The Global South Calls for Cooperation, Development, and Peace Amid NATO's Belligerent Actions

NATO, established in 1949 as the primary military organization of the Atlantic Alliance, initially comprised 12 member countries. Over time, the Alliance has undergone several transformations, with its most recent strategic concept adopted on June 30, 2022. By April 2023, the number of members had grown to 31, following a new wave of expansion in the post-Cold War era.

The notable aspect of NATO’s new concept lies in its transformation into a global organization. It recognizes that the “communist threat” of the Cold War era has been replaced by the revisionist attitude of Russia, China, and those aligned with them. Both the current US national security document and NATO's 2022 Strategic Concept emphasize the global struggle between democracy and autocracy.

According to this perspective, the Atlantic Alliance and its allies align themselves on the "democracy front," while states led by Russia and China are portrayed as part of the "autocracy front." The criterion used by the US and NATO to categorize governments in non-allied countries as "autocracies" or "democracies" hinges on whether they align with the Atlantic Alliance's interests. Consequently, under this front-oriented strategy, the rest of the world is perceived as being on the opposing side.

As the world moves towards a multipolar landscape, it is noteworthy that the United States is asserting its claim as the sole pole to its allies, particularly in Europe, and to the rest of the world. This imposition runs counter to the objective interests of its allies. In its pursuit to maintain unipolarity and dollar hegemony, US leadership aims to transform NATO into a global war apparatus. This is done under the pretext of promoting "democracy/human rights" and other similar ideals. The Atlantic Alliance, along with NATO and other partnerships, exerts interference in the internal affairs of nations, seeks economic dominance, and promotes a political culture of belligerency. In contrast, nation-states that adhere to the principles of the UN Charter prioritize peace and cooperation as their interests. Developing countries across Asia, Africa, and South America are gravitating towards cooperation in alignment with their objective interests.

The current scenario exemplifies a clash between two divergent strategies in the international arena. On one hand, there is the pursuit of Atlantic hegemony and the imposition of war. On the other hand, developing countries are staunchly advocating for a peaceful global order. They fortify their national states against hegemonic influences and promote cooperation based on principles such as mutual respect, non-interference in internal affairs, common development, and shared progress. This constructive initiative, being gradually built within the developing world, is gaining increasing influence and serves the best interests of humanity.




Since its establishment in 1949, NATO has been a political and military international organization that constitutes one of the most important actors in the international system. Although the prestige and advantages of being a NATO member in a bipolar world have been questioned from time to time after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the Alliance has continued to sustain itself and, especially in the 2000s, has tended to expand. The acceleration of NATO’s development and change after the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) suggests that the focus of this international organization is not only on the Eastern Bloc but also on the need to organize for other current and future focal points. Those who argue to the contrary suggest that in the aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR, which was the focal point of NATO, and in an international system moving between unipolarity and multipolarity, the existence and purpose of the organization has become meaningless. The structure of NATO has been criticised due to factors such as the criticism of NATO’s mission to protect Europe within the European Union (EU), especially in France, and the desire of the member states of the Union to take part in the mission to protect Europe themselves. Within the scope of this analysis, NATO’s actions and its position in the face of crises, especially in the 2000s, will be examined, and how the reflections of its actions in the face of these political and military crises shed light on the future of the organization will be discussed. In this context, issues such as what the Alliance countries, especially in Europe, expect from NATO in the face of the recent crises will be analysed.

Keywords: Defence, deterrence, NATO, power, war


"From Russia's strategic alliance perspective, driven by a healthy pragmatism, Türkiye can always be seen as a reliable partner. Today, the two most important actors determining the course of economic and political events in Eurasia are Russia and Türkiye. These two countries have achieved political and economic stability in the Black Sea, so the view that Russia and Türkiye need to form a geopolitical alliance is very popular. Today, the conditions for further strengthening Turkish-Russian cooperation are developing. In addition, regarding the fight against international terrorism, joint counter-terrorism exercises of the Russian and Turkish Special Operations Forces should be held."


Over the past 70 years, the relationship between China and NATO has undergone the following stages: isolation and hostility (1949-1972), strategic collaboration (1972-1989), political opponents (from 1989 to early 21st century), and engagement and dialogue (2002-2020). After the Cold War, NATO continued to develop towards globalization. Its policies and actions gradually extended from the Euro-Atlantic region to the Middle East, Central Asia, and Asia Pacific, intervening in Asian affairs. With the United States’ strategic contraction from the Middle East and withdrawal from Afghanistan, the “Asian version of NATO” has become a tool created by the United States to curb China’s rise. However, EU countries, India, ASEAN, Japan, and others may not necessarily remain united with the United States. China will continue to develop itself, but at the same time, it will also maintain cautious contact, dialogue, and cooperation with NATO.

Keywords: China, great power competition, NATO, United States, Asia version of NATO


The US initially organized NATO, a regional military alliance, as the security pillar of the international system. It planned to regulate the power-security (economic, political, and military) problem in Western Europe and the Mediterranean according to its interests. The containment policy was a strategy pursued by the US against the Soviet Union between 1947 and 1991. The admission of Türkiye and Greece to NATO in 1952 was a continuation of the containment policy against the Soviet Union. The disintegration of the Soviet Union with the end of the Cold War also paved the way for the US to add new countries to NATO in the 1990s and 2000s. The enlargement of NATO and the policy of containment against the Soviet Union were carried out in line with the interests of the US. Especially in the 1980s, steps were taken to open and develop these markets by imposing appropriate rules. The US aimed to maintain its effectiveness in the wide European geography together with the countries it included in NATO. To meet the increasing needs of the existing market, efforts were made to open new areas in Western Europe, where NATO was established. However, a full consensus on security on the Euro-Atlantic line could not be reached. The process of assigning NATO a task to protect new areas of interest, namely all areas in which the US and some of its allies operate or want to operate, has been started following changing imperial demands. How this process develops will be determined by the attitudes of social, regional, and international actors.

Keywords: Containment, hegemony, NATO, territorial control, Cold War


“US needs NATO as a military instrument to maintain and strengthen its global influence through military expansion. On the contrary, Asian countries are primarily interested in the stable development of their economies and are ready to cooperate economically with all countries. For this reason, I think that, in these conditions, where all the rules of the world order are violated, Asia is trying to create a safe future where the economies of the countries in the region can be balanced and the conditions for a peaceful environment can be provided, creating a center of gravity.”


This article applies Marxist analytical tools to analyse the competing debates about the BRI’s historic origins, deployment, and integration. The article contends that Marxist notions of subnational regions and spatial fixes have the potential to inform analysis of the BRI’s transnational connectivity extensions and present it in different terms than is usually allowed in conventional readings of China’s foreign economic policy. Adopting such a perspective is particularly apposite given that China’s government has subscribed to such a worldview since assuming power in 1949. Marxist approaches to international relations, political economy, and geoeconomics deepened with Gramscian approaches to political and cultural hegemonic discourse and practice. Analysis of the historical determinants and contemporary trajectory of BRI deployment considered Giovanni Arrighi’s works and his use of Braudel’s la long dureé to contextualise the analysis.

Keywords: Multipolarity, multilateralism, Belt and Road Initiative, global economy, Three Worlds Theory


Who would have expected that the BRICS nations could rise and become the potential rival of the G7 countries, the World Bank and the IMF combined? That once seemingly distant possibility now has real prospects which could change the equilibrium of world politics. The more successful BRICS becomes, the weaker Western hegemony over the South will be. Although some Western politicians and media insist on downplaying the group’s role in shaping the new world order, the change seems real and irreversible. Even before the Ukraine war commenced in February 2022, much evidence pointed to the fact that Russia and China’s goal was hardly temporary or impulsive. The very language of multipolarity has defined both countries’ discourse for years, a discourse that was mostly inspired by the two countries’ displeasure with US militarism from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, their frustration with Washington’s bullying tactics whenever a disagreement arises, be it in trade or border demarcations, the punitive language, the constant threats, the military expansion of NATO and much more. While it is too early to determine, with any degree of certainty, the winners and losers of this new configuration, it is almost certain that a US-westerndominated world is no longer possible.

Keywords: BRICS, Sino-Arab relations, Global South, New Era, New Middle East