2025 ABD Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi: Düzen Arayışı mı Düzensizlik mi?

Öz

Bu makale, 2025 tarihli ABD Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi’nin transatlantik güvenlik mimarisi üzerindeki etkilerini neo-klasik realizm perspektifinden incelemektedir. Çalışma, söz konusu belgenin önceki Amerikan strateji belgelerinden ayrışarak Çin, Rusya ve Kuzey Kore gibi aktörleri sistemik rakipler olarak merkeze almak yerine, Avrupa Birliğine yönelik eleştirel, mesafeli ve normatif açıdan sorgulayıcı bir yaklaşımı öncelediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu yönüyle 2025 NSS, transatlantik düzenin ortak tehdit algısı ve kolektif güvenlik anlayışı üzerine inşa edilmiş geleneksel varsayımlarını zayıflatan bir stratejik çerçeve sunmaktadır. Çalışma, ABD’nin hegemonik kapasitesinin uluslararası sistemin yapısal koşullarından bağımsız biçimde ele alınamayacağını; iç politik dinamikler, liderlik algıları, ideolojik öncelikler ve seçmen temelli beklentiler üzerinden süzülerek dış politikaya yansıdığını göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda, Batı Yarımküre’nin güvenliğine öncelik verilmesi Monroe Doktrini’nin çağdaş bir yorumu olarak okunabilecek bir bölgesel daralma eğilimine işaret ederken, Avrupa’nın güvenliğinin daha koşullu ve ikincil bir sorumluluk alanı olarak tanımlandığı görülmektedir. Analiz bulguları, 2025 NSS’nin ABD’nin küresel angajman anlayışında normatif ve kurumsal bir daralmaya yol açtığını ve Avrupa güvenlik mimarisinde artan bir stratejik uyumsuzluk ve parçalanma riskini beslediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu eğilim, transatlantik ittifakın askerî kapasitesinin ötesinde siyasi ve değer temelli bütünlüğünü de aşındıran bir yapısal kırılganlık üretmekte ve transatlantik düzenin geleceğine ilişkin belirsizlikleri derinleştirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ABD Ulusal Güvenlik Stratejisi
• Neo-klasik Realizm
• Transatlantik İttifak
• Avrupa Stratejik Özerkliği
• Hegemonik Kırılganlık
• Uluslararası Güvenlik Mimarisi

The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy: A Search for Order or Disorder?

Öz

This article examines the implications of the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy for the transatlantic security architecture from a neoclassical realist perspective. It demonstrates that, diverging from earlier American strategic documents, the 2025 NSS prioritizes a critical, distancing, and normatively interrogative approach toward the European Union, rather than centering actors such as China, Russia, and North Korea as systemic rivals. In this respect, the 2025 NSS presents a strategic framework that weakens the traditional assumptions underpinning the transatlantic order, particularly those based on shared threat perceptions and collective security. The study argues that U.S. hegemonic capacity cannot be analyzed independently of the structural conditions of the international system, as it is filtered through domestic political dynamics, leadership perceptions, ideological priorities, and voter-driven expectations before being translated into foreign policy outcomes. Within this context, the prioritization of security in the Western Hemisphere signals a regional contraction that may be read as a contemporary reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, while Europe’s security is increasingly framed as a conditional and secondary responsibility. The findings indicate that the 2025 NSS generates a normative and institutional narrowing in the United States’ understanding of global engagement and fuels growing strategic misalignment and fragmentation within Europe’s security architecture. This trend produces structural vulnerability that erodes not only the military capacity but also the political and value-based cohesion of the transatlantic alliance, thereby deepening uncertainties surrounding the future of the transatlantic order.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• U.S. National Security Strategy
• Neoclassical Realism
• Transatlantic Alliance
• European Strategic Autonomy
• Hegemonic Vulnerability
• International Security Architecture

Kaynakça

1. ABD, NATO’dan 2027’de çekilme sinyali verdi. (2025). DW Türkçe. https://www.dw.com/tr/abd-natodan-2027de-%C3%A7ekilme-sinyali-verdi/a-75040235
2. Ambrosio T. (2010). Constructing a framework of authoritarian diffusion: Concepts, Dynamics, And Future Research, International Studies Perspectives, 11(4), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2010.00411
3. Arslan, U. (2025a). Strateji belgeleri ekseninde Birleşik Krallık dış politikası. NEU Press.
4. Arslan, U. (2025b). Küresel teknoloji standartları ve jeopolitik rekabet: 5G ve yapay zekâ üzerinde kural koyma mücadelesi. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(28), 227-264. https://doi.org/10.58635/ufuksbedergi.1798697
5. Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G., & Majlesi, K. (2020). Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure. American Economic Review, 110(10), 3139–3183. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20170011 Baylis, J. & Owens, P. (2008). The globalization of world politics. Oxford University Press.
6. Beaumont, P. (2025). New Trump doctrine identifies ‘weak’ Europe’s problem: Not enough racism. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/09/trump-europe-national-security-strategy
7. Belhaj, F. (2024). The New Trump Administration: Selective multilateralism and the New South’s challenge for global relevance. Policy Center for the New South.
8. Cambridge University Press. (2025). Strategic. İçinde Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strategic

9. Carnes, N., & Lupu, N. (2021). The White Working Class and the 2016 Election. Perspectives on Politics, 19(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001267
10. Cooley, A. (2015). Authoritarianism goes global: Countering democratic norms. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0049
11. Devlen, B. & Özdamar, Ö. (2009). Neoclassical realism and foreign policy crises. içinde A. Freyberg-Inan, E. Harrison, ve P. James (Ed.), Rethinking realism in international relations: Between tradition and innovation (ss. 137–158). Johns Hopkins University Press.
12. Dilmaç, A. (2024). Ulusal güvenlik stratejisi belgeleri üzerinden Amerika Birleşik Devletleri dış politikası ve uluslararası sistemin analizi (Doktora tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
13. Donnelly, J. (2024). Realizm. İçinde S. Burchill & A. Linklater (Eds.), Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri (M. A. Ağcan & A. Aslan, çev.), (ss. 53–84). Küre Yayınları.
14. Doyle, R. B. (2007). The U.S. national security strategy: Policy, process, problems. Public Administration Review, 67(4), 624–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00748.x
15. Dunne, T., & Schmidt, B. C. (2021). Realizm. İçinde J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Ed.), Küreselleşen dünya siyaseti (H. B. Yalçın ve diğerleri, Çev., ss. 179–198). Küre Yayınları.
16. Edelstein, D. M. (2002). Managing uncertainty: Beliefs about intentions and the rise of great powers. Security Studies, 12(1), 1–40.
17. Ernst, M. A. (2025). The “Trump Corollary” in the U.S. security strategy brings a new focus on Latin America- but it is a disordered plan. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/12/trump-corollary-us-security-strategy-brings-new-focus-latin-america-it-disordered-plan
18. Ersoy, E. (2015). Realizm. içinde R. Gözen (Ed.), Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri. İletişim Yayınları. Froman, M. (2025). Reflections on Trump’s National Security Strategy. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/article/reflections-trumps-national-security-strategy
19. Glenn, J. (2009). Realism versus strategic culture: Competition and collaboration? International Studies Review, 11(3), 523–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00872.x
20. Goldgeier, J. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (2001). Psychology and international relations theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.67
21. Gotkowska, J. & Kohut, A. (2025). The new U.S. National Security Strategy: A manifesto for a sovereign America in a multipolar world. OSW. https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2025-12-08/new-us-national-security-strategy-a-manifesto-a-sovereign-america-a
22. Gönültaş, B. (2026). Münih Güvenlik Raporu 2026’da küresel düzenin "yıkım altında" olduğu belirtildi. Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/munih-guvenlik-raporu-2026da-kuresel-duzenin-yikim-altinda-oldugu-belirtildi/3824874
23. Guenther, M. (2025.). Trump’s national security strategy ignores space. SpaceNews. https://spacenews.com/trumps-national-security-strategy-ignores-space/
24. Gülmez, S. B. & Buhari Gülmez, D. (2022). Dış politika analizi: Teorik yaklaşımlar. içinde B. B. Coşkun ve İ. Rüma (Ed.), Dış politika analizi: Konu, kuram, yöntem (2nd ed.). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
25. Hansard. (2025). U.S. National Security Strategy. Hansard, 777. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-12-11/debates/4281DC21-390D-44E2-8EA6-EE827414E718/USNationalSecurityStrategy
26. Harding, E. (2025). The National Security Strategy: The good, the not so great, and the alarm bells. CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/national-security-strategy-good-not-so-great-and-alarm-bells
27. Henley, J. (2025). Trump is waging culture war on Europe by promoting rightwing allies, report finds. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/23/trump-culture-war-europe-promoting-rightwing-allies-report-finds?utm
28. Jasmin, I. A. & Hosen, I. (2025). Trump 2.0: Redefining America’s role in the global order. International Politics and Society (Springer).
29. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2011). Dictionary of military and associated terms. Department of Defense. Katsambekis, G. (2023), Mainstreaming authoritarianism. The Political Quarterly, 94(3) 428-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13299
30. Kirby, P. (2025). Trump says Nato’s new 5% defence spending pledge a ‘big win, BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4en8djwyko
31. Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.
32. Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M. & Taliaferro, J. W. (2009). Introduction: Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy. içinde S. E. Lobell, N. M. Ripsman ve J. W. Taliaferro (Eds.), Neoclassical realism, the state, and foreign policy (ss. 1-41). Cambridge University Press.
33. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2000). Örnekleriyle Türkçe sözlük. MEB Basımevi.
34. Ministry of Defence. (2025) The Strategic Defence Review 2025 - Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad.
35. Oxford University Press. (2025). Strategic. İçinde Oxford English Dictionary. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/strategic_adj
36. Patrick, S. (2025). The death of the world America made. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/02/trump-executive-order-treaties-organizations?utm
37. Puddington, A. (2017). Breaking down democracy: Goals, strategies, and methods of modern authoritarians. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2017/breaking-down-democracy
38. Rathbun, B. C. (2008). A rose by any other name: Neoclassical realism as the logical and necessary extension of structural realism. Security Studies, 17(2), 294-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636410802098917
39. Ray, C. A. (2025). The new U.S. National Security Strategy: A transactional document that marginalizes Africa. Foreign Policy Research Institute. https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/12/the-new-national-security-strategy/
40. Roberts, T., & Oosterom, M. (2025). Digital authoritarianism: a systematic literature review. Information Technology for Development, 31(4), 860-884. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2024.2425352
41. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172.
42. Salajan, F. D., & Jules, T. D. (2024). The global resurgence of authoritarianism and its existential threats to education: Implications for scholarship in comparative and international education. Comparative Education Review, 68(3), 319- 344. https://doi.org/10.1086/732119
43. Singer, J. D. (1961). The level-of-analysis problem in international relations. World Politics, 14(1), 77-92.
44. Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W., & Sapin, B. (1954). Decision-making as an approach to the study of international politics. Princeton University Center of International Studies.
45. Türk Dil Kurumu. Güncel Türkçe sözlük. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
46. The White House. (1995). A national security strategy of engagement and enlargement. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/nss/nss1995.pdf
47. The White House. (1998). A national security strategy for a new century. https://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/National-Security-Strategy/
48. The White House. (2002). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/National-Security-Strategy/
49. The White House. (2006). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/National-Security-Strategy/
50. The White House. (2010). National Security Strategy. https://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/National-Security-Strategy/
51. The White House. (2015). National Security Strategy. https://history.defense.gov/Historical-Sources/National-Security-Strategy/
52. The White House. (2022). National Security Strategy. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf
53. The White House. (2025). National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
54. U.S. Congress. (1986). H.R. 3622 - Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/3622
55. Walker, C. (2025). J. D. Vance met with German neo-Nazi party leader Alice Weidel. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/j-d-vance-met-with-german-neo-nazi-party-leader-alice-weidel/
56. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison-Wesley.
57. Yoo, J. (2025). The Trump National Security Strategy is good, bad, and ugly all at once. Civitas Institute. https://www.civitasinstitute.org/research/the-trump-national-security-strategy-is-good-bad-and-ugly-all-at-once