as inevitable. However, the state mind of that period did not get caught in this current. Turkey kept the army ready but did not enter the war. When Germany began to retreat, the direction turned rapidly toward the West. The 1943 Adana Meetings, the severing of ties with Germany in 1944, and the declaration of war in 1945 were the turning points of this transformation. After the war, Turkey was included in the Pax Americana system with the perception of a Soviet threat. Yet, a balance model similar to Finland or Austria was possible; however, this was not preferred, and the line was maintained after the Cold War as well.

POST-COLD WAR PERIOD

In reality, when the two Germanys united in 1990, NATO's historical mission was effectively completed. Because the reasons for the alliance's existence had disappeared. The spread of communism and the threat of the Soviets exporting their regime were no longer there. After 1991, not only did the Warsaw Pact dissolve, but the Soviet Union also disintegrated. Russia, on the other hand, was dragged into a picture struggling with instability within itself, with crises experienced on the lines of Crimea, Donbas, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, especially the Chechen civil war, and even struggling to protect its own Russian minorities. In the same period, as a result of the Yugoslav Wars between 1991 and 1994, the Slavic world was torn from the Adriatic. With the 1998 Kosovo crisis and the intervention against Serbia, the US transformed Kosovo into a satellite structure in the region. NATO forces were used in the bombing of Serbia without a UN Security Council resolution. Thus, the period of NATO going outside the law officially began. After 2004, with the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to NATO along with the Baltic countries, Russia was systematically encircled on the Baltic–Black Sea line. This process was intended to be completed by extending it from the Caucasus to the Vistula-Carpathian basin through the membership perspective of Ukraine and Georgia. Yet, there was a clear political commitment that NATO would not expand eastward while the two Germanys were uniting. The US and Europe did not remain loyal to this promise. If it were not for the message given by Vladimir Putin's rise to power after 2000 and especially the intervention in Georgia in 2008, Russia's complete encirclement would have been inevitable. With the change of power in Ukraine in 2014, which is considered to be US-backed, this country was completely drawn into the Western axis, and the process of weakening Russia through the Donbas line was accelerated. In short, the encirclement of Russia by the US/EU and NATO did not stop. Moscow put an end to this trend with a military intervention on February 24, 2022. This time, the US/EU, which could not make Ukraine and Georgia NATO members, completed the encirclement of Russia via the North and Baltic Seas by making Sweden and Finland NATO members in 2025 under the pretext of war.

ISRAELI INFLUENCE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

After the attacks that took place in the US on September 11, 2001, and which are still debated as to whether they were a false flag, the US changed the borders and regimes of many countries in West Asia and North Africa, sometimes using NATO. Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Syria became the targets of this process. This transformation accelerated with the implementation of the “Clean Break” plan, which was written by Neocons and Zionists in 1996 and aimed to create a security belt around Israel. The process deepened with the Arab Spring that began in 2010. In this context, NATO went outside its area for the first time by taking part in Afghanistan. Turkey also participated in this mission within the scope of ISAF. Civil wars were triggered in Libya in 2011 and in Syria starting from 2013. Turkey participated in the Libya intervention and contributed to the brutal fragmentation of a state under the leadership of the US, France, and the UK. The same approach was repeated in Syria between 2015 and 2024. During this process, Turkey acted under the influence of US, Israeli, and British intelligence operations and paved the way for the Syrian airspace to be used by Israel today. Although Turkey did not take a direct role in the fragmentation process of Iraq after the Gulf wars, it supported the Kurdish structure that formed in the north after 2003. The sale of Kirkuk oil through Turkey was allowed, and Barzani was welcomed in Diyarbakır in 2013 with the words “Welcome to Kurdistan.” An effective counter-stance against the strengthening of the PKK in the region could not be displayed for a long time. This situation continued until the trench wars in 2015; Turkey suppressed this process militarily in 2016 by giving nearly 500 martyrs, but then the July 15 coup attempt occurred.

On the other hand, as a result of the sham trials conducted with the support of the FETÖ structure and Western intelligence organizations after 2008, the Atatürkist cadres within the TSK who put national interests before NATO interests were purged. The Naval Forces, in particular, received a heavy blow; 40 admirals and around 400 admiral candidates, all highly qualified officers, were pushed out of the system. During this process, although the Naval Forces command structure received a major blow from NATO and the West, there was no reaction; it was almost supported. The coup attempt on July 15, 2016, failed, but many elements connected to NATO fled abroad or did not return.

In short, the mission of protection against the Soviet threat, which was the purpose of NATO's establishment for Turkey, had disappeared in 1990. Despite this, Turkey was dragged into a position serving the geopolitical goals of the US and Israel in the post-1990 period. The Annan Plan, the solution process, and the risk of a Kurdish state that could form in the South emerged within this framework. After July 15, Turkey faced these realities and turned to a more national line. However, after 2020, while the Blue Homeland doctrine, which draws a new geopolitical route for Turkey, had an impact, the increasing US-backed military buildup in Greece and the GCA put pressure on Turkey. The intervention of German commandos on a Turkish-flagged ship in the open sea area of the Mediterranean in 2020 was an important warning. Turkey's retreat in the Eastern Mediterranean emerged as a result of this process. After the Hamas attacks that took place in Israel on October 7, 2023, and which are also controversial as to whether they were a false flag, Israel became an aggressive actor in the region again. While this process expanded operations toward Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, it paved the way for the attack on Iran in 2025. Trump's return to power in 2025 provided a great advantage to Israel. At the end of 2024, the Syrian regime collapsed, and the US-Israel joint Iran attack on February 28, 2026, opened the door to a new era on a global scale.

UKRAINE VOLUNTEERS COALITION AND TURKEY

Turkey-NATO relations entered a new front of pressure after the February 24, 2022, Russia-Ukraine war. NATO's siding in this war, despite there being no NAC Decision, created a position that would harm the active neutrality status applied by Turkey, the protector of the Montreux Convention, with Article 19 of the convention. While Turkey did not allow warships to enter the Black Sea on one hand, it assigned fighter jets for Romania's air defense over the Black Sea. In an environment where NATO officially encourages armed conflict with Russia and especially the US, France, and the UK provide all kinds of support to Ukraine in its attacks on Russia with both intelligence support and equipment and ammunition support, Turkey could not even show the courage to condemn Ukraine's attacks on the Blue Stream and TurkStream lines, which are the most important arteries of our country's energy security, against Ukraine's armed attacks developed against international maritime transport both in its own maritime jurisdiction areas and in areas close to the mouth of the Istanbul Strait.

Worse still, Turkey joined the Ukraine Volunteers Coalition, established under the leadership of the US, the UK, and France, as a founding member on March 2, 2025. Turkey's participation in this formation, although presented as a diplomatic step, contradicts the spirit of the Montreux Straits Convention. Montreux is not just a transit regime, but a security shield that provides Turkey with the opportunity to remain neutral in times of war and keep the Black Sea away from great power competition. Although the “Volunteers Coalition” appears to be outside of NATO, it is effectively an extension of NATO in the Ukrainian field. Turkey's participation in this structure erodes its position of neutrality, if not legally, then politically. The maritime dimension of this mechanism, even if the 21-day rule is followed, carries the risk of creating an operational and permanent military presence in the Black Sea. It is clear that Russia will not accept such a structure. The essence of Montreux is for Turkey to be a balance-maker and a non-conflict actor in the Black Sea. This coalition, however, brings Turkey closer to an anti-Russian security architecture. The security guarantees and multinational force structure envisaged by the coalition create the risk of a permanent military presence integrated with NATO in the Black Sea in the future. This damages the geopolitical balance it is based on, beyond the technical provisions of Montreux. Turkey's power historically comes from its ability to establish balance by remaining out of war. Montreux has ensured this. Today, such structures indirectly make Turkey a party. The issue is not participation in a coalition, but whether Turkey can maintain its balancing role in the Black Sea. The spirit of Montreux keeps Turkey out of conflict, while these steps bring it closer to conflict.

NATO'S STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION AND TODAY

In this period when the world is going through a great change, the Multinational Corps Headquarters (MNC-TUR), which is planned to be established within the 6th Corps in Adana, has entered Turkey's agenda. This structure, which has caused controversy in public opinion, is not the product of sudden decisions; it is a natural extension of NATO's post-Cold War transformation. The combined task force concept developed since the 1990s, the NATO Response Force after 2002, and the Russia-centered threat perception after 2014 prepared this process. With the 2022 Strategic Concept and the 2023 Vilnius Summit, a decision was made for more integrated force structures on the eastern flank, and MNC-TUR became the reflection of this plan on the field. A structure similar to MNC-NE in Poland and MNC-SE in Romania is being established in Turkey. However, the critical point is that these decisions were taken before the new environment created after October 7, 2023, that is, after the Israeli Geopolitical Move. In other words, it is based on old assumptions that should now be questioned, not on today's breaking conditions. In a conjuncture where Israel is discussing scenarios against Turkey, NATO's establishment of a land presence in Adana after Incirlik, while standing close to Israel, does not coincide with our interests. Although the justification for this headquarters is presented as the Iranian threat in NATO meetings, it indirectly pushes Turkey to the same line as Israel.

On the other hand, while there are those who argue that the presence of said headquarters with the Incirlik US/Turkey joint-use base sends a deterrent message to Israel regarding attacking Turkey through NATO membership, believing that NATO would defend Turkey in a possible Turkey-Israel conflict is like believing the sun will rise from the west. Therefore, although Iran declares that it did not intentionally carry out missile attacks on Turkey even in war, the narrative in the MSB's statements every time that “missiles fired from Iran were intercepted by NATO elements in the Mediterranean” is also directed at Israel. However, thinking that American warships, which are NATO elements in the Mediterranean, would intercept Israeli missiles in a real crisis is beyond a dream. Therefore, there is a clear contradiction between theory and practice. On the other hand, the establishment of a multinational NATO headquarters in Adana in our Mediterranean Region causes our rivals to collect direct or indirect information in the fields of intelligence, operations, and logistics in our most sensitive region, and to gain freedom within our home. We have seen more than enough of what FETÖ-like structures working for US, Israeli, and British intelligence can do in the sham trials and the subsequent July 15 coup attempt.

NATO MARITIME COMPONENT COMMAND IN THE STRAIT

On the other hand, the NATO Maritime Component Command (MCC), which is on the agenda to be established in Anadolu Kavağı at the entrance of the Istanbul Strait, created a separate agenda. The main reason for coming to this process was the Russia-Ukraine war and the drifting of mines that Ukraine laid in its own maritime jurisdiction areas. This issue became an international security matter with the detection of mines drifting on the coasts of Turkey and Romania at the end of March 2022. The finding of a mine at the entrance of the Istanbul Strait also revealed the seriousness of the threat. Following these developments, Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria, as littoral countries, chose to produce the solution among themselves. A memorandum was signed between the three countries on January 11, 2024, and the Black Sea Mine Countermeasures Task Group (MCM Black Sea) was officially established and became operational in Istanbul on July 1, 2024. This structure was designed as a regional initiative outside of NATO. This was what it should have been. The task group has been activated at least 9 times in total. This process became a concrete example of Turkey's approach of ensuring security in the Black Sea with littoral countries while protecting the Montreux regime.

However, on the other hand, a radical transformation took place in NATO's defense understanding after 2023, and the political ground was passed to Regional Defense Plans with the Vilnius NATO Summit held in July 2023. The handling of the Atlantic, North Sea, Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Sea as separate operational areas was approved at this summit. However, the shape of the structure was not approved at this summit. In the military planning process in 2024, the Black Sea Task Force was established as one of the five separate Combined Task Forces. This was not a decision approved by this Summit. However, in our opinion, Turkey's approval of the establishment of CTF Black Sea at the planning stage was an amateur and wrong decision. Because for the first time in history, with this decision, approval was given for NATO to be present in the Black Sea maritime environment with a permanent institutional and operational identity. This situation has the potential to create a situation that will change the balance of power in the Black Sea for the first time in the last 90 years and pave the way for de facto situations that will prevent the neutral implementation of the Montreux regime. Whereas, Turkey had not allowed the NATO Active Endeavour Operation, which became operational in the Mediterranean in 2001, to expand to the Black Sea after 2004, despite Romania and Bulgaria becoming NATO members, and had vetoed this decision in the Military Committee. NATO may have passed to geographically based Regional Defense Plans at the Vilnius Summit for the first time. In 1952, Turkey was also given the task of COMEDNOREAST (North East Mediterranean Maritime Regional Command). However, with the political and geopolitical power given by the Montreux regime, Turkey did not become an enthusiastic proxy for the US and NATO despite the weak position of its armed forces at that time, and did not allow NATO to be present in the maritime environment with its institutional identity, did not plan and execute NATO exercises, and NATO member states went to the Black Sea with the diplomatic identity of their own states. Moreover, the COMEDNOREAST Headquarters was not established in Anadolu Kavağı/Beykoz, the apple of Turkey's eye in the Istanbul Strait, but in Ankara.

Today, the CTF Black Sea Maritime Component Command building, which is established in Anadolu Kavağı/Beykoz and equipped with a NATO flag, reminds us in our subconscious of the Lausanne Straits Commission Building, which is located in Tophane today and was active between 1923-1936, before the Montreux Victory. The NATO flag, even if it is in a headquarters on the shore of the strait in Anadolu Kavağı, should not have created a scene that would evoke the time when Lausanne demilitarized for 13 years and its sovereignty was transferred to the International Straits Commission. The principle of regional ownership mentioned in the MSB press release can only be protected with the full sovereignty and control authority that the Montreux Convention places on our shoulders. Even if this headquarters were established in other countries, Turkey could always use our veto power in NATO, which some love very much. In addition, it could apply restrictions under its full sovereignty such as 21 days, ship type, tonnage restrictions, and entry/exit notification periods. Turkey should never, ever have allowed NATO's institutional presence in the maritime environment in the Black Sea.

On the other hand, it is also unacceptable for a limited task force of littoral countries established against the regional mine threat to be included in a NATO-linked Maritime Component Command over time. A temporary and technical structure created for mine clearance should not open the door to a resident NATO maritime identity in the Black Sea. At this point, history offers a clear lesson. During the Second World War, because Germany could not pass its warships through the Straits due to Montreux restrictions, it could not bring naval power directly into the Black Sea; instead, it had to bring its submarines to Romania in pieces via the Danube and assemble them there. Despite this, Turkey meticulously applied Montreux even at the most critical moments of the war and maintained its neutrality. That is, the Straits regime was not breached even under great power pressure. Arguments that “if NATO brings unmanned maritime vehicles to the Black Sea today, the control will be in Turkey” are therefore weak. The Montreux regime clearly limits the passage of warships and military naval platforms. In this context, unmanned maritime vehicles cannot be evaluated outside this regime due to their military nature. In other words, Montreux does not allow the independent and unlimited passage of such elements anyway. Therefore, the issue is not control, but the passage itself.

On the other hand, Turkey, the owner of Montreux in the Black Sea, establishing a NATO-linked naval command with its own hands makes the country effectively an outpost of a military structure positioned against Russia. This is not just a legal, but a direct geopolitical break. This situation damages the balance provided by Montreux and pits Turkey against Russia. Such a structuring does not only produce open tension; it also paves the way for numerous scenarios that will force Turkey, including false flag operations in the Black Sea in the future. Turkey can only act in this geography by relying on its own power. NATO should not be allowed to force Turkey in a way that will erode our special status in the Black Sea, which serves as one of the world's most geopolitically specific weight, one of the few maritime transport choke points, the Turkish Straits, and the rear area logistics buildup and defense area of Turkey in the War of Independence. Therefore, the issue is not just today's, but tomorrow's balances. If Russia forces the terms of a ceasefire with Ukraine in its favor in the future, Turkey's room for maneuver will be significantly narrowed. In this case, it will not be possible for us to maintain the balance we established with our own hands today. Security in the Black Sea should be ensured through littoral countries, not through NATO, which is sharpening itself to fight Russia every day and is led by a Secretary General who is far from rational and cautious behavior patterns like Rutte and acts outside of NAC decisions and the consensus of 32 states. Turkey must use the authority given by Montreux to maintain this balance. Abandoning initiatives such as the NATO Maritime Component Command is therefore a strategic necessity. Otherwise, Turkey will face the risk of breaking the balance it established itself and dragging itself into a direct conflict line with Russia.