Ahead of the NATO Summit in Ankara, the National Intelligence Academy published a report titled 'The Ankara Summit, NATO 3.0 Debates and Turkey' to assess NATO's changing security architecture, the NATO 3.0 discussions and Turkey's strategic role within the alliance.
The report addresses the new challenges NATO faces amid the transformation of the international security environment and the strategic importance of the Ankara Summit for the alliance's future. It offers a comprehensive evaluation of how NATO will adapt to the new security paradigm, the themes shaping the NATO 3.0 debates and the role Turkey can assume in this process.
The report notes that the international security paradigm has moved away from the relatively predictable post-Cold War structure and evolved into a multi-axis, hybrid and highly uncertain new competitive environment.
It states that the intensification of great-power competition, China's technological and economic rise and the military and geopolitical ruptures caused by the Russia-Ukraine and US/Israel-Iran wars have fundamentally altered the understanding of security. The most important consequence of this transformation, it underlines, is that security can no longer be defined solely in terms of military capacity and border defense.
The report records that in the new security environment threats have diversified in terms of geography, subject and actors, and that military, economic, technological and societal dimensions have become an integrated security architecture that cannot be separated.
It notes that hybrid threats have become permanent instruments of power competition, while cyber-attacks, disinformation, energy coercion and sabotage of critical infrastructure produce strategic outcomes. In line with these developments, it emphasizes that cognitive security and societal resilience have become inseparable elements of national and collective security.
New Security Architecture Takes Shape with NATO 3.0
The report examines NATO's historical evolution through the lens of the Cold War collective defense concept, the NATO 2.0 era characterized by crisis management and out-of-area operations, and the NATO 3.0 framework that is the focus of current debates.
It states that this periodization represents not NATO's official classification but an analytical framework to make sense of the changing threat perception and strategic priorities. The report argues that NATO's historical success stems from its ability to preserve its founding principles while generating new concepts and mechanisms to meet changing security conditions.
While collective defense is once again at the center in the NATO 3.0 era, the report notes that the security architecture is no longer limited to land, air and sea domains.
It states that cyber space, space, the electromagnetic spectrum and the cognitive domain have also become integral parts of the modern security architecture, and emphasizes that collective deterrence and resilience are being assessed through an integrated approach spanning defense industry, cyber security, air and missile defense, critical infrastructure, artificial intelligence and societal resilience capacity.
Strategic Autonomy at the Heart of NATO 3.0 Debates
The report states that the burden-sharing debate within NATO is no longer conducted solely through defense budgets. It notes that the discussion has evolved into questions of which ally will develop which capability against which threat, to what extent that capacity will be sustainable and what responsibility it will assume in times of crisis.
In this context, it highlights that 'burden-sharing' and 'burden-shifting' approaches have come to the fore within NATO 3.0, and that a new distribution of responsibility in European security has become inevitable as the US shifts its strategic priorities to the Asia-Pacific. The report underscores that strategic autonomy is at the center of the NATO 3.0 debate.
It states that the national capacities allies develop in defense industry, technology, energy and critical infrastructure will strengthen the alliance's resilience to the extent that they are aligned with the principles of joint planning and interoperability. NATO 3.0's success, it notes, depends on treating strategic autonomy and alliance cohesion not as opposing trends but as mutually reinforcing elements when managed correctly.
Turkey a Critical Ally for NATO 3.0
The report states that Turkey is a strong and exceptional example of the ally profile that NATO 3.0 requires.
It notes that Turkey, which can produce its own security, develop competence in critical technologies, combat hybrid threats and transform its strategic autonomy into alliance capacity, is evolving from a reliable ally to an actor that generates strategic added value. This transformation, the report emphasizes, makes Turkey one of the actors that actively test and strengthen NATO's transformation capacity.
The most important factor differentiating Turkey's role within NATO, the report states, is its ability to simultaneously read the security agendas of both the eastern and southern flanks.
It notes that Turkey contributes to the eastern flank through Black Sea security, the Russia-Ukraine balance and the Montreux regime, and to the southern flank through risks emanating from Syria, Iraq, Libya, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Gulf and the Middle East, thereby providing a concrete practical embodiment of NATO's 360-degree security approach.
Turkey's Defense and Intelligence Capacity Stands Out
The report states that Turkey's defense industry capacity directly aligns with NATO's production and sustainability agenda.
It notes that the capacity developed in unmanned aerial vehicles, munitions, electronic warfare, radar, naval and land systems, command-control and artificial intelligence-supported decision-making mechanisms not only strengthens national security but also holds the potential to contribute to the alliance's overall deterrence.
In terms of the 'three-dimensional depth' in defense industry — the combination of quality, quantity and sustainability — Turkey constitutes a critical example within NATO, the report records. Turkey's operational experience, field expertise in combating hybrid and asymmetric threats, and multidimensional diplomatic capacity provide significant strategic advantage in the new security environment, it adds.
The report further notes that intelligence sharing and intelligence diplomacy have become one of the decisive instruments of inter-allied trust and crisis management, and underscores that the National Intelligence Organization's strengthened operational capability in recent years has further deepened Turkey's intelligence contribution to NATO.
Ankara Summit a Critical Threshold for NATO
The report states that the Ankara Summit is not merely a meeting to assess current security crises but a critical juncture that will demonstrate how NATO will provide an institutional and strategic response to the new security paradigm.
Defense spending, production capacity, the US-Europe division of labor, the security priorities of the eastern and southern flanks, artificial intelligence, cyber security, space security and next-generation technologies are identified as the core agenda items of the NATO 3.0 debates.
While the report notes that the defense spending debate has gained a new dimension with the 5 percent of GDP target adopted at the Hague Summit, it states that the real issue is how the allocated resources will be utilized in line with which strategic priorities.
Drawing attention to the needs created by the Russia-Ukraine war in terms of defense industrial production capacity, munitions, air defense and logistics, the report stresses that NATO's fundamental test is whether it can become an alliance that transforms these resources into effective capabilities rather than simply allocating more funds. In this context, the importance of the 'three-dimensional depth' approach in defense industry is growing day by day, it records.
The report also notes that the concept of deterrence and resilience is transforming in the new security environment, with energy infrastructure, communication networks, financial systems, public opinion and societal psychology also becoming fundamental elements of security.
It assesses that adopting a 'comprehensive resilience' approach as a founding security concept will be decisive for NATO to produce lasting strategic impact in the new era.
Significance of Ankara Summit for Turkey
The report states that for Turkey, the significance of the Ankara Summit goes beyond hosting the event.
It notes that Turkey is one of the key actors that can contribute to shaping the strategic framework of NATO's new security understanding; priority items include reflecting the 360-degree security approach more strongly in NATO planning processes, institutionalizing defense industry cooperation and strengthening allied solidarity in the fight against terrorism.
The report states that deepening the hybrid threats and resilience agenda is also important, and that Turkey's experience in areas such as disinformation, cyber threats, critical infrastructure security, the weaponization of irregular migration and cognitive threats gives it the capacity to make a strong contribution to NATO's resilience capacity.
In conclusion, the report emphasizes that the lasting meaning of the Ankara Summit will be determined by the cohesion that allies can generate on these topics.
It notes that NATO can maintain its existence as an effective and reliable alliance in the new era to the extent that it can link defense spending to capability generation, redefine the US-Europe division of labor without creating a deterrence gap, establish a more balanced security approach between the eastern and southern flanks, and make resilience central to collective defense.
