NATO in Ankara: An Alliance Searching for Itself in a World on Fire

The NATO summit is being held in Ankara amidst one of the most turbulent phases since the alliance's founding in 1949. The world is no longer experiencing a traditional Cold War, and the international system is no longer unipolar as it was after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead, it has entered a transitional phase where major powers are vying for influence, while wars and crises intertwine from Ukraine to the Middle East, all the way to the South China Sea.In this context, the Ankara summit gains importance that transcends final statements and traditional resolutions, as it represents a real test of the alliance's ability to maintain its unity amid escalating disagreements between the United States and its European partners, and increasing doubts about the future of American leadership of the alliance after Donald Trump's return to the White House.Trump does not view "NATO" as a strategic alliance as much as he sees it as a financial burden borne by Washington on behalf of Europe. Therefore, he continues to pressure allies to increase their military spending and reduce reliance on American forces, which has prompted Europeans to seriously consider building a more independent defense system, not necessarily as an alternative to the alliance, but to reduce complete dependence on American decisions.Hence came the talk about the concept of "NATO 3.0," which reflects a new phase in which the alliance seeks to redefine its role after the Ukrainian war, by distributing military and financial burdens differently, strengthening European defense industries, and increasing military production to confront what it considers long-term strategic challenges.However, these transformations are not only related to Europe; their effects extend to the Middle East, which has become a central arena in Western calculations after the Israeli war on Gaza, the confrontation with Iran, and the widening circle of tension in the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf.The United States, preoccupied with competing with China and containing Russia, is no longer willing to engage in direct military involvement as before, and seeks to manage crises through regional allies, primarily Israel, while placing greater responsibility on Europeans to protect their security and interests.From this perspective, the Ankara summit appears to be part of a process of redistributing roles within the Western system, and not just a regular meeting of the alliance. The expansion of military industries, increased defense spending, and the conclusion of multi-billion dollar arms deals are all indicators that the West is preparing for a long phase of conflicts, not a phase of peace or political settlements.The choice of Turkey to host the summit also carries clear political implications. Ankara has become a player that is difficult to bypass within the alliance, benefiting from its geographical location, military capabilities, and advanced defense industries, in addition to its ability to communicate with contradictory parties, from Russia to Ukraine, and from the United States to the Middle Eastern countries.In contrast, the summit reveals the extent of contradictions within the Western camp itself. While the alliance declares its commitment to defending democracy and human rights in Ukraine, it continues to provide unlimited political and military support to Israel, despite the widespread destruction, killing, starvation, and siege in Gaza. This has led to a widening gap between Western rhetoric and its practices on the ground, and has greatly weakened its moral image in front of global public opinion.The war on Gaza has also reshaped public sentiment in many Western countries, where criticism of Israeli policies has escalated, and pressure on European and American governments has increased. This makes it difficult for "NATO" to ignore the political and strategic repercussions of this war, even if it is not officially on the summit's agenda.At the same time, the alliance continues to strengthen its support for Ukraine as the first line of defense against Russia, reflecting the continued European priority in the Atlantic strategy. However, this does not negate that the Middle East has also become a testing ground for the West's ability to protect its interests, especially with the expansion of Russian and Chinese influence, and the increasing roles of regional powers.Thus, the Ankara summit appears to be a new station in the process of reshaping the international system, where the West seeks to rearrange its internal affairs, distribute its military burdens, and enhance its defensive capabilities, in preparation for a long-term international competition that may extend for decades.As for the peoples of our region, these summits often do not bring tidings of peace as much as they reflect the continuation of a policy of conflict management, and the prioritization of strategic interests over the values of justice and human rights. This is confirmed by Western positions on the war of extermination in Gaza, and unconditional support for the Israeli occupation, in contrast to selectivity in applying international law.Recent years have proven that international alliances are not managed according to declared principles, but according to the balance of power and interest. Therefore, any Western talk about collective security or defending international law loses much of its credibility when the Palestinian people are excluded from these values, and Israel is granted political and military immunity that allows it to continue the occupation, settlement, siege, and extermination without accountability. Hence, the Ankara summit, no matter how much it raises slogans of unity and common defense, will remain for the peoples of the region a symbol of an alliance that continues to reproduce the same balances of power, instead of contributing to building a more just and equitable international system.