Hayri Kozanoğlu The 250th anniversary of the founding of the USA coincides with the same week as the 36th Summit of the NATO, described as "historic", which is to be held in…
What the source says
Hayri Kozanoğlu The 250th anniversary of the founding of the USA coincides with the same week as the 36th Summit of the NATO, described as "historic", which is to be held in Ankara. The USA declared its independence from Britain 250 years ago. Over time, it became the world's number one economy and military power. America offered its citizens a level of prosperity where they owned a house and a car, could send their children to university, and had easy access to common consumer goods. Living standards advanced from generation to generation. The American way of life created a magnetic appeal that was envied and aspired to all over the world. With the Cold War concluding in favour of the USA and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, people began to speak of a unipolar world under US leadership. The "end of history" narrative, in which capitalism was accepted as a model without alternative and bourgeois democracy as the indispensable management style of the market order, gained acceptance. THE DECLINE OF THE USA However, for the past 30 years, the rapid rise of China has begun to unsettle the USA. Although the American economy performs better than the EU countries, the increase in prosperity of the average American family has stalled under the conditions of capitalist globalisation. The assumption that each generation would have better financial means than its parents was shaken. Young generations anxious about their future, and blue-collar workers in provincial states who think they have lost their jobs primarily to China and Asian countries, have begun to suggest that the "American story" is nearing its end. The convenience of blaming existing problems on immigrants, refugees, and minorities has led to the strengthening of the far-right, its dominance in the Republican Party, and the popularity of demagogues like Trump. The USA maintains its world leadership in technology. Thanks to its application to the military industry, it still preserves the privilege of having the strongest army and military bases in all four corners of the globe. The asymmetry between losing its weight in the global economy and harbouring a crushing military power has caused it, with leaders like Trump, to increasingly steer towards a 19th-century style of imperialism based on brute force, coercion, and imposition, which views the explicit plundering of natural resources as legitimate. In this context, the overlapping of its 250th founding anniversary with the summit of NATO, the world's largest war apparatus, carries a special significance. THE USA HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN AGGRESSIVE POWER At its foundation, the USA promoted itself as the bastion of democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. Especially after establishing its global hegemony post-World War II, it instilled the aforementioned values to the world through the institutional structures of the "liberal international order" such as the UN, the OECD, NATO, the IMF, and the WB. But looking back, it is seen that the belligerent face of the USA has always been on the agenda, fitting 500 military interventions into 250 years. According to political scientists Monica Duffy Toft and Sidita Kushi, especially after the 11 September 2001 attacks, the USA prefers to use military power rather than pushing for diplomatic solutions. While the centre of US military interventions in the 19th century was mostly Latin America, operations directed at Asia and the Middle East have intensified in recent history. With the end of the Cold War, it became easier for the USA to spread its growing military power across different geographies of the world. In the 1990s, wars were initiated in the Balkans and Somalia under the guise of "humanitarian intervention". Post-2001, the theme of "regime change" constitutes the justification for military interventions, primarily the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Operations in Venezuela and, most recently, Iran, are carried out without seeking justifications such as international law, national security threats, or the failure of peaceful negotiations. (How the US shaped the world: 250 years of power and policies, Peter Hille – Carina Grün, 1 July 2026, dw.com). THE NATO SUMMIT AT A CRITICAL JUNCTURE It is at such a turning point that the NATO summit convenes. There is a landscape where Trump hurls threats of seizing Greenland, complains that Europe did not provide enough support in the Iran operation, the Middle East has once again become a tinderbox, and European countries are relentlessly adding fuel to the fire in the war in Ukraine. We are at a point where EU members, except Spain, have responded positively to Trump's threat to increase military spending to 5%; and they are gradually increasing war expenditures, with 3.5% going directly to armament and 1.5% to infrastructure. The word war should not be found odd here because their US counterparts changed their name from the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Since Europe currently lacks the procurement capabilities to meet this armament move, it can be estimated that the majority of the expenditures will enter the coffers of US arms monopolies. NATO 3.0 The Ankara summit is characterised as NATO 3.0. Just as the First Industrial Revolution transformed the arms industry through factories and mechanisation, it is hoped that NATO 3.0 will reorganise military production by utilising the possibilities of technology, not for defence, but as a continuous source of profit. While budget discipline is applied to healthcare, education, pensions, and social welfare programmes, military expenditures will face no constraints. Specifically in the USA, while cloud technology, artificial intelligence, satellite communications, and autonomous weapons are being developed by the private sector, the main actors of the Military-Industrial Complex are an organic part of the power coalition surrounding Trump. High-tech militarists such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Palmer Luckey are also the dollar billionaires reaping enormous profits from this process. The other companies smiling at the USA's armament expenditures, which amount to 1.5 trillion dollars, are familiar addresses like Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. Indeed, with the restructuring of NATO, it is expected that more money will flow from the armament budgets of Europeans into the coffers of these arms monopolies. While Germany tries to alleviate its own growth problem with armament expenditures, and Baltic countries and Poland look warmly upon the US umbrella due to historic fear of Russia, countries that are symbols of neutrality, such as Sweden and Finland, have also entered the NATO circle. As it is wondered what kind of a NATO architecture will take shape within such delicate balances, Türkiye's key position is acknowledged by everyone. TÜRKİYE AND NATO Türkiye possesses the second largest army in NATO. Its geographical location is also situated right in the middle of tension centres at the intersection of the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East, and the Caucasus. It attempts to conduct its military alliances in a balanced manner without fully breaking away from NATO and without ruining relations with Russia. The body chemistry of authoritarian leaders like Trump, Putin, and Erdoğan matches; they harbour deep feelings of appreciation for one another. Knowing that the oppressive environment in the country, the continuation of operations against the opposition, and the decline in the living standards of wage earners will not create a problem in either Washington or Moscow provides comfort to Erdoğan. For the EU, the fact that it embraces immigrants primarily from Syria and the Middle East in exchange for commission, thereby closing the doors to Europe, maintains control of the Straits, and is known to mobilise its military power if necessary, causes the Copenhagen criteria—which include standards regarding human rights, freedoms, and democracy that it once showed sensitivity to—to be shelved. Türkiye's discomfort with the USA supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria, and differences regarding the Cyprus issue, do not lead to the shaking of foundational alliances. In a historical sense, NATO is a war organisation positioned against communism and national liberation movements. Today, however, it is intended to be mobilised against Russia and China, which it sees as a danger to the Atlantic system. It is understood that Erdoğan is increasingly trying to incline towards the USA, views Trump's support as critical in order to be elected for another term, and tries to strike this delicate balance without entirely burning bridges with Russia. In this sense, the multinational headquarters that NATO will establish in Adana reflects the pact's intentions to step outside its coverage area and expand into the Middle East, the Caucasus, and North Africa. Naturally, this places Türkiye at a security risk through the danger of intervention in these regions. The naval command envisaged to be established in Istanbul also carries the risk of both bringing Türkiye into tension with Black Sea countries and making the guarantees of the Montreux Straits Convention questionable. Despite these, although Türkiye is a NATO member, it does not possess air defence systems. It cancelled the long-range missile agreement it made with China under pressure, and although it purchased S-400 missiles from Russia, it did not activate them again due to threats, nor was the Patriot air defence system reliably provided. Its membership in the F-35 programme was suspended, and it was subjected to CAATSA sanctions. Trump saying that he would do something that will make Erdoğan very happy has increased the expectation that the F-35s, which were paid for but not delivered, will be given prior to the Ankara summit. Another surprise is estimated to be the sale of the jet engine required for the KAAN combat aircraft. Although European countries increase their defence expenditures to a certain extent, they hold back the soldiers they would send to the front, due to domestic public pressure. At this point, the phrase uttered by George Soros in the past comes to mind: "Türkiye's best export product is its army". THE DUTY FALLS TO THE REVOLUTIONARIES AGAIN In such a landscape, the duty of every citizen should be to keep our country away from war adventures and to oppose the country entering into new military engagements in a geopolitical location surrounded by risks on all sides. For this reason, despite all pressures, it is the responsibility of the social opposition to spread reactions to the NATO summit to the extent of their means. Given the capitulatory attitude of the establishment parties regarding NATO membership, this duty once again falls to the socialists and revolutionaries. Note: This article is translated from the original article titled ABD’nin 250. Kuruluş Yıldönümü ve NATO zirvesi, published in BirGün newspaper on July 5, 2026.
Why this article appeared here
This story matched the site’s configured topics and was automatically ranked for recency, source priority, and breaking-news terms.
Read the original reporting
For the original report and any subsequent live updates, see birgun.
