Can Baydarol
US President Donald Trump is not holding back from declaring his intention to completely dismantle the established world order. His recent statements about bringing about the end of NATO from 2027 onwards have led us to discuss 2027 scenarios even before 2026 has begun. The messages that Europe must take responsibility for itself from 2027 onwards and that the US may, if necessary, cease to participate in NATO defence coordination mechanisms have been interpreted as meaning that the US will no longer pay much attention to European security. Is this blackmail on Trump’s part, or a genuine statement of intent? It may be too early to say at this stage. However, the US’s new National Security Strategy document, announced last week, has reinforced the perception that the parting of ways is definitive.
In line with this perception, German Chancellor Merz also declared that ‘Pax Americana’ is over and that Europe must now fend for itself.
Yes, it seems that the paradigm that emerged after the Yalta Conference of 2-11 February 1945 is coming to a complete end. The period we refer to as the Cold War, shared between the US and the USSR, seems to be disappearing, along with all its residual traces. This raises the question: will we witness a period in which the two great adversaries, the US and Russia, disregard the EU countries and come to an agreement?
EU countries are quite concerned about the statements made by Trump and his administration. Can NATO survive without the United States? How feasible is it to immediately replace the conventional support, including intelligence, provided by the United States? According to previous calculations, they had estimated a period of five years to prepare themselves for a potential war scenario involving Russia. A budget of €800 billion was envisaged for these five years, and €150 billion was earmarked for the SAFE programme, which would allow countries outside the EU to participate. Can a five-year programme be squeezed into one year? It is almost impossible.
In light of all these developments, we inevitably recall Altiero Spinelli’s European Defence Community project, which was rejected at the last minute in 1954. Spinelli, who spent his youth in prison during the Mussolini era because he was a communist, would go down in EU history as the greatest advocate of federalism. Deeply influenced by the institutional structure of the European Coal and Steel Community, established in 1952, which gave birth to the concept of ‘supranational law,’ Spinelli promptly proposed projects for the establishment of a Political Union and Defence Community among the six founding countries. Had France not vetoed these projects at the last minute because ‘their acceptance would lead to Germany rearming!’, history might have been written differently today.
Could the EU, clearly lacking the strong support of the US, return to seeking an alternative defence community to NATO?
What about us?
One of the two entrance gates to the European Parliament bears the name ‘Spinelli’, which we have briefly explained. The second bears the name of Spaak, the former Belgian prime minister who was the architect of the EEC, the cornerstone of today’s EU, following the collapse of the Spinelli projects due to their excessive idealism. Our relationship with the EU, which has evolved into a never-ending saga, can essentially be described as being unable to enter the European Parliament through the Spaak gate.
So, is the Spinelli door open to us under today’s conditions?
Judging by his recent actions, Merz, whose concerns we briefly mentioned above, is clearly expressing his desire to have Turkey on their side. Conventional power, which they will sorely miss, and the rapidly developing Turkish defence industry are of great importance in Europe’s new security architecture. Leaked information suggests that at the upcoming summit of EU heads of government and state, the German Ambassador is fighting hard in COREPER (the meeting of permanent representatives) to include a positive paragraph on Turkey, despite all the objections from Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration. On the other hand, we also know that these same two countries have vetoed Turkey’s participation in the SAFE programme. Well, France’s presence, which does not look very favourably on Turkey, is also evident. Let’s say that all obstacles are removed thanks to Germany’s superior efforts and the Spinelli door is opened to us.
But will we want to enter through the Spinelli door while the Spaak door is still closed?
Are we really on the US side? If so, will we take our place in the US/Russia/Israel axis? Is there any connection between ignoring Demirtaş for the sake of the peace process and placing so much hope in Öcalan, as described in the scenarios above?
I do not doubt that we will continue to ask these crazy questions in 2026.