NATO has undergone two major modifications since its founding in 1949. The first occurred after the Cold War had ended. The second is currently unfolding. If the first transition was about finding a new purpose after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the second is about laying the groundwork for the alliance's economic future. In this context, the NATO Summit in Ankara on June 6-7 may be viewed as a watershed moment not only for NATO but also for Türkiye.

Throughout the Cold War, NATO's identity was unambiguous. The Soviet Union was the enemy, collective defense was the purpose, and the alliance was built around a well-defined geopolitical danger. For more than four decades, NATO's existence was rarely questioned because its purpose was obvious. The end of the Cold War altered everything.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, NATO lost the strategic environment that had supported its existence. The alliance experienced what many observers referred to as an identity crisis. What use did NATO serve if there was no Soviet threat? Who was the enemy? What role should the alliance play in a rapidly evolving global order? These questions helped create NATO's first significant shift.

Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, NATO expanded both geographically and politically. Former Warsaw Pact countries have joined the alliance. NATO became involved in crisis management, peacekeeping missions and military actions outside of its usual domain of duty. At the same time, many NATO countries sought to strengthen political and economic ties with Russia. European countries diversified their foreign policies, seeing Russia as a viable partner rather than an existential danger. During this time, NATO existed, but its importance was often based on military interoperability, training, technology sharing, and institutional cooperation rather than collective defense against a shared enemy.

The terrorist events of Sept.11, 2001, briefly reinvigorated NATO's sense of purpose. For the first time in history, Article 5 was invoked in favor of the United States. However, this rebirth was short-lived. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq gradually revealed serious divides within the alliance. Many NATO countries supported counterterrorism measures, but were suspicious of Washington's broader regime-change strategies. The Iraq War, in particular, exposed disputes about the use of military force and the course of American foreign policy. By the late 2010s, NATO was once again being questioned regarding its relevance and strategic coherence.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, gave another compelling rationale for NATO's existence. The battle warned European governments that traditional military challenges remained on the continent. Budgets soared, NATO expanded and collective defense returned to the forefront of strategic planning. Even still, this moment was distinct from the Cold War era.

Many NATO nations supported Ukraine while avoiding a direct confrontation with Russia. Countries took various approaches based on their national interests. Türkiye maintained a balancing stance, supporting Ukraine's territorial integrity while maintaining diplomatic relations with Moscow. Other members used similar subtle techniques. Following 9/11, many states were wary of participating in open-ended, American-led geopolitical ventures. This is why NATO's present makeover differs significantly from its prior one.

For the past decade, alliance officials have pushed to position Russia and, increasingly, China as the defining challenges of the future. While these threats remain significant, they have not resulted in the same level of strategic unanimity as during the Cold War. NATO's future can no longer be determined only by identifying an external enemy. Instead, a new organizing paradigm has emerged: industrial defense cooperation.

Ankara Summit will be decisive

The Ankara Summit's most significant conclusion will be the crystallization of the alliance's new economic strategy, rather than a new danger assessment. The agreement by member nations to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP at the previous summit is more than just a military decision. It is the foundation of a massive transatlantic industrial ecosystem. Defense expenditure is no longer only about buying weapons. It is about establishing supply chains, developing new technologies, encouraging innovation, creating jobs and increasing industrial resilience.

In effect, NATO is evolving into more than just a security alliance, but also a platform for industry-defense convergence. This move provides the alliance with a fresh source of cohesion. Unlike prior attempts to foster unity through external threats, industrial defense cooperation yields tangible economic benefits to all members. It creates winners throughout the alliance and provides long-term incentives for continuing the partnership.

For Türkiye, this transition represents a historic opportunity. For all of NATO's history, Türkiye has been predominantly a consumer of alliance security. It held a crucial geostrategic position, commanded one of NATO's largest armed formations, and made major contributions to collective defense. However, its influence on NATO's ideological and industrial objectives was minimal. Today, that reality is changing.

Over the last decade, Türkiye has created one of the alliance's most dynamic defense sectors. Turkish firms have emerged as competitive makers of drones, naval systems, armored vehicles, precise weapons and developing technology. More crucially, they are becoming more integrated into the global defense supply chain.

As NATO focuses on industrial cooperation and large-scale defense expenditure, Türkiye is positioned not only as a client but also as a contributor, supplier and partner. This marks a dramatic shift in the country's position within the alliance. The Ankara Summit is thus a significant symbolic and geopolitical event. It represents NATO's evolution from an alliance characterized primarily by threats to one supported by shared industrial capabilities and economic interests. At the same time, it emphasizes Türkiye's rise as an important actor in this new framework.

History may remember Ankara 2026 as the beginning of NATO's second big transition. If the first transition was about survival after the Cold War, the second is about reimagining the alliance through industry-defense collaboration. And, for the first time, Türkiye is near the center of that shift rather than on the outside.