Osman Şenkul
In Turkey, on 7 January 1969, virtually all newspapers carried the headline “US Ambassador’s car set alight”, and the details of the reports stated: “The official car of US Ambassador Robert Kommer, bearing the registration number 06 DC 001, was set alight yesterday at 13:30 by a group of students at the Middle East Technical University (METU). Following a prosecution investigation that lasted until late in the evening, nine students were found guilty,” it was reported.
At that time, following the burning of Kommer’s car—one of the most notable incidents amidst the protests against “American imperialism” and the “North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)”, led by the US—anti-NATO and anti-US protests, with the US regarded as NATO’s leader, spread rapidly across almost the whole of Turkey; NATO protests had a lasting impact at many universities and on the streets. At the time these protests were triggered at METU, NATO had just turned 20, and Turkey’s membership of NATO had already spanned 18 years.
As is well known, NATO was established on 4 April 1949 with the aim of providing collective security against the Soviet Union, whose global influence was steadily expanding at the onset of the Cold War; preventing the resurgence of nationalist militarism in post-Second World War Europe; and promoting long-term political integration and stability in the North Atlantic region. NATO, founded by the United States, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, Norway and Portugal, saw Turkey and Greece officially join the organisation as part of its first expansion on 18 February 1952. NATO’s expansion continued until recently, and the number of member states has now reached 32. The total defence expenditure of NATO’s 32 member states amounts to over 1.4 trillion dollars annually.
With such a broad membership base, NATO’s budget has grown rapidly and now stands at 5.3 billion euros. The NATO Common Budget is primarily financed through ‘direct funding’, in accordance with the shares allocated to each member state. Direct funding covers the Alliance’s collective operational expenses, including the running of NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, the payment of civilian staff salaries, and the maintenance of shared infrastructure such as radar networks, early warning systems and fuel pipelines. It is also provided through “indirect funding”, which covers member states’ national defence expenditure; this method represents the true cost of Alliance membership. Rather than transferring the funds to NATO, member states spend this money on their own national armed forces to ensure they can contribute to collective defence should Article 5 be invoked.
NATO members’ contributions to the budget also take into account not only the countries’ populations but also their civilian headquarters, military command structures and shared infrastructure such as satellite communications and fuel pipelines.
Consequently, in addition to its defence expenditure, Turkey’s direct contribution to the NATO budget amounts to 2.3 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Consequently, Turkey’s contribution to the NATO budget from its GDP, which is projected to reach 1.6 trillion dollars in 2025, amounts to 36.8 billion dollars (1.73 trillion TL). Of course, this figure represents only its contribution to the NATO budget; in addition, defence expenditure within the NATO framework also amounted to 30 billion dollars (1.41 trillion TL) during the same period. Consequently, the funds channelled directly or indirectly from Turkey’s budget to global arms barons via NATO have reached 66.8 billion dollars (3.14 trillion TL).
Why is Turkey channelling such a vast sum into NATO’s coffers in Brussels, whilst so much poverty persists? Because NATO members have committed to allocating at least 2 per cent of their GDP to national defence, and, led by the US and other members hosting the giant corporations of the arms industry, major efforts are being made across the alliance to raise this ratio to 3.5 per cent by 2035 – efforts bolstered by the conflicts we have witnessed in recent months between the US-Israel alliance and Iran.
As is well known, four months after the military wing of the Warsaw Pact – the primary reason for NATO’s establishment – was dissolved on 31 March 1991, the Pact itself officially disbanded on 1 July 1991.
Despite the official dissolution of its “principal adversary”, NATO has continued to survive by shifting its focus from “territorial defence” (protecting the territories of member states) to “out-of-area interventions” (intervening in global crises), NATO continues to survive. Through its joint command structure, standardised military procedures and, more importantly, defence industry collaborations, it maintains its existence as the world’s most organised military mechanism.
Led by the United States, the world’s leading arms manufacturer, NATO’s three-quarter-century-long relationship with global arms monopolies is founded on “organic cooperation based on mutual dependence, standardisation and the guarantee of a vast market”.
Consequently, whilst NATO creates sustainable demand for arms companies by mandating that member states increase their defence spending, global arms monopolies in turn finance and supply the alliance’s military and technological superiority.
As noted above, the key pillars of this relationship are, first and foremost, the target imposed by NATO on member states to spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on defence, which translates into billions of dollars in new budgets for the global arms industry.
Furthermore, wherever in the world conflicts that could be termed ‘war’ occur, these compulsory military expenditure targets are brought forward; for example, following the war in Ukraine and the resulting global tensions, NATO’s decision to expand its stockpiles of ammunition, air defence systems and armoured vehicles led to record orders and profit announcements from giant monopolies such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Rheinmetall and BAE Systems. Globally, the top five largest arms companies are all based in the US, NATO’s leading nation: Lockheed Martin tops the list with annual arms sales exceeding approximately 60–68 billion dollars. The second-largest arms manufacturer is RTX / Raytheon Technologies, followed in third place by Northrop Grumman, one of the sector’s giants; Boeing, specialising in aerospace and defence technologies; and General Dynamics, which produces armoured vehicles and submarine systems.
Furthermore, BAE Systems, a UK-based company that describes itself as “providing some of the world’s most advanced, technology-driven defence, aerospace and security solutions” and operates production facilities in 40 countries, stands out as Europe’s largest arms manufacturer.
STANAG (Standardisation Agreement) – the set of international technical standards established by NATO to ensure common compatibility and interoperability amongst member states in the fields of military equipment, ammunition, communications and logistics – compels member states to adhere to specific production standards. Those best meeting and developing these standards globally are, in part, the major arms monopolies listed above. This situation triggers member and partner countries to purchase systems such as the F-35 or Eurofighter – worth billions of dollars – from these monopolies, rather than establishing their own domestic industries, thereby remaining dependent through long-term maintenance and repair agreements.
Structures within NATO, such as DIANA (Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic), are shaping the direction of military technology by bringing together start-ups specialising in artificial intelligence and cyber security with the world’s largest arms companies; consequently,
Despite the end of the Cold War, the world’s giant arms monopolies are experiencing successive surges in profits as a result of these conflicts; this is because global arms monopolies wield powerful logistical and political lobbying influence over the decision-making mechanisms of NATO’s leading member states and at NATO summits. By keeping the risks of conflict and perceptions of threat alive, these companies directly boost their share values, continuing to break ‘profit records’ without interruption.
NATO, which has not been placed on the agenda for dissolution—primarily by the US but also by other member states—due to its role as a tool for safeguarding global geopolitical interests, bureaucratic inertia and the high costs associated with establishing a new security architecture, stands out as the fundamental instrument for leading member states to secure military-political influence worldwide. However, there are also prominent views arguing that the real driving force is the defence industry giants—referred to as “arms monopolies”—which play a critical role in sustaining the alliance by ensuring NATO’s dominance of the global security market. According to this view, which has attracted considerable interest and support, these monopolies – which make member states dependent on them through ongoing massive rearmament drives, military spending quotas and standardisation policies – constitute the largest lobbying force economically sustaining NATO.
At the 36th NATO Summit, to be held in Ankara this week (7–8 July), the heads of state and government of member countries will take formal decisions on security matters. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte stated in a pre-Summit address: “I hope that when people look back on the Ankara Summit in the future, they will say it was a summit where the commitments made were put into practice. We made our pledges in The Hague; the Ankara Summit must be a summit of implementation,” he added:
“Defence spending is one of the three key topics that was addressed in The Hague and will also be addressed in Ankara. It is truly impressive that Europeans and Canada have allocated up to 250 billion dollars in additional resources for defence within just two years. We are therefore approaching the upper limit of what we can increase defence spending by within one or two years. However, the issue is not merely about allocating more resources; we need to recruit both men and women to serve in the armed forces and increase the production capacity of the defence industry. We must expand this capacity rapidly.”
At the Ankara Summit, Secretary-General Rutte, whilst noting that NATO’s spending would reach a new upper limit, also emphasised the need to “increase the defence industry’s production capacity”. What does this mean? Like other member states, Turkey’s contribution to the NATO budget – which will amount to 3.14 trillion lira in 2025 – and the associated armaments expenditure will be increased, and from 2026 onwards, these expenditures will rise to even higher levels.
It is at this point that any decisions taken at this NATO Summit, to be held on Turkish soil, will once again have a seriously adverse impact on the millions of people living in Turkey. The public support needed to assist the millions facing severe problems—caused on the one hand by rapidly rising food inflation and, on the other, by poverty exacerbated by shrinking wages—will once again remain out of reach; for the bulk of these taxes will continue to be channelled to contractors under schemes such as ‘hospitals with patient guarantees’ or ‘motorways and bridges with traffic guarantees’.
According to the DİSK-AR Wage Loss Monitoring Report (June 2026), by the fifth month of the year, the cumulative total cost of inflation to insured workers’ wages alone had risen to 458.8 billion lira, whilst the total cost of income and stamp duties had risen to 431.2 billion lira. Consequently, workers’ cumulative total losses due to inflation and taxation have risen by 46.8 per cent compared to the first five months of 2025. In other words, alongside payments to contractors and other expenditure, and due to the impact of projected increases in the NATO budget and defence spending, there will be a significant rise in the funds flowing out of the state coffers, where taxes are accumulated. Consequently, whilst millions are already grappling with one of the world’s highest rates of food inflation and a broad-based unemployment rate of 32 per cent, they will also be hit by the NATO budget and military spending to be finalised in Ankara.