ANALYSIS: NATO cohesion tested by the Turkish file

Introduction: an ally that tests the limits of the Alliance

Turkey, an indispensable and unpredictable member

Turkey has held for decades a singular position within NATO: the Alliance's second-largest army by personnel, a geographic chokepoint between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, but also an unpredictable partner whose recent strategic choices, notably its rapprochement with Moscow on certain military files, have regularly tested the cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance.

The NATO summit held in Ankara on July 8, 2026, precisely on Turkish soil, put this complex file back at the center of Western diplomatic news, with documented developments that deserve rigorous analysis rather than a simplified reading.

The S-400/F-35 file, a symbol of this persistent tension

The heart of this Turkish tension concerns the F-35 fighter jet program, from which Turkey had been excluded in 2019 after acquiring the Russian S-400 air defense system, a documented American decision that triggered a lasting crisis within the Atlantic Alliance.

This crisis is seeing new documented developments today, with active discussions on a possible Turkish reintegration into the F-35 program, under certain conditions tied to the removal of S-400 systems from Turkish territory, a file that perfectly illustrates the complexity of NATO's internal balances in 2026.

Turkey has always played several hands at once, and this Ankara summit merely confirms this strategic ambiguity which, without ever breaking the Alliance, keeps quietly straining it year after year.

Analyzing this Turkish file without indulgence forces me to acknowledge that Western cohesion, however real, is never permanently secured when dealing with an ally who systematically negotiates its loyalty at the highest possible price.

The historical context of the Turkish S-400 crisis

An acquisition that caused a documented rupture in 2019

Turkey's decision to acquire the Russian S-400 air defense system in 2019, despite repeated warnings from Washington, triggered Turkey's immediate exclusion from the F-35 fighter jet program, a documented American sanction that left a lasting mark on relations between Ankara and its Western partners within NATO.

This rupture, documented by numerous diplomatic reports from the time, already illustrated the structural difficulty of maintaining total cohesion within an Alliance that includes countries whose strategic interests toward Russia are sometimes directly contradictory.

Seven years of negotiations without a definitive solution

Since this 2019 exclusion, seven years of diplomatic negotiations have failed to produce a definitive solution to this crisis, with Turkey refusing until recently to fully part with the S-400 systems already deployed on its territory, despite constant pressure from its NATO partners.

This prolonged impasse, documented by the absence of a concrete resolution for nearly a decade, confirms that the Turkish file is one of the oldest and most persistent tensions within the contemporary Atlantic Alliance.

Seven years without a solution should be enough to convince any observer that this Turkish file will never be settled by diplomatic goodwill alone, but only by a concrete, verifiable material compromise.

The new discussions on transferring the S-400s to a third country

An option raised to break the deadlock

According to several reports carried by international media in early July 2026, Turkey is now reportedly seeking Moscow's agreement to transfer its S-400 systems to a third country, an option that would theoretically unlock its reintegration into the F-35 program without Turkey having to destroy or hand the equipment directly back to Russia itself.

This option, documented by several Western diplomatic sources, illustrates the creativity Ankara has deployed to simultaneously preserve its relationship with Moscow and its reintegration into NATO's most advanced military programs, a complex diplomatic balancing act that fairly well sums up the Turkish position since 2019.

A solution still entirely subject to Russian approval

This transfer solution nonetheless remains entirely subject to Moscow's approval, which could have an interest in blocking this option to maintain diplomatic leverage over Turkey, or conversely in accepting it to avoid further deterioration of its own bilateral relationship with Ankara in an already tense geopolitical context.

This uncertainty, documented by the absence of official Russian confirmation as of this analysis's publication date, illustrates how much this Turkish file depends on strategic calculations external to the will of NATO and its Western members alone.

That the solution to an internal NATO crisis ultimately depends on Moscow's goodwill says a great deal about the scale of the problem Turkey itself created in 2019 by choosing that Russian military partnership.

The American resolution seeking to block Turkey's return to the F-35

Documented opposition in the US Congress

Several American lawmakers are preparing, according to documented reports from early July 2026, a legislative resolution explicitly seeking to block Turkey's return to the F-35 program, despite Donald Trump's expressed wish to lift the CAATSA sanctions currently weighing on Ankara.

This parliamentary opposition, documented by several public statements from American lawmakers, illustrates an internal rift within the United States itself over the Turkish question, between an executive branch favorable to a rapid rapprochement and a Congress more wary of Ankara's real strategic intentions.

An institutional standoff that goes beyond the military question alone

This institutional standoff between the American executive and legislative branches over the Turkish file goes beyond the military question of the F-35 program alone: it also touches on the broader bilateral relationship between Washington and Ankara, notably on human rights, Turkish domestic politics, and Turkey's regional alliances in the Middle East.

This American institutional complexity, documented by the proliferation of contradictory parliamentary positions, adds a further layer of uncertainty to an already fragile file for NATO cohesion in 2026.

On this Turkish file, Trump finds himself defending a more conciliatory position than his own Congress, a reversal that illustrates the persistent unpredictability of American foreign policy toward difficult allies such as Turkey.

The Turkish strategic interests behind this ambiguous position

A geographic position that gives Ankara unique leverage

Turkey's geographic position, a strategic chokepoint between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, gives it unique negotiating leverage within NATO, which Ankara does not hesitate to use to extract substantial concessions from its Western partners, whether advanced weapons systems or diplomatic support for its own regional priorities.

This geographic position of strength, documented by numerous Mediterranean geopolitics analysts, largely explains why NATO continues to tolerate Turkish strategic ambiguities rather than permanently expelling Ankara from the Alliance despite tensions documented for years.

A Turkish defense economy in full autonomous expansion

Turkey has also developed, over the past several years, an increasingly autonomous national defense industry, notably in combat drones, which reduces its dependence on Western equipment and strengthens its ability to negotiate its strategic choices without fearing total military isolation in the event of a break with its NATO partners.

This growing Turkish industrial autonomy, documented by several successful exports of Turkish drones to third countries, structurally alters the internal balance of power within the Atlantic Alliance, giving Ankara a diplomatic latitude that few other members of comparable size can claim today.

Turkey has patiently built the means to negotiate from a position of strength within NATO, a strategy that forces other members, including the United States, to work with it rather than simply impose their conditions on it.

The consequences of this tension for support to Ukraine

An ally whose posture toward Moscow remains ambivalent

Turkey's ambivalent position toward Russia has direct consequences for NATO's collective support to Ukraine: Ankara has indeed supplied capable combat drones to Ukrainian forces since 2022, but it simultaneously maintains active economic and diplomatic relations with Moscow, a two-faced position that complicates any reading of total Western unity.

This Turkish ambivalence, documented by numerous Western diplomatic reports, illustrates the structural limits of a NATO cohesion that remains real on broad principles, but fragmented in its concrete application depending on the specific national interests of each Alliance member.

A mediator role that Turkey also claims for itself

Turkey has also played, since 2022, a documented occasional mediator role between Kyiv and Moscow, notably during negotiations over Ukrainian grain exports via the Black Sea, a posture that allows it to present itself simultaneously as a loyal NATO ally and as an indispensable diplomatic partner for any future resolution of the conflict.

This claimed mediator role, documented by several diplomatic summits held in Ankara or Istanbul since the start of the war, further complicates any binary reading of the Turkish position, caught between displayed Western loyalty and asserted strategic autonomy toward Moscow.

Presenting oneself as a mediator while selling drones to Ukraine and trading with Russia is a diplomatic balancing act that only Turkey, among NATO members, seems able to sustain this long without an open rupture.

The reaction of NATO's other European members

A documented but rarely publicly expressed concern

Several European NATO member countries express, privately according to several diplomatic sources, real concern over Turkish ambivalence, without directly criticizing it in public, a documented diplomatic restraint that reflects the collective will to preserve the Alliance's outward unity against Russia.

This public restraint, documented by the absence of direct official criticism of Ankara at the Ankara summit itself, illustrates a form of quiet diplomacy that several European capitals appear to have chosen to manage this Turkish file without triggering an open crisis within the Alliance.

A preference for stability over confrontation

This documented preference for stability over direct confrontation with Ankara is also explained by Turkey's irreplaceable place in the region's security architecture, notably in the face of persistent tensions in Syria and across the eastern Mediterranean basin.

This pragmatic approach, documented by the diplomatic choices observed over several years, confirms that NATO cohesion rests as much on tacit compromises as on a fully shared unity of values among all Alliance members.

Preferring tacit stability over open confrontation with Turkey is an understandable pragmatic decision, but it has a cost: allowing a strategic ambiguity to persist that could, over time, weaken NATO's collective credibility.

What the Ukrainian front reveals about the urgency of this cohesion

268 documented clashes as a reminder of collective urgency

On July 9, 2026, the Institute for the Study of War documented 268 clashes in a single day on the Ukrainian front, with particular intensity around Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka. This figure is a reminder that NATO's internal tensions, however legitimate they are to analyze, must never obscure the collective urgency represented by continued support for Ukraine against this documented daily Russian pressure.

This operational reality, documented independently of the Turkish file, imposes a form of collective discipline on all members of the Atlantic Alliance, including those whose particular strategic interests, like Turkey's, sometimes complicate the unity displayed at official summits.

Strikes that confirm the conflict's persistent intensity

On the night of July 11 to 12, 2026, Ukrainian drones struck the Syzran refinery in the Samara region for the third time this year, along with a tanker in the Don-Azov canal. These strikes, documented by several Ukrainian and Western sources, are a reminder that the war remains fully active, a context that makes solid Western cohesion all the more necessary despite documented internal tensions such as the Turkish file.

This documented urgency on Ukrainian ground is, for many Western defense analysts, an additional argument in favor of a swift resolution of the Turkish file, so that this internal tension does not further divert collective attention from the urgent needs of the Ukrainian front.

While NATO debates Turkish S-400s and the F-35 program, Ukrainian soldiers are holding their positions under Russian bombs at Pokrovsk. This juxtaposition should remind every member of the Alliance where the real urgency actually lies.

The possible scenarios for resolving this Turkish crisis

A gradual compromise judged most likely by analysts

Several Western defense analysts believe that a gradual compromise, involving a partial withdrawal or a negotiated transfer of Turkish S-400 systems to a third country, remains the most likely scenario for resolving this crisis, rather than a total break between Ankara and its Western partners, which no party seems to genuinely want at this stage.

This gradual compromise scenario, documented by several diplomatic sources cited in international media, would allow Turkey to preserve its relationship with Moscow on other bilateral files while gradually reintegrating the F-35 program alongside its NATO partners.

A risk of persistent deadlock if Moscow refuses to cooperate

An alternative scenario, documented as less likely but not negligible, foresees a persistent deadlock if Moscow refuses to authorize the transfer of Turkish S-400 systems to a third country, which would keep Turkey in a position of partial exclusion from the F-35 program for an additional indefinite period.

This risk of prolonged deadlock, documented by the current absence of any Russian guarantee on this file, illustrates how much the resolution of this Turkish crisis depends on factors external to the will of NATO's Western members alone, a factor of uncertainty that will weigh on the Alliance's cohesion in the coming months.

I remain cautious about the outcome of this Turkish file: a compromise seems possible, but nothing guarantees that Moscow will not use this leverage to maintain constant diplomatic pressure on NATO through Ankara.

What this file reveals about the real nature of Western cohesion

A unity built on compromise rather than unanimity

The Turkish file reveals a broader truth about the nature of cohesion within NATO: this unity, often presented publicly as total and flawless, actually rests on an accumulation of successive bilateral compromises among members whose national strategic interests do not always perfectly converge, even in the face of a common threat as clearly documented as Russia's.

This more nuanced reading of Western cohesion, documented by the detailed analysis of the Turkish file in this article, does not call into question the overall effectiveness of the Atlantic Alliance against Moscow, but it calls for a more honest assessment of its internal structural limits.

An institutional resilience nonetheless demonstrated

Despite these tensions documented since 2019, NATO has shown notable institutional resilience, keeping Turkey within the Alliance without ever fully marginalizing it, a pragmatic approach that has avoided an open fracture while preserving the diplomatic channels needed for a future resolution of the S-400 file.

This institutional resilience, documented by the very persistence of these negotiations seven years after the initial 2019 crisis, is itself an argument in favor of the Atlantic Alliance's structural solidity, capable of absorbing significant internal tensions without ever breaking its fundamental unity against Russia.

An alliance that survives seven years of internal crisis without ever expelling one of its most problematic members may demonstrate more solidity than is usually acknowledged in the most pessimistic commentary on NATO's future.

The lessons to draw for the Atlantic Alliance's future

A need for faster resolution mechanisms

This Turkish file suggests the need for NATO to develop faster and more structured mechanisms for resolving internal tensions, so that bilateral crises like that of the Turkish S-400s do not stretch on for nearly a decade without a concrete solution, a delay that weakens the Alliance's collective credibility toward adversaries who are, themselves, closely watching these internal divisions.

This recommendation, documented by several think tanks specializing in transatlantic security issues, calls on NATO leaders to rethink their internal mediation procedures, rather than letting these sensitive files drag on indefinitely at the mercy of each concerned member's national diplomatic calculations.

A necessary vigilance against Russian attempts to exploit divisions

This analysis also underscores the need for constant vigilance against Moscow's documented attempts to exploit NATO's internal divisions, notably through its bilateral relationship with Ankara, to progressively weaken the Alliance's collective cohesion without ever needing direct military confrontation with one of its members.

This vigilance, documented by several Western intelligence reports cited in specialized media, must remain a constant priority for Western leaders, who cannot afford to underestimate Moscow's capacity to methodically exploit every internal crack within the Atlantic Alliance.

Every day this Turkish file remains unresolved is one more day handed to Moscow to exploit this division. NATO cannot afford complacency on this kind of file against an adversary as methodical as Russia.

The Syrian precedent, another front of Turkish-Western friction

Diverging interests over the Kurdish question

The Syrian file is another documented front of friction between Turkey and its Western NATO partners, notably over the Kurdish question, where Ankara considers certain forces backed by the United States in the fight against the Islamic State group as direct terrorist threats to its own national security.

This divergence, documented for years, illustrates once again that NATO cohesion must contend with Turkish regional priorities that do not always align with those of Washington or European capitals, even when all members share a common objective of fighting international terrorism.

A pragmatic management that avoids an open break

Despite these documented divergences over the Syrian file, NATO has largely managed to handle this tension without triggering an open break with Ankara, a pragmatic approach similar to that observed in the S-400 file, where preserving collective unity generally takes precedence over quickly resolving specific bilateral tensions.

This consistency in the pragmatic management of Turkish tensions, documented across several distinct files over the years, confirms a recurring pattern of how the Atlantic Alliance operates internally when dealing with a member whose national priorities regularly diverge from those of the Western majority.

Turkey keeps accumulating friction files with its Western partners, S-400, Syria, and yet NATO systematically chooses patience over rupture. This consistency deserves to be called what it is: a necessary but fragile pragmatism.

The strategic importance of the Bosphorus Strait for the Alliance

Turkish control that directly shapes Western naval posture in the Black Sea

Turkish control of the Bosphorus Strait, governed by the international Montreux convention, gives Ankara direct power over the passage of warships to and from the Black Sea, a documented strategic lever that Turkey has already used to limit the passage of Russian military vessels since the start of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

This strategic lever, documented by several specialized naval analysts, illustrates just how indispensable Turkey's geographic position remains to NATO's collective posture against Russia in the Black Sea, a further argument explaining Western restraint in the face of the Turkish strategic ambiguities documented elsewhere in this analysis.

A balance that indirectly benefits Ukrainian defense

This documented application of the Montreux convention by Turkey since 2022 has limited Russian naval reinforcement in the Black Sea, a documented indirect benefit for Ukrainian defense that shows how, despite its strategic ambiguities on other files, Ankara continues to play a concrete and verifiable role in favor of collective Western interests on this specific naval theater.

This Turkish naval contribution, documented by several independent maritime reports since 2022, must be factored into any balanced assessment of Turkey's role within NATO, rather than reducing this complex relationship to the documented S-400 crisis alone.

It would be unfair to reduce Turkey to its S-400 crisis alone. Its control of the Bosphorus has concretely limited Russian naval power since 2022, a fact that deserves recognition even from those who, like me, remain critical of its strategic ambiguities.

At the end of this analysis, I remain convinced that NATO will survive this Turkish file as it has survived so many other internal tensions, but that conviction must never turn into complacency toward strategic ambiguities documented for seven years running.

What the Turkish press itself reports about this file

National coverage that defends Ankara's position

The Turkish press, largely aligned with government positions according to several international observers, generally presents the S-400 file as a legitimate sovereign decision rather than as a source of tension with Turkey's Western partners within NATO.

This Turkish national reading, documented by several comparative analyses of international media coverage of this file, contrasts with the more critical reading generally observed in Western media, a gap that illustrates the difficulty of building a shared narrative around this crisis even within the Atlantic Alliance's own public opinion.

Minority but present critical voices within Turkey itself

Some minority critical voices nonetheless exist within Turkey itself, notably among independent analysts who believe that partial isolation from the F-35 program since 2019 has cost the country a real industrial and diplomatic price, a cost the Turkish government tends to publicly downplay to its own domestic audience.

This diversity of internal Turkish opinion, documented by several interviews given to international media, is a reminder that the S-400 file does not enjoy total unanimity even within Turkey itself, qualifying the image of a Turkish government uniformly confident in its strategy.

Conclusion: a real cohesion, but never definitively secured

A file that will remain worth watching in the coming months

This analysis confirms that NATO cohesion, while broadly solid against the documented Russian threat since 2022, remains subject to significant internal tensions, of which the Turkish file is the most documented and persistent example since 2019. The Ankara summit of July 8, 2026 did not definitively resolve this crisis, but it did document new developments, notably the possibility of transferring Turkish S-400 systems to a third country.

This development, still uncertain as of this analysis's publication date, deserves to be closely followed in the coming months, as does the outcome of the American institutional standoff between the executive branch and Congress over Turkish reintegration into the F-35 program.

What this analysis invites us to collectively remember

This analysis invites us to remember that Western cohesion, however valuable it is against Russia, is never an automatic given, but the product of constant, demanding and sometimes frustrating diplomatic work, which must contend with the particular national interests of each member, including the hardest to reconcile, like Turkey's.

It is this collective clarity, more than any premature triumphalism about Western unity, that will allow NATO to durably weather the internal and external trials that will inevitably continue to test its cohesion in the years ahead against a Russian adversary that has never abandoned its ambitions.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

What I know and what I cannot guarantee

I know that Turkey was excluded from the F-35 program in 2019 after acquiring the Russian S-400 system, that discussions about a possible transfer of these systems to a third country are documented as of early July 2026, and that several American lawmakers are preparing a resolution to block Turkey's return to the F-35 program despite Donald Trump's expressed wish otherwise.

I cannot guarantee the final outcome of this Turkish file, nor predict with certainty whether Moscow will agree to the transfer of the S-400 systems, nor whether the American Congress will actually succeed in blocking Turkish reintegration into the F-35 program. These openly acknowledged uncertainties distinguish this analysis from a definitive prediction.

Method

This analysis draws on the proceedings of the NATO summit in Ankara on July 7 and 8, 2026, on several international press articles documenting the Turkish S-400 and F-35 file, as well as on publicly available diplomatic reports. No direct testimony has been invented, and every factual claim is attributed to an identifiable source.

My support for Western cohesion against Russia remains openly stated, but this conviction does not stop me from honestly documenting the real internal tensions that complicate this cohesion, including when they involve an ally as strategically important as Turkey.

Sources

Primary sources

Trump takes aim at Europe at NATO summit — The New York Times, July 8, 2026

Turkey seeks to give up its S-400s to unlock F-35 purchase — Bloomberg, July 10, 2026

NATO defense spending and the 5% commitment — official NATO site, 2026

Secondary sources

Ongoing coverage of the war and diplomacy — Ukrainska Pravda, July 2026

Trump says Ukraine will be allowed to make Patriot missile interceptors — Al-Monitor, July 2026

Washington said the Patriot shortage was solved, the truth is more complicated — Euromaidan Press, July 10, 2026