By Ali Özgündüz, former Member of Turkish Parliament
The international conference entitled “The Alliance to Prevent a Great War,” organized by the World Civilizations Initiative Research Center, was held at the Meyra Palace Hotel in Ankara on 18–19 July 2026.
UWI will present the speeches held on the conference during the coming days.
The conference, which featured presentations by speakers from Azerbaijan, Belarus, France, Germany, Greece, Iran, Italy, Japan, Russia, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States, was attended by approximately 200 distinguished invited guests.
Ministers, members of parliament, ambassadors, retired generals, scholars, politicians, diplomats, military officers, and experts examined the question of the “Alliance to Prevent a Great War” from a wide range of perspectives.
Below, we present the speech of Ali Özgündüz. The title was set by UWI.
The decisions taken at the 36th NATO Summit, held in our capital Ankara on 7–8 July 2026, as well as the statements made by the leaders attending the summit—particularly US President Donald Trump—and by the NATO Secretary General, contain messages that must be carefully examined and closely followed for their implications for our country, our region and the world.
First of all, what is NATO?
What kind of alliance is it? A defensive alliance or an offensive alliance?
How does NATO define itself? On its official website, it states that NATO’s purpose is “to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.”
Against whom was NATO established? When it was founded in 1949, the Warsaw Pact did not yet exist.
Was it established against the Soviet Union?
If so, why did NATO continue to exist after the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact had dissolved?
If the threat came from those organizations, and those organizations no longer existed, why was NATO not dissolved? Why did it continue to expand eastward, incorporating countries that had previously been members of the Warsaw Pact?
And why does it still want to expand?
This demonstrates that NATO is not truly a defensive organization, as it claims to be, but rather an armed organization that protects the interests of finance capital and imperialism.
NATO is the military and political organization of American hegemony.
Türkiye joined NATO in 1952. Since then, we have maintained a very large army for NATO and borne extremely high costs. Whether joining NATO under the conditions of the time was beneficial for our country is a separate debate. But almost seventy-five years have passed since Türkiye became a NATO member.
During that time, the world has changed, circumstances have changed, threats have changed and the global balance of power has shifted. The Cold War ended, the Soviet Union dissolved, and even some former Soviet republics have now become NATO members.
Therefore, what does NATO membership mean for our country today? What are our expectations? What are the possible alternative alliances, and what advantages and disadvantages would they bring? I believe these questions must be examined in depth.
When we look back and consult our collective memory, NATO means, for us, 12 March, 12 September and 15 July. It means the elimination, imprisonment, torture and execution of our patriotic young people, intellectuals, academics, politicians, bureaucrats and military officers who demanded a “Fully Independent Türkiye”.
For us, NATO means FETÖ. It means the CIA.
It means Gladio and the counter-guerrilla apparatus. It means unsolved murders and political assassinations.
It means the conspiracies against the Turkish Armed Forces through the fabricated Balyoz, Ergenekon and Military Espionage trials, which paved the way for the attempted coup of 15 July.
It means the FETÖ-linked NATO officers in the Turkish Armed Forces who prepared and attempted the coup taking refuge with American soldiers at İncirlik Air Base.
Did members of the government not say, after this treacherous coup attempt ten years ago, that the United States and the CIA were behind it?
Have we forgotten all this?
If we have not forgotten it, then what does it mean that the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye was placed in recess for the summit held in Ankara? This is the parliament that led the War of Independence against imperialism, yet today our national parliament is being shut down for NATO, the armed organization of imperialism.
Is this not a tragic situation?
Were those who adopted a resolution in the European Parliament only last week targeting the 1974 Cyprus Peace Operation and taking a position against the Turkish Armed Forces and our country not the very same supposed allies with whom we stand together in NATO?
In its official social media posts about NATO, our Ministry of National Defence uses the slogan “WE ARE NATO”.
No. We are not NATO.
“WE ARE NOT NATO.”
We are Türkiye.
The Ministry of National Defense is responsible for the defense of the Turkish nation. As the word “National” in its title makes clear, it is the ministry responsible for the defense of Türkiye.
Why should we be NATO?
The Turkish Armed Forces are a national army composed of Mustafa Kemal’s soldiers. They are not NATO’s army.
The lieutenants graduating from our military academies do not shout, “We are NATO soldiers.” They shout, “We are Mustafa Kemal’s soldiers.”
Let us ask the Turkish nation who would say, “We are NATO.”
This nation is opposed to NATO.
The AKP government knows this. That is why, beginning ten days before the NATO Summit, it banned all meetings and demonstrations in Ankara, along with the display of posters and banners, the distribution of leaflets, sit-in protests and the erection of tents.
What are you afraid of?
Allow our people to express their opposition.
At his press conference before the summit, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte responded to a journalist’s question by saying that elections are important in democracies, but that press freedom and the ability of journalists to ask questions freely are also important.
Was he unaware that, because of this summit, hundreds of our people had been detained or arrested and that every form of meeting, demonstration and protest had been prohibited?
And then they shamelessly and hypocritically proclaim on their websites that “NATO promotes democratic values”.
This is NATO’s understanding of democracy.
Democratic rights and freedoms have no real importance for NATO. NATO interferes in the internal affairs and elections of other countries. It attempts, through various forms of manipulation, to prevent political parties opposed to NATO—parties that defend the interests of their national states and their peoples—from coming to power.
We have seen this in Hungary, Germany, France, Ukraine and Georgia.
Today, NATO is using Ukraine as a proxy to fight Russia in the interests of the transatlantic alliance. At the beginning of the war, progress was made during the talks in Istanbul towards ending the conflict. Yet the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed to Kyiv and convinced Zelensky to continue the war. The conflict has now entered its fifth year.
Trump says:
“Every month, 35,000 young soldiers are dying. I feel sorry for those soldiers, and I want to end the war.”
If you are sincere, why are you encouraging the European Union and Canada to provide Zelensky with at least €75 billion worth of weapons in both 2026 and 2027?
Is it because they will purchase those weapons from you?
Why are you granting Ukraine a license to produce Patriot systems that you previously refused to sell to Türkiye, your NATO ally, even before we purchased the S-400 system?
If you do not want more bloodshed, why are you continuing to arm Ukraine?
Withdraw your support from Zelensky, and the war will end within a few months.
Who damaged relations between the European Union—particularly Germany—and Russia?
Who sabotaged the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline?
Was it not NATO? Was it not the West?
Today, they flatter Türkiye and the Turkish Armed Forces because NATO needs us to ensure Europe’s security.
Are we Europe’s gendarmerie?
Why should we confront Russia—our friend, our neighbour and the greatest supporter of our War of Independence—for the sake of Europe’s security?
Are the United States, France and Britain not supporting Greece, the Greek Cypriot Administration and Israel, all of which are involved in plans against me in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Aegean and Thrace?
On the one hand, you will treat me as an enemy. On the other hand, you expect me to damage my relations with my friend in order to protect you.
Is that so?
Why is pressure being placed on our country to relinquish ownership of the S-400 systems we purchased from Russia to meet our air-defense requirements?
The purchase of the S-400 air-defense systems has not only a military meaning but also a political one. The transfer of such systems, which contain critical and secret military technology, is also a matter of trust between countries.
Russia sold these systems to Türkiye because it trusted Türkiye.
A Turkish decision to abandon the S-400s and turn back towards Western defense systems would not be easily accepted in Moscow.
Furthermore, the S-400 is a defensive weapon that I may need tomorrow against attacks carried out with NATO weapons.
Why should I deactivate it or hand it over to someone else?
Until we have built our own national air-defense systems, abandoning the S-400 would create a dangerous gap in our national defense. Our indigenous combat aircraft, KAAN, is expected to enter serial production with domestically produced jet engines within a few years. Giving up the S-400 system in return for five F-35 aircraft would therefore run counter to our national interests.
CAATSA stands for the United States’ “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act”.
In Türkiye, we soften the expression by translating “adversaries” as “rivals” or “opponents”. But the United States has clearly revealed its intentions. It has placed us in the enemy camp.
Together with whom?
Together with the People’s Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation.
In fact, by doing so, the United States has told Türkiye where it should stand.
Why, then, are we still trying so hard to be friends with the United States?
Which national interest does this serve?
What is NATO’s slogan?
“All for one and one for all.”
Until recently, was there even a single NATO country standing beside us in our struggle against the PKK terrorist organization?
They even attempted to prevent us from using weapons for which we had already paid.
When German-made Leopard tanks were used during Operation Olive Branch, was the modernization project not suspended?
Were sanctions not imposed regarding Oerlikon systems?
Did France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland and Canada not suspend the sale of arms and military equipment to Türkiye on various pretexts?
What happened to “all for one”?
What has changed now that Türkiye and the Turkish Armed Forces are being praised so enthusiastically?
Is the intention to send the Mehmetçik to the front lines to defend the West?
The Mehmetçik is not an export product.
No government has the right to send Turkish soldiers to the front unless Türkiye’s national interests require it.
The Turkish nation will not allow it.
Is remaining in NATO genuinely in Türkiye’s interests?
Until today, with the exception of the intervention in Bosnia, NATO has brought Türkiye more harm than benefit. NATO now seeks to expand further eastward, towards the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and to incorporate the Greek Cypriot Administration and Israel as members.
Under the current circumstances, the Republic of Türkiye could remain in NATO in order to protect itself from NATO’s harmful actions and use its veto power to prevent the alliance from expanding further.
If Türkiye is to remain in NATO, it should remain solely for that purpose.
Türkiye should establish close and sincere relations with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, while working together with Russia and Iran to integrate these countries into a regional framework.
The Zangezur Corridor should be developed in a manner that connects the countries of the region along both north–south and east–west axes through roads, railways and energy pipelines. By developing relations and adopting confidence-building measures, we should protect both our neighbors and ourselves from NATO’s harmful influence.
Through the Zangezur Corridor, NATO and the United States seek to reach the Caspian basin—particularly Kazakhstan—and establish themselves in the very heart of Russia.
Kazakhstan is currently positioned between Russia and the People’s Republic of China. It is attempting to balance their influence by reaching out to the United States and NATO through Türkiye, but this situation has the potential to produce dangerous consequences.
The entry of the United States into the Caspian basin and Kazakhstan would be catastrophic for Türkiye, Russia, Iran, the Central Asian countries that are members of the Organization of Turkic States and the People’s Republic of China. It would be a development capable of triggering a great war.
If Türkiye remains inside NATO, it must not permit this.
Türkiye must not allow this sinister step, which could trigger a great war, to be taken.
NATO’s expansion in accordance with this plan would not only encircle Russia and bring NATO to China’s borders. It would also result in the complete external encirclement of Türkiye.
From the east, from the Black Sea, from Thrace and the Aegean, and from the Eastern Mediterranean.
In other words, NATO would surround us on all four sides.
Once that happens, NATO will no longer need Türkiye.
We will either have to act exactly as NATO commands or Türkiye itself will become an operational theatre for NATO.
This is the greatest threat to our country’s future and national security.
To prevent this plan, Türkiye should remain inside NATO and struggle against it to the very end, while simultaneously developing military and economic cooperation with Iran, Russia, Pakistan, the People’s Republic of China, the countries of the South Caucasus, the Gulf countries and the member states of the Organization of Turkic States.
If NATO decides tomorrow to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz through military means, will I participate in that decision?
Will I adopt a hostile policy against my neighbor Iran?
A decision taken against Iran should be regarded as a decision taken against Türkiye.
Because Iran is us, and we are Iran.
I am not saying this merely as a slogan.
Today, Iran is a country of Turks at least as much as it is a country of Persians. Historically, culturally, administratively and in terms of security, this is the reality.
Does not the Great Seljuk Empire represent, in historical terms, the lands of today’s Türkiye and Iran?
Where did we come from when we arrived in Anatolia?
Did we not come through Iran, Turkestan and Khorasan?
Who were Tuğrul Beg and Malik-Shah?
Were they not Turkish rulers?
Who were the Qara Qoyunlu, the Aq Qoyunlu, the Safavids, the Afsharids and the Qajars?
Were they not Turkish dynasties that ruled Iran?
Was the martyred Sayyid Ayatollah Khamenei not a Turk?
Is President Pezeshkian not a Turk?
I am not saying this out of Pan-Turkist motives. I am making an observation and drawing attention to a historical reality in order to support the argument that Iran is us and that we are Iran.
Therefore, bombs dropped on Iran are also being dropped on Ankara and Istanbul.
Bombs dropped on Palestine, Gaza and Beirut, with NATO support, are in fact being dropped on my own head.
How, then, can I be NATO, O Ministry of National Defense?
We are not NATO.
These matters cannot be resolved through the slogan-based militancy of AKP ministers and MPs on the Galata Bridge.
Go there and try shouting, “We are NATO!”
What did the NATO Secretary General say?
He said that bases in NATO countries across Europe were used during America’s intervention against Iran.
Today, the aircraft providing aerial refueling to the Israeli planes bombing Gaza, Lebanon and Iran are using the airspace of countries that are supposedly our NATO allies.
Finally, the 36th NATO Summit held in our country was promoted as “NATO 3.0”—a new version and a new mission for the alliance.
What exactly is this new mission?
– Updating the defense industry for wars of attrition and prolonged conflicts, while increasing collective production capacity. In this sense, NATO 3.0 means transforming the entire alliance into a military-industrial structure.
– Using the supposed Russian threat as a justification for requiring member states to allocate a greater proportion of their national resources—5 per cent of GDP—to defense expenditure.
– Placing West Asia, Iran and the Pacific region in NATO’s crosshairs and attempting to blockade them.
Why should we cut spending on our people’s healthcare, pensions, minimum wages, our children’s education and the livelihoods of our farmers in order to increase defense spending to 5 per cent of GDP for NATO?
If our country has genuine defense needs, then of course we must meet them.
But why should we take food from our people’s tables and spend our resources for NATO and for someone else’s security?
At a time when the unipolar world and American hegemony are coming to an end, are we still going to squander our resources for NATO and American imperialism?
Let us follow the proposal made by the Chairman of the Vatan Party, Mr. Doğu Perinçek.
Let us put NATO membership to the Turkish nation in a referendum.
And let all of us respect the result.
Are you prepared to do that?