İçeriğe atla
Hikayeler
RU
Kapatıldı

NATO Zirvesi Ankara'da: Transatlantik Krizle Yüzleşme Vakti

Özet · AI üretimi

NATO'nun 34. zirvesi Salı günü Ankara'da başlıyor. İttifak ve dayandığı transatlantik ilişki, tarihinde benzeri görülmemiş bir amaç kriziyle karşı karşıya. Avrupalı ve Amerikalı Atlantikçilerin karşılıklı suçlamalarının aksine, sorunların Başkan Trump'ın siyasi yükselişiyle başlamadığı değerlendiriliyor. Zirvenin coşkudan uzak havası, ittifakın geleceğine dair belirsizlikleri yansıtıyor. Uzmanlar, transatlantik bağların temelden sorgulandığı bir dönemde, Ankara'daki toplantının NATO'nun rolünü yeniden tanımlamak için kritik bir fırsat sunduğunu ancak derin görüş ayrılıklarının çözümü zorlaştırdığını belirtiyor.

Başlangıç 06 Tem 04:05 3 olay Güncellendi 07 Tem
Rusya dosyası →
Paylaş
Bağlam · AI üretimi

Bağlam, hikayenin etrafındaki ülke + lider + komşu hikaye ağına dayanılarak AI tarafından üretildi. Olgu içerikleri için her zaman üstteki kaynak linklerine başvurun.

Bu gündemi takip et

Rusya gelişmelerini kaçırma — ücretsiz kaydol, günlük brifinginde gör.

Bu gündeme tepki ver:

Zaman çizelgesi

en güncel: 07 Tem
  1. Diplomatik06 Tem 04:05

    NATO Summit: Time to take the transatlantic crisis by the horns

    Rusya

    The mood ahead of NATO’s 34th summit in Ankara beginning on Tuesday can hardly be described as jubilant, and for good reason: the alliance and the transatlantic relationship underpinning it faces a crisis of purpose unlike anything in its history. Contrary to the recriminations of European and American Atlanticists, NATO’s problems did not begin with President Donald Trump’s political ascendancy in 2016. The challenge is a structural one: namely, U.S. and European interests and priorities have increasingly diverged since the end of the Cold War. NATO was conceived for the singular purpose of deterring a powerful Soviet rival from rolling into Western Europe. It was not built for a post-1991 world in which Europe is more than capable of managing its relationship with Russia through a prudent mix of deterrence and engagement. There is no longer any compelling reason for the U.S. to continue acting as the region’s primary security provider, especially at a time when America’s priorities are shifting to the Indo-Pacific, Western Hemisphere, and revitalization at home. Attempts by previous Presidents to rebalance the transatlantic relationship were ill-fated because they did not fully conceptualize the problem. The nub of the issue is not that European states should spend more on defense, but that they need to take over specific functions and capabilities integral to European security. The administration’s NATO 3.0 initiative, spearheaded by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, is the first real U.S. attempt to institutionalize a framework not merely for burden sharing but burden shifting. As I explain in my new brief for the Quincy Institute, the Pentagon’s ongoing force posture reductions are an important step toward the Europeanization of European defense and should be followed by steeper cuts over the coming years, with the goal of scaling back the U.S. force presence to about 20,000 troops mainly responsible for logistics, maintenance, and other support roles. The administration understands that retrenchment must be presented to our European partners as a fait accompli if it is to progress, as any attempt to carve out a force posture consensus within NATO will come under relentless bureaucratic and political obstruction from European leaders whose goal is to keep the U.S. in as the region’s security guarantor. Retrenchment must be accompanied by a strict division of labor within the alliance. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, not a North Pacific one. Any efforts to arrive at a common NATO posture on China are dead on arrival given that the U.S. and Europe are driven by entirely different sets of interests toward Beijing, and would distract NATO’s European arm from what should be its laser focus on assuming the primary responsibility for its defense. Yet the right-sizing of U.S. commitments, though vital and long-overdue, is only one component of what it takes to revitalize the transatlantic relationship. The experience of the Ukraine war has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot sustainably retrench away from Europe while its NATO partners remain locked in an escalatory spiral with Russia. The U.S. will always be one regional conflagration away from being sucked back into European security matters unless and until it plants the seeds of long-term East-West stability. The U.S, in keeping with the NATO 3.0 vision, should take steps to recommit the alliance to its original mandate of territorial defense within permanently drawn borders. It should be reflected in the alliance’s staffing, public messaging, intellectual output, and overall organizational ethos that NATO exists to meet the hard security requirements of its members, not to be a conduit for democracy promotion. It is in U.S. interests to emphasize that European deterrence, in order to be effective, must be balanced with formats for pragmatic East-West engagement. If the White House is intent, as it should be, on right-sizing the U.S. military footprint in Europe, it would be a lost opportunity not to tie ongoing reductions to a larger security dialogue with Moscow aimed at extracting Russian concessions, which can include limitations to force deployments on NATO’s eastern flank, a legally binding commitment by Russia not engage in acts of aggression against NATO countries, and a dialogue on arms control. This is both smart politics and sound policy. It is every bit in European interests to support diplomatic and deconfliction guardrails that would reduce Europe’s overall deterrence burden. By the same token, it would be easier to sell retrenchment to skeptics on Capitol Hill and institutionalize it as a mainstay of U.S. policy over the coming years if it’s part of a package for a more stable European order that involves concrete compromises by Russia. Alliances are always a means to an end, never an end in themselves. While the U.S. derives certain geostrategic benefits from NATO, the organization has drifted from its core mission in ways that are increasingly at odds with core American interests. For the first time since 1991, there is a window for a managed recalibration of NATO that won’t just make for a more balanced transatlantic relationship but would set the conditions for peace and stability on NATO’s eastern flank. Revitalizing the alliance will require a firm sense of strategic direction and no shortage of political will. The White House, by taking the first step, has established a foundation that should be unambiguously reaffirmed in next week’s Ankara summit and solidified over the coming years.

    Responsible Statecraft
  2. Diplomatik06 Tem 14:12

    NATO summit is Europe’s moment to turn crisis into opportunity

    Rusya

    NATO summit is Europe’s moment to turn crisis into opportunity Expert comment LToremark 6 July 2026 Erosion of public trust in US leadership and the growing Russian threat are opportunities for European NATO allies to build public support for fast and decisive action on defence. This week’s NATO summit in Ankara takes place at a pivotal moment in the alliance’s evolution – and for US–Europe relations. In Ankara, the agenda will rightly focus on defence spending targets and score cards for national budget commitments and appropriations. There will be an accounting of who has signed (and paid for) big defence contracts and who is stuck at the political rhetoric stage. Like the businessman he is, US President Donald Trump will want to see concrete numbers from allies to prove there is action behind the 2025 Hague summit’s target of 5 per cent GDP spending on defence. If last year’s summit was about setting ambitious new targets, this summit will be about delivering on those promises. Related work Will NATO be convinced by the UK Defence Investment Plan? Beyond delivering on commitments, NATO faces another key challenge. Recent announcements of reduced US defence presence combined with President Trump’s disparaging rhetoric on NATO and threats to take Greenland has not only damaged political relations but has also affected European public opinion on US leadership and reliability. This erosion of trust undoubtedly poses a challenge but is also an opportunity for European governments to build public understanding of and support for the funding and process changes needed to meet ambitious defence goals. Russia builds as America scales back Hanging over the summit are two impending force posture shifts changing the landscape of European security. One is America’s recently announced reduction of troop numbers and critical capabilities in Europe. The other is Russia’s upgrade of installations, planned manpower, and increasing hybrid operations along NATO’s border. The US informed European officials in May that it would gradually withdraw military capabilities from NATO – including fighter jets, strategic bombers and warships. The announcement is short on details and continues to be caught in a whirlwind of gossip about internal Trump administration battles over the scale and timing of the changes. According to a recent report, NATO’s top commander has stated that European allies have already filled most of the gaps left by US reductions and are exploring workarounds for the remaining shortfalls. Announcements about these changes are expected at the Ankara summit but the devil is in the details. European allies currently do not have the scale of capabilities rumoured to be on the chopping block. And the fear that the US will leave NATO altogether remains. Should this happen, experts estimate it could take up to 25 years to fill the gap created. In Ankara, European leaders should build consensus around a more urgent approach to the new reality and work to overcome bureaucratic processes and public attitudes that stymy quick action on defence plans. This is even more important as Russia does not face domestic push back on military expenditures. The second issue looming over the Ankara summit will be Russia’s plans for a massive military build-up along NATO’s eastern border and its intensifying hybrid warfare against NATO and European targets. While Moscow’s war campaign against Ukraine has failed to achieve its military goals, Russia is now rooted in a war economy, fielding war-tested troops and preparing for a prolonged period of conflict. The Kremlin is taking steps towards building a military that seeks to have 1.5 million military service personnel and 17 new manoeuvre divisions. Its primary focus is conflict with NATO. Recent discussions in Western capitals that the pressure on Russia’s economy, from successful Ukrainian drone strikes to international sanctions, is reaching an inflection point for Moscow are perhaps comforting but miss the point. For Russia, NATO’s expansion in the Nordics and full support for Ukraine are evergreen existential threats. And the Kremlin now sees that the US is distracted in other parts of the world and deprioritizing Europe. ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’ Related work Tensions between the US and Europe loom large over NATO summit Against the backdrop of Russia’s build-up, European leaders should view the twin crises of reduced US commitment and the erosion of trust in American leadership as opportunities to rally more urgent action on defence modernization. According to data from Pew Research Center, European views of the US and Donald Trump are especially negative. Across 10 countries polled, a median of 81 per cent say they lack confidence in him doing the right thing regarding world affairs. This sentiment can be used to motivate legislatures and to reform bureaucracies to achieve national defence goals. In Ankara, European allies should align to keep the United States engaged while building a modern European security architecture that better meets today’s threats and is less dependent on American assets. Three key actions will support this agenda. First, get the public narrative right. European publics need to unify around a common understanding of Putin’s mindset, Trump’s withdrawal, and what is truly needed from Europe to keep the peace. Panic is not the answer; revitalized budgets and coordinated, timely defence investments are. Effective communication with their publics is one of NATO’s and European leaders’ most important strategic instruments. Second, look to the Nordic defence industry model and US moves to use AI in procurement processes to help accomplish more efficient, forward-looking defence build-ups. By focusing on consistent cooperation with industry – from defining needs to developing and procuring new equipment – the Nordic nations are putting smart, integrated defence spending at the centre of their security and budget priorities. The smart use of AI could streamline procurement processes and production, shortening delivery timelines for needed capabilities.

    Chatham House – Expert comment
  3. Diplomatik07 Tem 09:25

    NATO Ankara Zirvesi bünyesinde Baltık güvenliğine ilişkin panel düzenlendi

    Rusya

    Ankara Palas'ta, Baltık Uluslararası Güvenlik Merkezinin moderatörlüğünde düzenlenen "Narva Neden Sonraki Hedef Değil: Baltık Savunmasızlığı Üzerine Varsayımların İncelenmesi" paneline, Letonya Dışişleri Bakanı Baiba Braze, Litvanya'nın NATO Daimi Temsilcisi Darius Jauniskis ve Estonya Dışişleri Bakanlığı Siyasi Direktörü Martin Roger konuşmacı olarak katıldı. Braze, Rusya'nın NATO'ya meydan okumaya hazır olmadığını ancak "sahte ikilemler" oluşturmaya istekli olduğunu belirterek, güvenlik ve savunma konusunda ciddiyeti kaybetmemeleri gerektiğini vurguladı. 'Türkiye'yle savunma ortaklığımız daha da güçlenecek' NATO'nun müttefiklerin uyumlu çalışması, planlaması, hazırlığı ve savunma planlarına etki ettiğini dile getiren Braze, "Kendi içimizde hem iç güvenliğe, sınırlara ve istihbarat işbirliğine yatırım yaptığımızdan, NATO olarak kendimize güvendiğimizden hem de caydırıcılığın işe yaradığından emin olmalıyız." dedi. Braze, Ukraynalılara yönelik desteği zayıflatmak için dışarıdan müdahalelere ve dezenformasyon operasyonlarına maruz kaldıklarını söyledi. Kökeni ne olursa olsun ülkesindeki insanların Letonya devletinin parçası olmak istediği değerlendirmesini yapan Braze, etnik kökenler farklı olsa dahi insanların ülkesini korumak istediğini belirtti. RUSYA'YA YÖNELİK ELEŞTİRİLER Litvanya'nın NATO Daimi Temsilcisi Jauniskis de Belarus'u Rusya'dan "ayrı görmediklerini" söyleyerek, Minsk'in Rusya'nın enerjisine, parasına ve desteğine tamamen bağlı olduğunu savundu. Belarus'tan ülkesine giren ve kaçak sigara da taşıyan meteoroloji balonları meselesine atıfta bulunan Jauniskis, bunların ciddi güvenlik sorunlarına neden olduğunu vurguladı. Jauniskis, Rusya ile Belarus'un ülkesinin tarihine ilişkin doğru olmayan bilgilerle propaganda yaptığına işaret etti. Estonyalı yetkili Roger da siber güvenlik meselesine dikkati çekerek, devlet kurumlarının bununla mücadele ettiğini ve bunun sonunda halkın dayanıklılığının arttığını belirtti. Roger, Estonya'nın Rusya sınırındaki Narva şehrinin Moskova yönetiminin bir sonraki hedefi olmadığını söyleyerek, "Estonya'da hem ulusal düzeyde hem de müttefiklerle birlikte inşa ettiğimiz caydırıcılığın, Rusların Estonya'da böyle bir adım atmasını gerçekten de göze alamayacağı bir noktaya getirdiğini düşünüyorum." ifadesini kullandı. Sınır güvenliğine önemli yatırımlar yaptıklarının altını çizen Roger, Estonyalıların yüzde 81'inin ülkeye bir saldırı olması durumunda direnilmesi görüşünde olduğunu kaydetti.

    Milliyet

Okumaya devam et

ilgili gelişmeler