The order established in the wake of World War II has three pillars. The first is the United Nations, headquartered in New York and founded in 1945. The second is NATO, founded in 1949 under the leadership of the U.S., and the third is the formation founded in 1951 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which later evolved into the European Union under the Maastricht Treaty.

We see the international effectiveness of the United Nations weakening by the day. The European Union, on the other hand, has been shaken by the U.K.'s secession process. In such an environment, the future of NATO, the vanguard structure of the North Atlantic cooperation, becomes even more important.

NATO, the largest military alliance in the history of the world, which had its heyday in terms of military power after the dissolution of the Soviets, has turned 70; however, it is necessary to consider that NATO's military cooperation is meaningful only as long as it has political unity. Based on this, NATO has been going through its most disorganized days in terms of politics and its weakest days in terms of the strategic union since the dissolution of the Soviets.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, which withdrew from the military command structure in 1966 and returned in 2009, calls the U.S. an "unreliable ally," saying that Russia and China should no longer be seen as a threat. On the other hand, the U.S. president himself advocates the necessity of establishing good relations with Russia. In this context, it is not clear why Turkey's acquisition of the S-400 air defense system from Russia has become such a big problem.

Meanwhile, the joint declaration, released after the 70th anniversary summit, says "Russia's aggressive activities threaten Euro-Atlantic security," adding that "We should consider the opportunities and tests posed by China's growing influence and international policies together as an alliance."

Besides, although it is stated that the partnership in the fight against terrorism is a responsibility of the alliance, France is known to be opposed to Turkey's fight against the People's Protection Units (YPG). Macron, who has advocated rapprochement with Russia and China, has been harshly critical of NATO member Turkey. It remains a mystery why the French leader, advocating the fight against terrorism even in Mali thousands of miles away, has reacted so harshly to Turkey’s intervention in the terror threat coming from its neighbor with the longest border.

Coupled with the race to raise taxes between the U.S. and France and the opposition of Britain and Germany to the U.S. mobilization against Huawei, it is necessary to acknowledge that there is a rather disorganized image, let alone unity in terms of political vision.

It is clear that NATO, which cannot achieve unity for political vision, cannot be united against a possible threat either. If you do not have a common macro-political strategy, no matter how strong you are in military power, your deterrence power will decrease. This is the biggest challenge NATO must face in the coming years.