NATO is defined as a political and military alliance. This means "political will and solidarity" are an absolute requirement. Without them, NATO cannot achieve its founding purpose. As an institution engaged in continuous consultations, NATO makes decisions at various levels. Today it makes decisions by the unanimous consent of 32 countries. Collective will is at stake. Geographically, it doesn't confine itself to the Euro-Atlantic region alone. It makes decisions with consequences extending far beyond this geography. When NATO launches an operation, members contribute military force voluntarily. Article 5 of its founding treaty, briefly expressed as an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all, is seen as the cornerstone of the alliance. In the alliance's history, Article 5 has been invoked only once, after the Sept.11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

These may be seen as general facts about NATO. Yet since its founding, NATO has been a constantly debated organization on many issues, especially these fundamental determining matters. At the Ankara summit, since the boundaries of these determining matters have eroded, complementary decisions may be taken to clarify them once again.

For the second time in NATO's history – the first being the 2004 Istanbul summit – Türkiye will host the summit. Even before the allies have gathered and made decisions, expectations have formed that the Ankara summit will be one of the most critical gatherings in NATO's history. At some of its meetings, NATO has adopted new concepts that proved decisive for the alliance's history. With each of these new concepts, there has been continuous talk of "NATO's changing role."

When the Cold War ended, rather than defining a new major threat for itself, NATO redefined its role around crisis management, new partnerships and out-of-area operations. After the Sept.11 attacks, counterterrorism, failed states and global crisis management came to the fore. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, it once again recalled its founding purpose, and after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it returned to a concept centered on collective defense and deterrence, that is, back to the very beginning. At the 2022 Madrid summit, Russia was once again defined as the most significant and direct threat.

The core agenda of NATO's Ankara Summit will be what the alliance will defend, how, and with what resources and burden-sharing. It has become clear that countries fulfilling their defense spending commitments will not by themselves produce a strategic outcome. In other words, simply increasing the budget each country allocates to defense spending doesn't solve the problem. Nor does it necessarily amount to a contribution to collective defense. In fact, in an equation where alliance solidarity is not backed by strong political will, each country's individual arms race could become an input that damages the sustainability of the collective defense concept.

Therefore, decisions will need to be made on transforming the resources allocated to defense, through a coordinated and collective perspective, into joint ammunition production, common procurement, air defense, cyber capacity, unmanned systems and critical infrastructure security. At the Ankara summit, an effort will be made to decide on aligning political will and strengthening cooperation on this issue.

Hard lessons have been drawn, in terms of the concept of warfare, from the Russia-Ukraine war and the U.S.-Israel-Iran war. Accordingly, we should also expect this summit to produce a roadmap for high-volume ammunition production, rapid technological adaptation and long-term logistical resilience.

The Ankara summit will also attempt to redefine NATO's role in terms of both political solidarity and military capabilities. For years, Europe viewed the U.S. as its automatic security guarantor. Now the U.S.'s strategic focus is shifting toward the Asia-Pacific. The Trump administration, believing it was "left alone" in the war it opened against Iran, continues to describe NATO members as "freeloaders" and "cowards." U.S. Secretary of State Rubio stated that, regarding NATO's future, there are matters that need to be clarified at the Ankara summit. We should therefore expect that at this summit, the rules and limits of solidarity, of getting involved in a war, and of coming to another's aid will once again be opened up for debate. This summit, at which very important decisions are expected to be taken, will in this context determine the way out of the alliance's recent internal reckoning.

Türkiye's defense industry capacity directly overlaps with NATO's needs in this new period. It is indispensable for NATO's southern flank and Black Sea security. In this context, we should anticipate that Türkiye will make a decisive contribution to the redefinition of NATO's new role. An analysis of the Ankara summit from Türkiye's perspective will follow in the next piece...