KOLEKTİF SAVUNMANIN ÖTESİNDE: ELEŞTİREL TEORİ VE ASİMETRİK TEHDİTLER ÇAĞINDA NATO

Öz

Bu çalışma, Kuzey Atlantik Antlaşması Örgütü’nün (NATO) geleceğini, uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinindeki eleştirel teoriler ve ekonomik ittifak modelleri çerçevesinde analiz etmektedir. 1980’li yıllardan itibaren yükselişe geçen feminizm, post-pozitivizm ve neorealizm eleştirileri (Richard Ashley, Michel Foucault, Ann Tickner vb.), geleneksel güvenlik mimarilerinin rasyonalist ve erkek egemen yapısını sorgulamaya açmıştır. Çalışmada, bu teorik eleştirilerle eş zamanlı olarak, Todd Sandler’ın ittifaklar ekonomisi yaklaşımı üzerinden NATO içindeki mali yük paylaşımı dengesizlikleri incelenmektedir. Özellikle 2020 sonrası dönemde asimetrik tehditlerin artışı, tedarik zinciri sürdürülebilirliği, siber güvenlik ve uzay güvenliği gibi yeni alanların kolektif güvenlik tanımını dönüştürdüğü savunulmaktadır. Mark Carney’nin 2026 Davos konuşmasında vurguladığı "kopuş" (rupture) kavramından hareketle; Türkiye, Almanya ve Kanada gibi orta güçlerin stratejik özerklik arayışları ve denge politikaları vaka olarak ele alınmaktadır. Sonuç olarak NATO’nun, değişen tehdit algıları ve ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik krizleri karşısında sadece askeri bir ittifak olmaktan çıkarak, bölgesel ve tematik bir güvenlik mimarisine dönüşmek zorunda olduğu değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• NATO
• Eleştirel Teoriler
• İttifak Ekonomisi
• Orta Güçler
• Stratejik Özerklik
• Kolektif Güvenlik

BEYOND COLLECTIVE DEFENSE: NATO IN AN ERA OF CRITICAL THEORY AND ASYMMETRIC THREATS

Öz

This study analyzes the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) within the framework of critical theories in the discipline of international relations and economic models of alliances. Since the 1980s, the rise of feminism, post-positivism, and critiques of neorealism (Ashley, Foucault, Tickner, etc.) has opened the rationalist and male-dominated structure of traditional security architectures to questioning. In the study, concurrently with these theoretical critiques, imbalances in burden-sharing within NATO are examined through Todd Sandler’s approach to the economics of alliances. It is argued that, particularly in the post-2020 period, the increase in asymmetric threats and the emergence of new domains such as supply chain sustainability, cybersecurity, and space security have transformed the definition of collective security. Drawing on the concept of “rupture” emphasized by Carney in his 2026 Davos speech, the strategic autonomy pursuits and balancing policies of middle powers such as Türkiye, Germany, and Canada are addressed as case studies. As a result, it is assessed that NATO, in the face of changing threat perceptions and economic sustainability crises, must transform from being solely a military alliance into a regional and thematic security architecture.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• NATO
• Critical Theories
• Economics of Alliances
• Middle Powers
• Strategic Autonomy
• Collective Security

Etik Beyan

This study utilized publicly available news archives as the primary & secondary data source, analyzed through qualitative research and content analysis methods. Since the research involved the analysis of pre-existing, publicly accessible documents, formal institutional ethics committee approval was not required.

Kaynakça

1. Ashley, R. K. (1984). The poverty of neorealism. International Organization, 38(2), 225-286.
2. Aydın, M. (1996). Uluslararası ilişkilerde yaklaşım, teori ve analiz. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 51(1), 71-114.
3. Booth, K., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (1995). International relations theory today. Cambridge University Press.
4. Boynton, S. (2026, January 20). Read the full transcript of Carney's speech to World Economic Forum. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/11620877/carney-davos-wef-speech-transcript/
5. Emeklier, B. (2011). Discussions on the epistemological paradigm in the discipline of international relations: Postpositivist theories. Bilge Strateji, 2(4), 139-184.
6. Department of National Defence. (2024). Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/policies-standards/our-north-strong-free.html
7. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
8. Kreps, S. (2010). Elite consensus as a determinant of alliance cohesion: Why public opinion hardly matters for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy Analysis, 191-215. DOI:10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00108.x

9. Lee, R. E. (2023). Immanuel Wallerstein, world-systems analysis and the structures of knowledge. In P. Hayden & C. el-Ojeili (Eds.), The Anthem companion to Immanuel Wallerstein (pp. 37–56). Anthem Press.
10. Lobjakas, A. (2010, June 11). Funding squeeze casts pall over NATO's future. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. https://www.rferl.org/a/Funding_Squeeze_Casts_A_Pall_Over_NATOs_Future/2067992.html
11. NATO. (2025). What is NATO? https://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index_tr.html
12. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). (2026). The Secretary General's annual report 2025. NATO. https://www.nato.int/content/dam/nato/webready/documents/publications-and-reports/annual-reports/sgar25-en.pdf
13. Roggeveen, S. (2026, January 21). "A rupture, not a transition": Carney's new order. The Interpreter. Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/rupture-not-transition-carney-s-new-order
14. Sandler, T. (2001). Economics of alliances: Lessons for collective action. Journal of Economic Literature, 869-896.
15. Scholz, O. (2022). Policy statement by Olaf Scholz, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and Member of the German Bundestag, 27 February 2022 in Berlin. The Federal Government of Germany.https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/policy-statement-by-olaf-scholz-chancellor-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-and-member-of-the-german-bundestag-27-february-2022-in-berlin-2008378
16. Scholz, O. (2023). The Global Zeitenwende: How to Avoid a New Cold War in a Multipolar Era. Foreign Affairs, 102(1), 22-38. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/germany/olaf-scholz-global-zeitenwende-how-avoid-new-cold-war
17. Sylvester, C. (1996). The contribution of feminist theory to international relations. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 254-278). Cambridge University Press. T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Savunma Sanayii Başkanlığı (SSB). (2024). 2024-2028 Stratejik Planı. Ankara. https://www.ssb.gov.tr/
18. Tür, Ö., & Koyuncu, Ç. A. (2010). Feminist uluslararası ilişkiler yaklaşımı: Temelleri, gelişimi, katkı ve sorunları. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 7(26), 3-24. https://www.uidergisi.com.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/feminist-uluslararasi-iliskiler.pdf
19. Yücel, Z., Selvitopu, İ., Şekerci, E., Kartal, Y., & Güzelyüz, E. (2025). NATO ÜYELİĞİNİN TÜRKİYE’NİN GÜVENLİĞİNE KATKISI: ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER VE SİYASET BİLİMİ VE KAMU YÖNETİMİ ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN ALGILARI. Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Diplomasi, 8(2), 74-99. https://doi.org/10.51763/uid.1732802
20. Walt, S. (1997). Why alliances endure or collapse. Survival, 39(1), 153-170.