ПО СЛЕДАМ ХОЛОДНОЙ ВОЙНЫ: ТРАНСФОРМАЦИЯ ПОЛИТИКИ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ НАТО В КОНТЕКСТЕ РОССИЙСКО-УКРАИНСКОГО КРИЗИСА

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 13, 275 - 297, 30.06.2025

Yasemin Necmiye Tutar , Mehmet Ali Mert

https://doi.org/10.48068/rusad.1575557

Öz

75-й саммит НАТО, созванный в 2024 году, проходил в условиях эскалации напряженности в мире и атмосферы, напоминающей эпоху холодной войны. Примечательным аспектом саммита стал акцент на увеличении военной помощи Украине и включение Китая в число «стран, вызывающих озабоченность», что означало существенный сдвиг в стратегической позиции НАТО. В данной статье используется концепция дилеммы безопасности для анализа решений, принятых на саммите. Концепция дилеммы безопасности предполагает, что как наступательные, так и оборонительные действия, порождающие отсутствие безопасности, могут представлять угрозу. Анализ выявляет две основные проблемы, с которыми сталкивается НАТО в сдерживании противников без ухудшения угрожающей обстановки: Первая проблема связана с возрождением России как военной державы, способной прибегнуть к военным действиям. Второй вызов связан с появлением Китая как грозного конкурента на мировой арене. Решения, принятые на саммите, не означают краха устремлений или иллюзий после окончания холодной войны. Напротив, они представляют собой реализацию альянсом стратегий сдерживания и обороны. Однако существует риск, что эти меры могут непреднамеренно стимулировать цикл взаимного недоверия и наращивания вооружений, что может усилить напряженность в отношениях как с Россией, так и с Китаем. Несмотря на то что целью является стабилизация ситуации, существует риск эскалации в ядерной и кибернетической сферах, где Россия и Китай обладают значительным потенциалом. В данном исследовании рассматривается эволюционирующая роль НАТО и демонстрируется, как усилия Альянса по укреплению коллективной безопасности могут оказать глубокое влияние не только на Европу, но и на более широкие геополитические ландшафты. Полученные результаты подчеркивают необходимость тонкой стратегии в оборонной политике, требующей хрупкого равновесия между напористым сдерживанием и дипломатическим взаимодействием для обеспечения эффективного управления НАТО в рамках глобальной системы. Меняющаяся позиция НАТО заставляет задуматься о будущем глобальной безопасности и способности Альянса умело ориентироваться в обостряющейся конкуренции между возрождающимися державами.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Россия , Китай , НАТО , холодная война , Дилемма безопасности

THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE COLD WAR: NATO’S SECURITY POLICY TRANSFORMATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CRISIS

Öz

The 75th NATO Summit, which convened in 2024, occurred within a context of escalating global tensions and an atmosphere reminiscent of the Cold War era. A notable aspect of the summit was the emphasis on augmenting military assistance to Ukraine and the designation of China as a “country of concern,” signifying a substantial shift in NATO’s strategic posture. This article employs the security dilemma concept to analyze the decisions taken at the summit. The security dilemma concept posits that both offensive and defensive moves that engender insecurity have the potential to pose a threat. The analysis reveals two major challenges NATO faces in deterring adversaries without worsening the threat environment: The first challenge pertains to the resurgence of Russia as a military power capable of resorting to warfare. The second challenge is the emergence of China as a formidable competitor in the global arena. The decisions made at the summit do not signify the failure of post-Cold War aspirations or illusions. Instead, they represent the implementation of deterrence and defense-based strategies by the alliance. However, there is a risk that these measures could unintentionally encourage a cycle of mutual distrust and arms buildup, which could increase tensions with both Russia and China. This reflects a new security dilemma facing the Alliance. While the aim is to stabilize the situation, there is a risk of escalation in the nuclear and cyber domains, where both Russia and China have significant capabilities. This study explores the evolving role of NATO and demonstrates how the Alliance’s endeavors to bolster collective security can profoundly impact not only Europe but also broader geopolitical landscapes. The findings underscore the imperative for a nuanced strategy in defense policy, necessitating a delicate equilibrium between assertive deterrence and diplomatic engagement to ensure the effective governance of NATO within the global system. The evolving posture of NATO gives rise to pivotal inquiries concerning the future of global security and the Alliance’s capacity to adeptly navigate the escalating competition among resurgent powers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Russia , China , NATO , Cold War , Security Dilemma

SOĞUK SAVAŞ’IN AYAK SESLERİ: RUSYA-UKRAYNA KRİZİ BAĞLAMINDA NATO’NUN GÜVENLİK POLİTİKALARINDA DÖNÜŞÜM

Öz

2024 yılında 75.’si düzenlenen NATO Zirvesi, küresel gerilimin arttığı, Soğuk Savaş dönemi atmosferini yansıtan bir ortamda gerçekleşmiştir. Zirvenin Ukrayna’ya askeri yardımın arttırılmasına odaklanması ve Çin’i “endişe duyulan ülke” olarak nitelendirmesi, NATO’nun stratejik duruşundaki değişimi göstermekte ve önemli bir dönüm noktasına işaret etmektedir. Bu makale, zirvede alınan kararları, yalnızca saldırgan hamlelerin değil, güvensizliğin şiddete dönüşmesine neden olacak savunmacı hamlelerin de tehdit oluşturma potansiyeli olduğunu öne süren güvenlik ikilemi kavramı çerçevesinde analize tabi tutmaktadır. Analiz, NATO’nun tehdit ortamını daha kötü bir hale getirmeden düşmanları caydırma yolunda karşılaştığı iki önemli zorluğu ortaya koymaktadır: Birincisi Rusya’nın savaşa başvurabilen bir aktör olarak yeniden canlanması iken diğeri Çin’in uluslararası arenada güçlü bir rakip olarak varlık göstermesi olmuştur. Zirvede alınan kararlar, Soğuk Savaş sonrası umut ya da yanılsamaların başarısızlığa uğramasının ifadesi olmaktan ziyade ittifak tarafından uygulanmakta olan caydırıcılık ve savunmaya dayalı stratejilerdir. Fakat bu tedbirlerin hem Rusya hem de Çin ile gerilimi arttırabilecek karşılıklı güvensizlik ve silahlanma döngüsünü, istemeden de olsa, teşvik etme riski bulunmaktadır. Bu durum, İttifak’ın karşı karşıya olduğu yeni bir güvenlik ikilemini yansıtmaktadır. Amaç, durumu istikrara kavuşturmak olsa da hem Rusya hem de Çin’in önemli kabiliyetlere sahip olduğu nükleer ve siber alanlarda yükselme riski bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, NATO’nun değişen rolünü incelemekte ve İttifak’ın kolektif güvenliği artırma çabalarının sadece Avrupa’da değil, daha geniş jeopolitik coğrafyalarda da nasıl derinleştirebileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, uluslararası sistemde NATO’nun etkin bir yönetim sergileyebilmesi için, iddialı caydırıcılık ve diplomasi arasında bir denge kurarak savunma politikasına sofistike bir yaklaşımın gerekliliğini vurgulamaktadır. NATO’nun değişen tutumu; küresel güvenliğin geleceği ve İttifak’ın yeniden canlanan güç rekabetini etkili bir şekilde yönetme kapasitesi hakkında önemli soruları gündeme getirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rusya , Çin , NATO , Soğuk Savaş , Güvenlik İkilemi

Kaynakça

• “75th NATO Summit Declaration.” NATO. Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_227678.htm
• Booth, Ken & Nicholas. J. Wheeler. The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
• Borghard, Erica D. & W. Lonergan Shawn. “Confidence Building Measures for the Cyber Domain.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 12/3 (2018): 10-49.
• Brooks, Stephan G. & William C. Wohlforth. “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in the Twenty-First Century: China’s Rise and the Fate of America’s Global Position.” International Security 40/3 (2015): 7-53.
• Buzan, Barry & Ole Wæver. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Çakır, Adem. “Türkiye-NATO İlişkilerinde İnşacı Etkiler (1991-2011).” Uluslararası İlişkiler 18 (2021): 45-66.
• “Deterrence and Defence.” NATO. Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www-nato-int.translate.goog/cps/en/natohq/topics_133127.htm?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=tr&_x_tr_hl=tr&_x_tr_pto=tc
• Donaldson, Richard. “The role of NATO Enlargement in the Ukraine Crisis,” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review 44/1 (2017): 32-52.
• Dowd, Anna M., Stephanie Pezard, Stephan J. Flanagan, & Clara de Lataillade. “Sustaining the Transatlantic Alliance: 75 Years of RAND Insights on NATO.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 28 Haziran 2024. Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3235-1.html
• Duke, Stephan & Christoph Gebhard, “The EU and NATO’s Dilemmas With Russia and The Prospects for Deconfliction,” European Security 26/3 (2017): 379-397.
• Effendy, Seher, Berrin Franchika, & Vahid Kusuma. “NATO in the Very Cold War: Why the US Needs NATO in the Arctic,” Jurnal Sentris 2/1 (2021): 21-37.
• Gheciu, Ancha. “Irreconcilable Differences? Nato’s Response To Russian Aggression Against Ukraine”. International Journal Canada Journal of Global Policy Analysis 79/2 (2024): 275-296.
• Glaser, Charles L. Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.
• Goldgeier James M. & Michael Mc Faul, Power and Purpose: U.S. Policy toward Russia after the Cold War. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2023.
• Herbert Butterfield. History and Human Relations. London: Collins, 1951.
• Herz, John “Political Ideas and Political Reality,” Political Research Quarterly 3/2 (1950): 161-178.
• Hussain, Ibrahim. “The russia-ukraine war: an analysis of the geopolitical roots and the global Dynamics.” Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal 7/1 (2023): 276-289.
• Jervis, Robert. “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30/2 (1978): 187-188.
• Kirkova, Roksana. “Ukraine Between NATO and Russia,” The Annual of the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje 76 (2023): 459-470.
• Lupovici, Amir. “Deterrence by Delivery of Arms: NATO and the War in Ukraine.” Contemporary Security Policy 44/4 (2023): 624-641.
• Lyu, Yong, Jian Wang, Ying Zhang, Hui Zeng & Ming Chen. “Persistence Analysis of the Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict On NATO Allies’ Military Spending-Empirical Analysis Based On Vector Autoregressive Model.” International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering 12/6 (2022): 755-759.
• McFaul, Michael. From Cold War to Hot Peace: The Inside Story of Russia and America. London: Allen Lane, 2018.
• Mearsheimer, John J. “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin.” Foreign Affairs 93/5 (2014): 77-89.
• Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.
• Meijer, Hugo & Stephen G. Brooks. “Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back.” International Security 45/4 (2021): 1-34.
• Menon, Rajan & Rumer B. Eugene. Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2015.
• Mereacre, A. “The Baltic States – Between NATO’s Protection and Russia’s Threat.” The Romanian Military Thinking. 2021.
• Michaels, J. “A Very Different Kind of Challenge NATO’s Prioritization of China in Historical Perspective,” International Politics 59/6 (2021): 1045-1064.
• Mills, Claire. “Military Assistance to Ukraine Since the Russian War.” House of Commons Library. 2024. Erişim 14.01.2024. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9477/CBP-9477.pdf
• Morgenthau, Hans. J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: 1948.
• “NATO’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm
• “NATO’s Support for Ukraine: Building Defense Capabilities and Democratic Governance.” NATO. Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
• “Relations with Ukraine.” NATO. Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
• Sagan, Scott. D. “The Perils of Proliferation: Organization Theory, Deterrence Theory, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons.” International Security 18/4 (1994): 66-107.
• Sarotte, Mary. E. “How to Enlarge NATO: The Debate Inside the Clinton Administration 1993-95.” International Security 44/1 (2019): 7-41.
• Schweller, Robert. L. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19/1 (1994): 72-107.
• Skalnes, Lars S. “NATO Expansion and Stability in Eastern Europe.” Security Studies 7/4 (1998): 54-57.
• Soldatiuk, Julia. B. & Bob Deen. “Work in Progress: Ukraine’s State-Civil Partnership to Reform the Security Sector.” Clingendael Report. Eylül 2023. Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/work-in-progress.pdf
• Sperling, J. & Matthew Webber. “NATO and The Ukraine Crisis: Collective Securitisation.” European Journal of International Security 2/1 (2016): 19-46.
• Stoltenberg, Julia. “Our most urgent task at the Summit will be support to Ukraine.” NATO Press Release. (2024). Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_227330.htm
• Tang, Shiping. “The Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis.” Security Studies 18/3 (2009): 587-623.
• “The North Atlantic Treaty. Washington, D.C.” April 4. (1949). Erişim 14.11.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm.
• Walt, Stephan. M. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.