Ankara NATO Summit and Turkey’s Strengthening Role

The 36th NATO Summit of Heads of State and Government, held in Ankara on 7–8 July 2026, was a symbol-laden meeting that will be remembered for the messages Turkey conveyed to the entire world, especially to its allies within the Alliance.

Attended by the heads of state and government of all 32 member countries and nearly 100 ministers, and with representatives of numerous non-member global partners also invited, the summit was described by the concept of “NATO 3.0,” signaling that the defense alliance has entered a new era. According to this conceptualization, which is used to define the structural, strategic, and ideological transformations the Alliance has undergone from its founding to the present day, the process is divided into three main periods:

NATO 1.0 (1949–1991): The Cold War era, during which communism was identified as the principal enemy.

NATO 2.0 (1991–2022): The period from the end of the Cold War until Russia invaded Ukraine, during which Islam was implicitly defined as an enemy under the banner of combating terrorism.

NATO 3.0 (2022–Present): The “New Cold War” era in which we now find ourselves, beginning with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and characterized by China’s rise as a global power being defined as a “systemic threat.”

Under the NATO 3.0 concept, the United States’ strategic priority is shifting toward the Indo-Pacific region, and as part of this rebalancing plan, Europe is expected to assume greater responsibility for the defense of the continent within NATO, while the United States takes on a complementary role. Moreover, the concept of threat is no longer viewed solely in military terms; cyber warfare, the military use of artificial intelligence, space security, the protection of critical infrastructure (such as energy pipelines), and hybrid warfare methods are also included within this framework.

What Made the Ankara Summit Different?

The “NATO 3.0” concept was essentially a framework that had already been discussed and adopted at NATO’s Madrid (2022) and Washington (2024) summits; technically, the Ankara Summit was a continuation of this process. Therefore, what made the Ankara NATO Summit remarkable was not so much the concept itself, but rather Turkey’s emergence as a military, political, and industrial power shaping NATO’s future security architecture, moving beyond its former role as merely an outpost protecting the Alliance’s southeastern flank.

Trump’s Visit and a Turning Point in U.S.–Turkey Relations

The statement by U.S. President Donald Trump—who was reportedly angered by the lack of support he had expected from NATO allies during the war with Iran—that he attended the summit in Ankara out of regard for President Erdoğan, whom he described as “my friend, a very strong leader, a very strong person,” and that he would not have attended had the summit been held in another country, resonated around the world.

While other heads of state were welcomed by cabinet members, President Erdoğan personally greeted Donald Trump at the airport. This reception signaled the evolving special relationship between the two countries possessing NATO’s largest armies. The measured approach displayed by the U.S. President in Ankara, despite his reputation for rude and demeaning behavior in meetings with European leaders, revealed the new trajectory of bilateral relations. It was still fresh in public memory that, at the G7 summit held in France just last month, Trump had kept the other leaders waiting by arriving late to the meeting and had entered saying, “Hello, I’m the boss.”

Before arriving in Turkey, Trump announced that he would bring major good news for Turkey, and before the summit (on 26 June), he had declared that he had formally notified Congress of a request to sell jet engines to Turkey for the national combat aircraft KAAN, valued at more than $700 million. During the summit, he also announced that the CAATSA sanctions imposed on Turkey would be lifted and that the delivery of F-35 aircraft would be considered. These statements, which could bring an end to Israel’s air superiority in the region and potentially alter the regional balance, marked historic turning points in U.S.–Turkey relations.

Throughout the summit, President Erdoğan’s balanced leadership and the respect he commanded among the leaders helped prevent potential clashes between European leaders and Trump, positioning Turkey as a crisis-mitigating and managing actor among the Allies.

Symbols and Infrastructure Power: The Presidential Complex and the Ay Yıldız Headquarters

From beginning to end, the summit took place in a setting where Turkey showcased its national identity and the capabilities it has achieved.

Historic Reception: The summit was marked by the reception of the heads of state at the Presidential Complex by the Mehter Band and the Janissary Ceremonial Unit, whose traditions date back to the 13th century. This ceremony was a clear declaration that Turkey, the Alliance’s only Muslim and Asian member, would take its place at the table with its own historical and cultural identity.

Ay Yıldız Joint Headquarters: While the leaders were hosted at the Presidential Complex, the military bureaucracy was received at the new Ay Yıldız Joint Headquarters, which brings together the Ministry of National Defense, the General Staff, and the military force commands under one roof. This massive defense complex, three times larger than the Pentagon and four times larger than NATO Headquarters, visually demonstrated Turkey’s modern military capacity to its guests.

Defense Industry Forum: One of the most strategic steps of the summit was the inclusion of the Defense Industry Forum in the official program of a NATO summit for the first time. At this forum, Turkey showcased its domestic technologies in fields such as unmanned aerial vehicles, missile systems, electronic warfare, and land and naval platforms. Sales agreements worth approximately $50 billion were signed at the exhibition. With more than 3,000 active companies, the Turkish defense industry was recognized as one of the key military, political, and industrial actors capable of contributing to the shaping of NATO’s security architecture and closing the gap in rapid production capacity.

The Historical Background of Turkey–NATO Relations and Two Major Turning Points

We have noted that what distinguished the Ankara NATO Summit from other Alliance summits was Turkey’s emergence as a central actor with its own historical and cultural identity. The current state of Turkey–NATO/U.S. relations, as well as Ankara’s approach at the summit emphasizing its historical and national identity and the capabilities it has achieved, cannot be understood without considering the two major turning points that occurred in 1960 and 2016. Acting within the framework of U.S. doctrines, NATO has in the past sought to keep Turkey under its control through military coups and memorandums.

The First Turning Point: The 1960 Coup and the Purge of the Military

In Turkey, which became a NATO member on 18 February 1952 in response to the Soviet threat, the United States, as the founding power of the Alliance, established a strict system of tutelage. However, in the early 1960s, the Adnan Menderes government’s attempt to abandon blind dependence on the United States and develop autonomous policies based on mutual trust with neighboring countries and the Soviet Union was violently brought to an end by the military coup of 27 May 1960, carried out by 38 coup officers, all of whom had received military training in the United States. Adnan Menderes and two of his ministers were executed as a result of these bold initiatives.

The National Unity Committee (MBK), established after the coup, did not merely overthrow the government; with Law No. 42 dated 2 August 1960, it retired 275 generals/admirals and 7,000 officers from the Turkish Armed Forces. According to a report by the U.S. Ambassador at the time, Fletcher Warren, 90% of the generals and 55% of the colonels were purged. [i]

The $12 million required to finance this purge was obtained from the United States through General Lauris Norstad, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO at the time, and was distributed to the retired officers as severance payments. The primary objective of this operation was to detach the Turkish military from its historical foundations and transform it into a “NATO army” shaped entirely according to American military doctrines. Redesigned as a NATO army, the Turkish Armed Forces sought for many years to keep Turkish politics and society aligned with the U.S./NATO line through the memorandums it issued, the coups it carried out, and Gladio/Counter-Guerrilla operations.

Nevertheless, NATO–Turkey relations experienced serious ruptures from time to time. One of the most significant turning points was Turkey’s temporary closure of U.S. military bases in the country, including Incirlik, in response to the arms embargo imposed by the United States following the 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation.

The rejection by the Turkish Parliament of the March 1, 2003 motion—which would have allowed 62,000 foreign troops, the majority of them American, to be stationed on Turkish territory for the invasion of Iraq, to use Turkish ports and air bases, and simultaneously authorized the deployment of the Turkish Armed Forces to northern Iraq—marked the beginning of a period of strained relations, as Turkey declared that it would not automatically follow every decision made by the United States and, consequently, NATO, but would instead prioritize its national interests.

The Second Turning Point: The FETÖ Coup Attempt of July 15, 2016

The strengthening of Turkey’s national reflexes and its determination to act independently caused unease within the Western axis. When conventional methods such as economic and military sanctions, financial operations, covert support for terrorism, and interference in politics failed to achieve their aims, the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (FETÖ) and pro-NATO elements within the Turkish Armed Forces jointly launched a coup and occupation attempt on July 15, 2016, with the aim of bringing Turkey back under full control.

Following this bloody attempt, which was repelled through the resistance of the people and the state, a massive purge was carried out within the Turkish Armed Forces. Thirty-three percent of the officers on active duty on July 15 (10,468 officers) and 81% of the staff officers (1,524 staff officers, including 150 generals) were dismissed from the military. This extensive purge was, in a sense, a form of retribution for the NATO operation carried out in 1960. Meanwhile, countries such as Belgium, the United States, and the United Kingdom granted asylum to approximately 280 NATO officers and attachés who had been recalled but failed to return, thereby siding with the coup plotters.

Strategic Autonomy After July 15 and the Conclusion

After July 15, the Turkish military, having completed its internal purge, was rapidly restructured and soon transformed into a force capable of conducting regional operations, while Turkey embarked on an unprecedented investment in its defense industry. Through the development of domestically produced UAV and UCAV technologies, Turkey altered conventional warfare doctrines around the world and achieved a high level of deterrence in foreign policy.

With a policy based on “strategic autonomy,” which means making its own decisions independently, and “strategic flexibility,” which refers to the ability to cooperate with all parties without being tied exclusively to a single alliance, Turkey has acted with the goal of becoming a center of attraction in its region and a global balancing actor in the new multipolar world order. It has evolved into a structure capable of using force by its own decision in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Aegean, and even Africa. By providing military support to Azerbaijan during the Karabakh War, establishing military bases and maintaining an operational presence in countries such as Qatar, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia, Turkey has begun to intervene directly in crises within its region. Beyond its immediate neighborhood, the whole of Africa, South America, the Asia-Pacific region, and ASEAN countries have become other geographical areas where Turkey has developed significant cooperation in recent years.

Located at the crossroads of Asia, Europe, and Africa, Turkey has succeeded in transforming its geostrategic position into a lasting source of power through trade routes, energy corridors, infrastructure, and digital networks. It has intensified its efforts to become a critical hub connecting the rich oil and natural gas reserves of Asia and the Middle East to Europe, thereby ensuring energy supply security for the Western world.

In summary:

Ten years after the coup and occupation attempt of July 15, 2016, Turkey hosted NATO allies, described as supporters of the coup plotters, in its capital with strong leadership. During the intervening period, Turkey succeeded in transforming itself into a formidable power through its foreign policy, military, defense industry, and intelligence capabilities.

Situated at the center of trade routes, energy corridors, and digital networks, Turkey has, through the advantages provided by its geostrategic position, become indispensable to its European allies in ensuring both commodity and energy supply security.

The strategic partnerships Turkey has established in Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa have opened up a broad diplomatic and military sphere of maneuver and influence that many NATO members do not possess. While continuing its NATO alliance, which it joined in 1952, Turkey is also seeking to advance its relations with the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) toward the dimension of military integration. At the same time, it is preparing a new alliance centered around Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt to bring an end to the chaos in the Middle East. In addition to all this, Turkey is the only member of the Alliance that continues to maintain relations with Russia and China, both of which are regarded as adversaries within the NATO 3.0 Concept.

In conclusion, the Ankara NATO Summit clearly demonstrated that, whether in the current context where the United States is questioning its role within the alliance or in the new security architecture that Europe seeks to build in the future, no scenario that excludes Türkiye has any realistic chance of success. It also sent a clear message to all allies that their partnership with Türkiye must continue by taking into account the country’s historical identity, geographical responsibilities, and military capabilities.

Translated by: Omneya Alkafafy