Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özkan
The NATO Summit, to be held in Ankara on July 7–8, 2026, will be one of the most critical meetings in recent years, not only for Türkiye but also for the future of the Alliance. Many strategic issues, such as increasing defense spending, new threat perceptions, the future of the Russia-Ukraine War, European security, and NATO’s southern flank, are the main agenda items of the summit in Ankara. While the issue of NATO received broad coverage in the international media on the occasion of this summit, it also set the agenda of political, academic, and security circles in Türkiye. Despite this, there was a striking situation: the vast majority of conservative circles in Türkiye maintained a distinct silence on NATO. This silence is not coincidental. On the contrary, it offers important clues for understanding the condition of conservative structures in Türkiye in the fields of foreign policy and security.
The first reason is the lack of knowledge and perspective on NATO. Conservative groups in Türkiye have historically remained distant from NATO and, indeed, have often taken a sharply critical line. Especially during the Cold War years, NATO was seen as an extension of Western hegemony, American influence, and the anti-communist security architecture. The February 28 process and military-politics relations also contributed to the strengthening of this perception. However, today it is not possible to explain NATO solely through the concepts of the Cold War.
The Alliance has undergone a major transformation over the past 30 years. Decision-making mechanisms, technology development, the defense industry, cybersecurity, space policies, artificial intelligence, supply chains, and joint production models have taken center stage on NATO’s agenda. Nevertheless, a significant portion of conservative circles in Türkiye does not possess an in-depth understanding of how NATO operates, how decisions are made, or how its military and political structures function. Consequently, discussions on NATO are often conducted through slogans and clichés. Since the transformation the Alliance has undergone has not been analyzed, the dynamics of this new era cannot be properly understood.
The second reason for this silence is the failure to fully understand what NATO’s transformation means for Türkiye. Today, Türkiye occupies a different position within NATO than it did in the past. Thanks to developments in the defense industry, unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare systems, and domestic technology production, Türkiye is no longer merely a consumer of security but is also becoming one of the countries that produce security.This change complicates the traditional “anti-NATO” rhetoric. This is because NATO is no longer merely a structure criticized from the outside; it has become one of the areas where Türkiye’s economic, technological, and strategic interests intersect. This situation creates serious tension between old reflexes and new realities. Conservative circles in Türkiye are also struggling at precisely this point to determine what they should say. While old narratives fall short of explaining the current situation, a new perspective has not yet been developed. As a result, silence often emerges as a consequence of either lacking ideas or being unable to make sense of the transformation taking place.
The third reason is the psychological and political impasse created by domestic politics. While the organization of such an important NATO Summit in Ankara was presented by the government as an indication of Türkiye’s international prestige, the summit was portrayed—particularly in rhetoric directed at the conservative voter base—as a major diplomatic success demonstrating Türkiye’s global influence. This situation created a new dilemma within conservative circles.
On the one hand, there are the harsh criticisms of NATO that have been voiced for years; on the other hand, there is a summit hosted by the political administration they support and presented as a diplomatic success. For this reason, strong opposition to NATO no longer appears politically meaningful. However, remaining completely silent also contradicts the narratives they have defended for years. The resulting picture is one of silence caught between criticism and support. In fact, this silence has become the safest way to avoid taking a clear position. Even more striking is that this silence is also evident at the institutional level within conservative sociology.
During the NATO Summit, various ideological circles in Türkiye organized numerous meetings, panels, conferences, and evaluation programs. Left-wing circles discussed NATO within the framework of imperialism. Nationalist circles emphasized the security dimension. Pro-Western circles, meanwhile, assessed the summit from the perspective of European security and transatlantic relations. By contrast, a striking silence prevailed across the majority of foundations, associations, research centers, and civil society organizations representing conservative thought. The foundations and associations of the conservative community, which had taken the lead on numerous global issues—including Gaza, Palestine, Myanmar, and the coup in Egypt—and had organized dozens of meetings, remained silent when the subject turned to NATO. Within these circles, at least publicly, no comprehensive discussions on NATO took place; no alternative perspectives were developed, and no positive or negative intellectual output capable of informing the public was produced.
This picture is not limited to NATO alone. In fact, it reflects a broader problem within conservative thought in Türkiye in the field of foreign policy. Rather than producing original conceptual frameworks in areas such as international relations, security, technology, great power competition, and global transformation, the domestic political agenda has often been the determining factor. Therefore, the silence that emerged during the NATO Summit in Ankara is not merely a reaction to a single summit. It also provides important clues about the capacity of conservative circles in Türkiye to generate new ideas on foreign policy, their approach to interpreting the international system, and their ability to make sense of new global transformations. If this silence represents a conscious and long-term political choice, then it deserves separate discussion. However, the picture that emerges suggests that it is more the result of a lack of knowledge, conceptual inadequacy, an inability to interpret NATO’s transformation, and the tension between domestic political allegiances and intellectual consistency.For this reason, the Ankara Summit will be remembered not only as a test of NATO’s future but also as a significant turning point that tested the foreign policy understanding of conservative thought in Türkiye.
The crux of the matter is this: if the institutional structures of conservative sociology are not going to speak out and express their views on a macro-level issue such as NATO, which occupies both Türkiye’s and the global agenda, then the question of whether this represents a thematic choice or an intellectual retreat by the conservative community deserves separate discussion.
