IKV organised a webinar entitled “The Future of Security Policies in Light of the NATO Summit Outcomes” on 13 July 2026. 

In her opening remarks, IKV Secretary General Assoc. Prof. Çiğdem Nas stated that the NATO Summit held in Ankara took place at a time when international law is weakening and power politics is becoming increasingly dominant. She argued that the Alliance has shifted away from its human-centred security approach and soft security issues such as climate change, placing renewed emphasis on hard security and deterrence. Prof. Nas stressed that threats to European security now extend beyond conventional risks to include cyber and hybrid operations, disinformation, and the rise of the far right, all of which undermine democratic societies and create significant security vulnerabilities. Within this complex geopolitical environment, she underlined that Türkiye has regained a central and indispensable role within the transatlantic alliance thanks to its growing defence industry capabilities. At the same time, she pointed to the paradox that Türkiye’s increasing military and strategic importance has not been reflected in its institutional relations with the EU, noting that issues such as the modernisation of the Customs Union and visa liberalisation remain stalled due to political considerations, cultural prejudices, and shortcomings in legislative alignment.

Prof. Tarık Oğuzlu stated that the NATO Summit in Ankara represented a critical milestone in the context of evolving transatlantic relations and the second term of US President Donald Trump. He noted that differences in threat perceptions and strategic visions between the United States and Europe have continued to deepen. Nevertheless, he argued that the summit concluded without institutional crisis, as Allies reaffirmed their commitment to NATO’s Article 5 and agreed to continue military support for Ukraine. Prof. Oğuzlu explained that the vision of “NATO 3.0,” centred on increased European defence spending and a gradual reduction of US responsibilities, has largely been shaped by Washington’s strategic priorities, while European allies have begun adapting to the diplomatic realities of this new phase. He added that Türkiye successfully hosted the summit and has recently gained renewed momentum in rebuilding its relations with Western partners. According to Prof. Oğuzlu, Türkiye’s expanding defence industrial capacity, its constructive role in regional crises, and its positive dialogue with the US administration were decisive factors both in the successful organisation of the summit and in strengthening Türkiye’s strategic position within the Euro-Atlantic security architecture.

In her presentation, Prof. Esra Albayrakoğlu observed that, unlike NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, which highlighted human security, climate change, and conflict prevention, the latest summit declaration reflected a much stronger emphasis on hard security, focusing on Russia, Iran, and defence industrial capacity. She questioned the extent to which this new division of responsibilities, largely shaped by the United States, would align with the strategic autonomy ambitions of both Türkiye and the EU. Prof. Albayrakoğlu also highlighted continuing disagreements among Allies regarding defence spending as well as policies towards Israel and Iran. Referring to Türkiye’s potential gains in defence industrial cooperation with the United States, including the possible procurement of F-35 aircraft, she argued that outcomes would depend not only on commitments made by political leaders but also on the institutional position of the US Congress. She further warned that uncertainty surrounding the future of the S-400 missile system and increasingly confrontational rhetoric towards Iran could complicate Türkiye’s neighbourhood policy and reduce its strategic flexibility. Concluding her remarks, Prof. Albayrakoğlu welcomed the growing institutional engagement of both NATO and the EU with the Southern neighbourhood and the Gulf region, while cautioning that reducing security challenges solely to state-centric threats and defence technologies, rather than addressing their structural and socio-economic causes, risks undermining the objectives of “360-degree security” and “positive peace.”