By Yıldıran Acar, Political Scientist
As the Russia-Ukraine war enters its fifth year, the European security architecture is undergoing its most comprehensive transformation since the end of the Cold War. One of the latest stages of this transformation was the NATO Summit of Heads of State and Government held in Ankara. Whilst Western countries assessed the summit primarily in the context of continuing support for Ukraine, strengthening deterrence capabilities and reinforcing solidarity amongst allies, analyses carried out in Moscow presented a different perspective. From the perspective of Russian experts, the summit’s true significance lay not merely in the decisions announced, but in the fact that the structural transformation in Europe’s approach to security had reached a new stage.
As expected, the Kremlin’s initial statements regarding the summit consisted of political messages criticizing NATO’s policies towards Russia. However, discussions in Moscow were not confined solely to official rhetoric. Assessments by experts from the Russian Council on International Affairs (RSMD), the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), the Institute of International Economics and International Relations (IMEMO) under the Russian Academy of Sciences, and various think tanks, reveal that the summit was interpreted in Russia not merely as a diplomatic development, but as a strategic indicator for understanding Europe’s future security architecture.
The first point that stands out in the assessments by Russian experts is that the Ankara Summit is viewed not so much as a meeting producing new decisions, but rather as a step towards institutionalizing the security paradigm that has been taking shape over the last few years. Political scientist Alexander Aleshin notes that the summit’s primary significance lies in formalizing the transformation in NATO’s security approach. According to Aleshin, the alliance can no longer be regarded merely as a military structure that draws up joint defense plans. The defense industry, production capacity, technology development, logistical infrastructure and joint procurement mechanisms are also becoming integral parts of NATO’s security strategy.
This assessment largely aligns with other analyses conducted within Russian academic circles. According to IMEMO experts, the rise in defense spending in Europe in recent years should not be viewed as a temporary crisis response. Investments aimed at increasing munitions production, joint defense projects, the strengthening of air defense systems and new technology programs are regarded as fundamental components of Europe’s long-term security planning. A notable point in the analyses from Moscow is the shared view that this transformation is beginning to take on a permanent character, regardless of the course of the war in Ukraine.
One of the terms most frequently used by Russian experts is the militarization of Europe. However, in Moscow, this concept carries a broader meaning than is often understood in Western public discourse. It does not refer merely to increases in defense budgets or the development of new weapons systems. According to Russian analyses, the gradual restructuring of the European economy to meet defense needs is seen as the key indicator of militarization. Increased public investment in the defense industry, the expansion of production capacity, policies regarding access to critical raw materials, and the prioritization of AI-supported military technologies constitute the economic dimension of this transformation.
Journalist and political commentator Igor Levitas also approaches the debate from this angle. According to Levitas, to understand the summit’s impact on the future, one must look not so much at the leaders’ political statements as at the objectives set out at the NATO Defense Industry Forum. This is because, in the future, the factor determining a country’s military strength will not merely be the weapon systems in its inventory, but rather the speed at which it can produce them, maintain them, and the extent to which it can scale up production capacity during times of crisis.
Similarly, US expert Malek Dudaikov does not interpret the Ankara Summit solely through the lens of competition between Russia and NATO. According to Dudaikov, Washington’s primary aim is to enable Europe to assume greater responsibility in the defense sector whilst gradually shifting the US’s strategic focus towards the Indo-Pacific region. This approach does not explain the strengthening of Europe’s military capacity solely in terms of security risks posed by Russia; it also views it as part of the US’s strategy to reshape the global balance of power.
At this point, the assessments of Russian experts form a complementary framework. Whilst Aleshin draws attention to NATO’s institutional transformation, Dudaikov highlights the global strategic dimension of this transformation. Levitas, meanwhile, focuses on the economic and industrial aspects of the same process. Although their approaches differ, the conclusion they reach is largely the same: security policies in Europe are no longer confined to military planning alone; technology, industry, production capacity and economic resilience have also taken center stage in the security equation.
For this reason, the Ankara Summit was not viewed in Moscow merely as one of NATO’s annual meetings. According to Russian experts, the summit marked a significant turning point, demonstrating that Europe’s rearmament process has become institutionalized and that the defense industry has emerged as one of the fundamental elements of the European security architecture. It was precisely this strategic assessment that shaped Russia’s evaluation of the summit.
Türkiye’s Changing Position According to Russian Experts
Another notable theme in Russian experts’ assessments following the Ankara Summit was Türkiye’s changing role within NATO. However, in these assessments, Türkiye is no longer viewed solely through the prism of the Black Sea, the Straits or Middle Eastern geopolitics, as had been the case in previous years. Instead, the focus is on the defense industry capacity, production capabilities and regional diplomatic influence that Ankara has developed in recent years. This approach stands out as one of the key indicators of the shift in Moscow’s perspective on Türkiye.
In the analyses of Russian experts, Türkiye’s rising defense industry is assessed in conjunction with the transformation of Europe’s security architecture. It is noted that the production capacity achieved in recent years in the fields of unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare systems, missile technologies, naval platforms and armored land vehicles has transformed Türkiye from merely an ally contributing to NATO’s military strength into one of the key players in the alliance’s defense industry ecosystem.
Alexander Aleshin also highlights this point. According to Aleshin, for Europe’s rising defense expenditure to yield tangible results, it is dependent on a robust and sustainable production infrastructure. In this context, Türkiye is regarded as one of the countries capable of contributing to Europe’s growing production needs thanks to its defense industry. According to Russian experts, Ankara’s importance stems not only from the technologies it has developed but also from its ability to scale these up to mass production within a short timeframe.
Malek Dudaikov, meanwhile, assesses Türkiye’s position within NATO within a broader strategic framework. According to Dudaikov, the political differences that occasionally arise between Washington and Ankara do not negate Türkiye’s strategic value to the alliance. Situated at the intersection of various geopolitical regions such as the Black Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Caucasus and the Middle East, Türkiye remains one of the partners that the US cannot easily do without. For this reason, Russian experts believe that the crises between the two countries mostly remain manageable disagreements.
However, in Moscow, it is not only Türkiye’s military capabilities but also its multifaceted foreign policy that is being closely monitored. The fact that Ankara, despite being a NATO member, maintains open channels of dialogue with Russia in the fields of energy, trade and regional security is regarded by many Russian experts as a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. In particular, the diplomatic initiatives, prisoner exchanges and processes such as the Black Sea Grain Initiative carried out between the parties following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine have made Türkiye’s role in crisis management more prominent in Russian analyses.
However, Russian experts agree that Türkiye will face a more complex strategic environment in the coming period. The acceleration of defense integration in Europe and the shift towards a more protracted nature of the NATO–Russia rivalry could make it more difficult for Ankara to maintain its balancing policy. On the one hand, obligations within the alliance, and on the other, ongoing economic and political relations with Russia, could make Türkiye’s room for maneuver in foreign policy more delicate.
For this reason, analyses in Moscow view Türkiye not merely as a member of NATO, but also as a regional actor capable of maintaining relations with different centers of power simultaneously. According to Russian experts, Ankara’s most significant challenge in the coming period will be to maintain its strategic autonomy in an international environment where great power rivalry is intensifying, whilst preserving its rise in the defense industry and its diplomatic maneuverability.
The Russian experts’ assessments of Türkiye indicate that Ankara’s role within NATO can no longer be explained solely by its geographical location. The production capacity achieved in the defense industry, the diplomatic role it plays in regional crises, and its ability to maintain simultaneous relations with various actors have made Türkiye one of the countries closely monitored by Moscow. This situation highlights that Ankara is viewed as a key actor not only in terms of NATO’s future but also in shaping the security balance between Europe and Eurasia.
Conclusion: What Does Moscow’s Interpretation of the Ankara Summit Reveal?
The NATO Summit held in Ankara was largely assessed in Western capitals as a meeting that strengthened the alliance’s deterrence capacity and reaffirmed political support for Ukraine. Discussions in Moscow, however, took a different turn. Analyses by Russian experts treat the summit not merely in terms of the decisions taken, but as a strategic indicator of the direction in which the European security architecture is evolving.
An examination of the Russian experts’ assessments reveals three key conclusions. Firstly, the assessment that Europe’s security policies are shifting from short-term crisis management towards long-term strategic planning. Secondly, the observation that NATO’s approach to security is based not only on military deterrence but also on areas such as the defense industry, technology, production capacity and economic resilience. Thirdly, there is a shared view that Türkiye has become a more prominent actor in this new security equation, not only due to its geopolitical position but also thanks to its developing defense industry and multifaceted diplomatic capabilities.
However, it is important not to overlook the fact that the assessments of Russian experts reflect Moscow’s security perspective. NATO and European countries, however, assess the same developments within a different framework. From the Alliance’s perspective, increased defense spending, the strengthening of production capacity and investment in new technologies are viewed as a legitimate and deterrence-focused response to the security risks that emerged following Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Consequently, the picture emerging from the Ankara Summit should be interpreted not only in terms of military balances but also through the lens of the parties’ significantly divergent perceptions of security.
This situation points to the emergence of a new security paradigm in Europe. Today, the relationship between military power and economic capacity has become more pronounced than ever before. Investments in the defense industry, competition in critical technologies, the security of supply chains and production capacity are now regarded as integral elements of national security policies. Consequently, the strategic competition of the future will not be confined to the battlefield; it will also unfold in factories, research centers, technology laboratories and industrial infrastructure.
From Türkiye’s perspective, the emerging picture presents both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe’s initiatives to enhance its defense capabilities could create new areas of cooperation for the Turkish defense industry. However, the same process will also necessitate Ankara striking a more delicate balance between its obligations within NATO and its multifaceted relations with Russia. In the coming period, Türkiye’s strategic success will depend not only on its progress in the defense industry but also on its ability to maintain its diplomatic flexibility and strategic autonomy amidst shifting international balances.
Consequently, the impact of the Ankara Summit in Moscow extends beyond the summit’s official agenda items. Assessments by Russian experts indicate that the transformation taking place in the European security architecture offers significant insights not only in terms of Russia-NATO competition but also regarding the future of the international system. Europe’s rearmament process, the positioning of the defense industry at the center of economic and technological transformation, and the increasingly multidimensional nature of great power competition will continue to feature among the key dynamics shaping the international security agenda in the coming years. The Ankara Summit will also be remembered as one of the pivotal turning points in this transformation, significant not only symbolically but also strategically.