Following the meeting of Macron, Johnson, Erdogan and Merkel in London before the NATO Leaders Summit, they agreed on Syrian refugees and the fight against terrorism. If this is true, it is possible to think that the internal conflict in Syria will end as soon as possible and especially the terrorist organizations will be neutralized in our region. However, it is more accurate to say that there is not such a clear attitude when trying to go down to the essence. Because after the meeting, Macron said in a statement that he did not see YPG as a terrorist organization. Unless the PKK / YPG is considered a terrorist organization, neither NATO nor the four countries will have a common fight against terrorism. Meanwhile, the very best they had agreed with the NATO Summit before Trump made the statements President Erdogan emphasized, US Secretary of Defense Espen also made a statement like Macron, rejects Turkey's YPG request be declared a terrorist organization. In other words, not only Macron, but the US, as always, does not regard the terrorist organization as a terrorist organization, but rather accept them as allies.
But is it only the US and France that terrorize the NATO members? Hasn't Germany been embracing terrorists for years? In short, do not the majority of EU countries host terror organizations and terrorists? As such, it is an expression of truth to say that NATO as a joint struggle against terrorism is not possible.
Meanwhile, President Erdoğan's demand that NATO take a definite attitude towards terrorism, in particular, is unlikely to respond. According to today's threat priorities, President Erdoğan's revision of NATO is inevitable, and his assessment is an expression of reality, but in the 1990s, NATO updated itself and identified Islam and Muslims as threats. In spite of the 30 years that have passed, there has been no change in this perception of NATO and such an understanding has not even come up. Still, all these terrorist square javelin throwing, some of them were accepted allies by the countries mentioned, wait another words, NATO member Turkey in spite of a preference for NATO's threat perception matters as allies update does not seem possible.
In spite of all the criticism, the countries in question still use the term "Islamic terror" in particular, combining terrorism with Islam and Muslims. For example, they are determined in line with their own beliefs, but as Muslims we do not stop being under the same roof as members of this Crusade mentality. Which makes it easier for them. As such, the US uses the PKK / YPG as the guard of oil wells in Syria. In short, the US-terrorist alliance emerges when terrorist organizations agree to this use. In these circumstances, it would be more useful to emphasize that NATO should abolish rather than update itself. If NATO abolished itself, would terror end in the world? It is not possible to say yes to this question immediately. Because even if it is not NATO, it will not be possible to clear the square from terrorists as long as the countries mentioned above maintain their terrorism.
President Erdoğan's proposal, "NATO should update itself according to today's threat priorities needs to be implemented." However, the desired results will not be achieved unless the Crusaders, who regard the emergence of terrorist organizations and their protection in accordance with their interests, update their own mentality and adapt the Crusader understanding that dates back centuries. That doesn't seem possible. Because their goal is to remove the Islamic world from its roots.