Türkiye & NATO: Made for each other, more than ever before

In the highly challenging, much more uncertain world of the 21st century, things can change very quickly. But not geography.

Türkiye’s place has always been the bridge between Europe, the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East and the gatekeeper to the Black Sea and Southern Russia. Nobody can doubt that it is one of the most significantly positioned members of the NATO alliance. A member since 1949 – one among the first to join the coalition – Türkiye has been a keystone in this bastion of Western security for almost 75 years.

Türkiye’s position confers a unique understanding of the hostility, political, cultural, economic and religious currents that flow around the southern region of the alliance. Türkiye has insight, relationships and influence that are profoundly important to securing the NATO southern flank.

Its relationship with Islam enables it to understand the struggle against violent religious extremism, a major feature of geopolitics in our age. Türkiye provides NATO with knowledge and communication not open to other countries, just as the alliance provides Türkiye with information and resources that protect its position.

But it’s not only about geography. Türkiye has the second-largest armed forces in NATO after the US, with three-quarters of a million people in uniform - dwarfing the size of most other members. It is also one of the few members which station nuclear capability on its soil.

The size of Türkiye’s military has been put to good use: in my own experience of working with large and highly professional Turkish contingents deployed to lead the international military presence in Kabul, I saw able commanders and skilled, well-equipped and disciplined soldiers managing a sophisticated and risk-intensive operation with great courage and success.

Türkiye has one of the most critical roles to play in the confrontation between NATO and Russia following Moscow's attack on Ukraine. Türkiye has a special ability to broker between Ukraine and Russia, the best shot so far at trying to bring an end to the fighting and suffering.

Even if this is most unlikely to bear fruit right now, there surely will come a time when violence is exhausted and the will to sit across a table is greater.

The profound enmity and bitterness, the physical and psychological scars of the biggest war in Europe for over 70 years, and the shocking scale and cost of reconstruction will need Türkiye’s stewarding as a friend of both countries, steering tough negotiation and driving home hard compromises.

In addition to its relationships, Turkish control of the Istanbul Strait has been at the heart of limiting militarisation of the Black Sea and brokering the release of Ukrainian grain. This has prevented millions from starving in some of the most deprived parts of Africa.

Türkiye has also been a leading NATO player in ensuring that a terrible war does not easily jeopardise the stability of states and the livelihoods of people around the world with no part in the war.

From a military perspective, Türkiye has been prominent amongst NATO members in providing some of the most telling capabilities to Ukraine, charting a difficult path given its relationships with both parties.

The Bayraktar TB 2 drone, for example, is significant not only because it sets the pace for other NATO members who could and should do more but also because it is an example of 21st-century military innovation in action.

The Ukraine conflict showcases how digital age technology shapes the way war is now fought, where the winners will be those who innovate at pace and scale to forge a decisive advantage on the battlefield. Turkish drone technology (in the sky, at sea, and on land) will be a leading contributor to how 21st-century armed forces evolve quickly into a manned, unmanned and autonomous team.

Innovation is little without industrial muscle. Ideas have to be scaled up in the heat of major conflict so that the supply of weapons meets a very high demand for use in ways it is simply impossible to do with the hugely expensive, sophisticated weapons that need years to build.

With a turnover of $6 billion in the Turkish defence industry last year, the ambition to achieve $4 billion worth of exports this year, and a product range that already spans almost every aspect of a Navy, Army or Air Force, there is no doubt that Türkiye is both a military and a defence industrial powerhouse in NATO.

We might well wonder why Poland has had to source hundreds of new tanks and heavy artillery guns from South Korea quickly and affordably; a better-organised alliance would have the industrial policy in place to meet its own needs.

As NATO resets to new and more expensive ‘deterrence by denial’, Türkiye should be one of the major industrial providers of the innovative, effective equipment needed at the scale and pace to face down Russia in a very long-term confrontation. This should be a vitally important dimension of Türkiye’s NATO membership.

We have to acknowledge that today there are substantive differences of view between Türkiye and some alliance members over, for example, the rapid accession of Finland and Sweden and the implications of Türkiye’s acquisition of the S-400 air defence system from Russia. These differences only benefit Russia if they are not efficiently and expeditiously managed.

Alliances are like large families, they run well on compromise and contribution. Collective security is a give-and-take affair. It is rare that every member agrees with the others on everything, so there has to be a degree of tolerance for differences.

Today, NATO has to manage more than even the major challenge of Russian aggression against Ukraine and its preference for a ‘sphere of influence’ inimical to democracy and national self-determination.

The alliance must also manage the violent religious extremism exhibited in the terrorism committed against peaceful citizens and the enduring strategic challenge of mass migration from disadvantaged parts of the world towards an increasingly unreceptive Europe.

We should expect NATO members to play different roles and assert their own priorities, but always within the binding requirements of overriding common purpose and commitment.

For NATO, that binding commitment is the bedrock of Article V: an attack on one is an attack on all, and every member is committed to responding in full measure to aggression against another. This must trump all local difficulties and smaller disagreements.

Today, NATO members are more clearly aware that they need to bind together in renewed common purpose, to see off the challenge to their combined security, prosperity and values presented today by President Putin, but also much greater difficulties ahead.

Our world will be dominated by the rise of China and global power shifting east, combined with the instability created by prolific population growth and the effects of climate change.

To this, we must add the astounding dislocation of the opportunities and risks of the digital age, as data, artificial intelligence, robotics, biosciences, and much else tear apart established industries and civil society. This will occur in a world where nuclear weapons will likely proliferate and – even worse – become seen as plausibly usable in some circumstances.

NATO is confronting a future beyond its focus on Russia. International order will have to be sustained when states, including large ones, are riven by internal instability and locked in existential disagreement with their neighbours.

In this challenging world, the NATO alliance will need Türkiye, and Türkiye will need the NATO alliance. The alliance must find a more robust common voice and act with greater unity of purpose so all members survive and prosper.

Differences should still be well aired, of course, but not at the expense of diminishing essential strength. Compromises that do not leave deep bruises as they are found will be required.

No alliance in human history has lasted forever, but there is only collective tragedy ahead if Türkiye and NATO part company, either now or in the remotely foreseeable future.