The end of the Cold War gave rise to debates questioning the need for the further existence of NATO. To counter this, NATO, under the leadership of the United States started a transformation process and shifted its strategy to that of enlargement. This policy has paid off, and today, the fact that various states are trying to become members of NATO, shows its existence is no longer an object of debate.
The Possibility of a Paradigm Shift in the International System: Missile Defence Project and US-Russia Relations
The 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US resulted in a paradigm shift in the international system in general, and of threat perceptions in particular. After this date, realpolitiks and security matters have risen to dominance in international politics. Consequently, the prioritisation of geopolitical dynamics resulted in foreign policies conducted in line with hard power and hard security concepts. In this analysis, an evaluation will be made about the possibility of a new paradigm shift in the international system by examining the effects of missile defence systems, which has occupied the international agenda in 2007, to the international system within the framework of changing parameters. The theoretical aspect of the analysis will be the evaluation of a paradigm shift by employing a historical, theoretical and factorial analysis method in relation to the missile defence factor, US-Russia relations, NATO and the EU [(Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)].
The paradigm shift as a result of the 9/11 attacks highlighted the essential dimension of unpredictability in threat perceptions. This dimension brought a new foreign policy doctrine, with the help of military terminology, "pre-emptive", or more widely known as the Bush doctrine, to international diplomacy. Although a pre-emptive concept shows some similarities with international relations theories (realism and liberalism), which understands the world as anarchic, the main difference is the new dimension of international politics: chaotic conjuncture. This situation signifies the end of "ad-hoc" and "wait-and-see" politics in foreign policy making. The implication of this is not just the re-evaluation of foreign policies but also an increase of uncertainty in the international system, which in any case, did not reach a level of order after the Cold War. In this conjuncture, the missile defence project, which is a cornerstone for US-Russia relations and international diplomacy, arose as an issue that could result in a paradigm shift. The historical background of missile defence should be evaluated as a factor in relation to US-Russia relations, NATO and CFE, and therefore, the EU or European states.
The Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM), which was signed between the US and the Soviet Union in 1972, restricts the deployment and development of missile defence systems reciprocally. However, the US put forward a new foreign policy perspective with the rise of the Pentagon's missile defence project, also known as "Star Wars", against Soviet missiles in 1983 during the Reagan administration. The issue of missile defence was left out of the agenda after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, but re-emerged in 1996 when the US declared its intentions to develop a missile defence system, which could not be activated until 2002. In accordance with NATO's enlargement policy, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary were invited to join the alliance, which at the same time initiated tensions between the US-NATO and Russia. In order to show that enlargement was not against Russia and prevent reactions, the "Europe-Atlantic Council" was established by signing a "founding agreement" on cooperation and security between Russia and NATO. However, this ambitious agreement could not realise its theoretical promises in practice, and only enabled the establishment of the "NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council". Actually, Donald Rumsfeld, in 1998, was forced to state that the missile defence project was actually against Iran and North Korea, in order to affirm that the system was not against Russia. In 1999, NATO memberships of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary and the bombardment of a state (Yugoslavia) by NATO without permission from the UN resulted in Russia's withdrawal from the NATO-Russia Joint Council, which Russia re-joined in 2000.

As a result of a parameter change in threat perceptions after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration decided to transfer large sums of money from the budget, to activate a missile defence project, which in a neo-realist perspective, strengthens the US global hegemony with hard power. Consequently, the Bush administration withdrew from the AMB Treaty in 2002, and in opposition to this, Russia reacted by withdrawing from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II). Since 2002, the Bush administration has transferred large sums of money from the budget to develop a missile defence system. At the same time, the NATO-Russia Council was established following a US proposal in order to prevent reactions and re-establish institutional relations. In 2004, the US deployed a missile radar system in California and interceptor missiles in Alaska. The Bush administration's decision to deploy did not receive any criticism from the international community because it was for the US's national security and protection of its territory. However, when the US decided to deploy a missile defence system in Europe, the international community, especially Russia, opposed the decision. Moreover, the deployment plan in East Europe became an issue of debate within the EU and between European states because of different national interests and perceptions.
The year 2007 has been critical for the missile defence system. The most important reason is that the Bush administration have stepped up its unilateral hegemonic policy and officially declared the deployment of missile defence system components in Poland and the Czech Republic in January 2007. The US administration came to this decision following bilateral talks with the United Kingdom, Poland and the Czech Republic. Some European states, especially Germany and France, perceived taking a decision like this without consulting them, as being pushed aside and this created debates within European states. This even caused the psychological effect that enabled Germany and France to act in line with Russia on the issue of missile defence. This lead Russian President Vladimir Putin to assert that missile defence is a tool used by the US to impose unipolar global hegemony, and warned that this would lead the world into a new arms race at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007. Consequently, the Kremlin administration has made military modernisation a priority by transferring one trillion dollars, acquired from energy incomes, to the treasury and so, in a way started to re-arm. Putin tried making the Bush administration call off the missile defence system through his critical discourse, but then threatened that Poland and the Czech Republic might be the target of Russian missiles.

When Putin realised that his critical discourse had no affect on the Bush administration policy, he proposed a joint use of the Gebele military base in Azerbaijan instead of a missile defence system, which was prospectively deployed in East Europe at the G-8 Summit on 6-8 June 2007. Putin, who realised that his initiative was inconclusive, withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which was one of the cards in Putin's hand, in July 2007. The CFE, which was signed to prevent an arms race between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, is the cornerstone of European security and has a critical significance. The treaty, which has been adapted to the post-Cold War era at the 1999 Istanbul Summit with the limitation of conventional weapons and soldiers, and the sharing of information between parties, is significant for the Western security system. While the Moscow administration ratified the treaty in 2004, the US and NATO set a precondition before signing for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Moldova. In opposition, Putin put forward military bases in Turkey and Norway as a bargaining chip and asserted that if NATO and Baltic states do not become party to the treaty, Russia will withdraw from it. Russia did not back down and the process of withdrawal started with the end of a moratorium period on 12 December. The Bush administration, which experienced difficult times in responding to Putin's attacks while it was preoccupied with Iraq, seems to be on the defensive to alleviate Russian reactions. The Bush administration failed to persuade Putin that the missile defence system is against rogue states - Iran and North Korea. The purpose of a missile defence system is to eliminate nuclear weapons' "second strike" capability, as this is one of the most important factors for making Russia a big power. This historical background shows that the missile defence system is actually a remnant of the Cold War, creating a breaking point for US-Russia relations. Historically, US-Russia relations show fluctuations according to administrations and conjuncture, and based on insecurity and uncertainty. The process of missile defence, which led to tensions between the two states, shows the parameters of relations between the USA, NATO, EU, European States and Russia.
The main areas of conflict are:
-NATO's intervention and bombardment of Yugoslavia without the UN's permission in 1995 and 1999 and the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the region with the Dayton Accord.
-As a critical turn, NATO's enlargement decision in 1997 and its invitation to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary and their subsequent membership in 1999
-Encouragement of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO and the increased possibility of membership
-US military presence in Romania and Bulgaria
-NATO not having started official relations with the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO)
-Missile Defence
These developments can be seen as the US's containment strategy for Russia, who has rallied through an increase in incomes through energy and who has started to make independent policies. Russia perceives NATO's enlargement to the Baltic, Black Sea and Caucasus as interference in its backyard. In opposition, Putin appears to be employing polices that are against those of the US as seen in the Kosovo and Iran issues.
Therefore, the Bush administration's missile defence project can be said to be in pursuit of a solidification of threat-free global hegemony by eliminating the second strike capability of nuclear weapons, hence their deterrent effect, in the framework of transforming the security paradigm of the post-9/11 era. The tension between the US and Russia started with NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia, increased with NATO's decision to enlarge and deepened with the missile defence project. However, the Bush administration's plan can be said to be paving the way for a new arms race by breaking the international disarmament regime (ABM, START and CFE). The main reason for the missile crisis is the Bush administration's choice of employing unilateral policies in multilateral issues and in a sense, the desire for a unipolar international system under the US's global hegemony. In opposition, the Putin administration's aim is to become a big power that provides balance in the international system with self-esteem, which has been built up by its energy incomes. However, the elimination of nuclear weapons, which is one of the factors that make Russia a big power, is naturally unacceptable for Putin. At this point, Russian and US interests clash. Therefore, the tension between Russia-US relations will affect Russia-Europe relations. However, rather than the expected worsening of Russia-Europe relations, these developments will bring them closer. European states do not want the worsening of relations with Russia because of their dependence on Russian energy. Essentially, neither the US nor NATO wants a conflict with Russia. Because, it can be said that the US is prioritising problem solving in Iraq and Iran rather than dealing with all issues at the same time (overuse of resources), and pursing a policy to alleviate Russian reactions.
In short, if the US insists on continuing with this attitude, the deployment of a missile defence system in East Europe would deepen crisis in international politics in general, and Russia-US relations in particular, and result in a paradigm shift in the international system. In this regard, in 2008 and later years, the missile defence project will stay on the international diplomacy agenda.

NATO's Energy Security Approach
Following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO's future and its mission became uncertain, with debates arising on whether NATO should continue to exist. Interventions in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and Yugoslavia in 1999 enabled the structural transformation of NATO, which is a collective defence organisation. As a result of these developments, NATO has become a security as well as a military alliance organisation, ending debates about its future and existence, and has entered into an enlargement process, which has also included former Soviet states. The inclusion of East European states to NATO and developments in energy geopolitics resulted in NATO's involvement in energy security. This analysis will evaluate NATO's energy security approach and the inclusion of energy security in NATO's security concept in the framework of an enlargement or transformation process.
In the post-Cold War era, energy has been used as a foreign policy tool in international diplomacy, taking energy out of the economic and into the political realm. The use of energy as a political tool made it a security concern for States who then started to prioritise energy security in their foreign policies. When using security concepts as a starting point, then naturally, energy security gains an international dimension. Consequently, energy is perceived to be a security concern when discussed on a Global platform as part of NATO's agenda. The security concept and the paradigm change in perceptions after the 9/11 terrorist attacks includes an energy focused security understanding in international relations. As a result of this understanding, the US carried energy security, in relation to global security, to NATO's agenda and energy security has become one of the most important issues in international politics in the 21st century.
Various developments have played an important role in energy security getting into NATO's agenda. The energy security issue arose when Russia cut off its natural gas flow to Ukraine in January 2006, and became a matter of concern when this approach (especially to gain influence in former Soviet states and make Europe dependent by using its energy card) became a habit for the Putin administration. The embargoes and isolation of Iran, because of its nuclear program, also became a risk factor for global energy security. In addition, the threat of sabotage to energy production facilities in Iraq (the US occupation in 2003 and the continuation of instability), Nigeria and Mexico could prevent the continuous and secure supply of energy. The risk of attack to energy production facilities from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations resulted in both a rise in energy prices and consideration of energy security within international security organisations.
Consequently, energy security was opened up for debate as an agenda item at the 42nd Munich Security Policy Conference on February 2006. NATO Secretary General Joop de Hoop Scheffer expressed the necessity of including energy security into NATO's area of interest as a security matter and stated that NATO will have a gendarmerie role in merchant shipping. In the same month, the issue was heavily debated at the Prague Energy Security Technology Forum, where the head of the forum Dr. Kevin Rosner proposed the foundation of a new alliance outside of the Europe-Atlantic Joint Council that is between NATO and the EU, in order to sustain energy security. Poland even proposed that NATO should become an energy alliance against energy crises issues and expressed that joint action be in accordance with the principle of "all for one and one for all". Neo-Cons in the US also emphasised that energy security should be included in NATO's security concept. We should not forget that NATO is under the influence of the US. At the NATO Riga Summit in November 2006, the issue of energy security was argued intensively, as never before. The Dean of Foreign Policy Institute, Republican Senator Lugar asserted that an energy embargo on a NATO member state will be perceived as an action against NATO. In the summit, NATO's inaction on the issue of energy security was defined as irresponsible, and the use of energy as a tool of diplomacy as a threat.
As a result, NATO's responsibility did not go beyond the expression of support in energy infrastructure security, which was mentioned in article 45 of the Riga declaration. However, energy security, which is included in NATO documents for the first time, is expected to be included in NATO's security concept in the near future. Moreover, NATO's possible energy security definition and role was argued and energy security was evaluated from the perspectives of producer, consumer and transit states, at the "Sustaining Energy Security" Conference, which was held at NATO Defence College on 19-20 July 2007. Lastly, the inclusion of energy security as a part of international security was mentioned in NATO's 2009 agenda, article 48 of the Bucharest Summit declaration held on 2-4 April 2008. Below, the definition of energy security and the conflicting and shared interests of the states in the framework of energy security have been presented.

In addition, the difference and conflict in energy perceptions mostly arise from the definition of energy security. Energy security; for the producer states, is to supply resources with monopolist prices and lines and, for consumer and transit states, is to obtain energy from diversified lines and low prices.
Moreover, NATO's potential role in energy security can be seen as follows:
-Provide military security and sustain security in merchant shipping
-Engage in operations to prevent illegal trade
-Guarding energy infrastructure-production facilities and pipelines
-Establishing coordination and developing relations between global energy suppliers, consumers and transit states, UN, EU, IAEA and other international organisations in the framework of political dialogue and diplomatic engagement.
-Supporting cooperation that will be formed in the Europe-Atlantic Partnership Council framework and bilateral relations.
On the other hand, the inclusion of energy security in NATO's concept will give rise to various problems. This understanding will be seen as a precaution against energy producing states, OPEC and Russia. Furthermore, such a development will result in division between EU members and will either break up or form closer ties in EU-NATO or EU-US relations. However, the security dilemma would arise as the most significant problem. According to the security dilemma perspective, making energy security a security concern for NATO and at an international platform will result in the rise of a suspicious threat perception by the opposite side. As in the arms race, energy security would result in mutual distrust and induce parties to employ policies that are monopolist, aggressive and energy hegemonic.
Reasons for NATO's interest in energy security are:
1. NATO enlargement
2. NATO partnership agreements
3. NATO interest in energy as a global security organisation
NATO will be forced to deal with energy security following the membership of former Soviet states. The dependency of these states on Russia for approximately 70-80% of their energy imports, coupled with NATO's transformation into a security organisation and its responsibility to protect its members forced NATO to get interested in energy security. Furthermore, NATO's enlargement towards Eurasian (Black Sea, Caspian, Caucasus and Central Asia) energy resources with "Partnership for Peace" (PfP) projects shows NATO having embraced energy security as a new enlargement strategy.
In conclusion, the most important parameter in NATO's energy security approach is sustaining energy security. In other words, as an international security organisation, NATO is also expected to include energy security, which is seen as an integral part of global security, as a priority item in its concept at the 2009 Summit. NATO, by taking the energy security issue into its agenda, widens its strategic concept. NATO's attempt to include energy security in a strategic concept is affected by the fact that European allies have significant security problems in energy (dependency) and Russia's willingness to use energy as a tool for foreign policy. However, it would not be hard to imagine that NATO could find itself facing Russia on energy security issues. Despite this, the US, which played a key role in the inclusion of energy security in NATO's strategic concept, is pursuing an escalation strategy in relations with Russia. For the first time, cyber defence is also included in NATO's action plan with a request from Estonia (because of attacks, which is seen as the first cyber war, by Russian hackers who were reacting to the removal of a Red Army Memorial in April 2007). NATO's inclusion of energy security into its area of interest also shows its goal in transformation and enlargement (this enlargement has a geographical, the inclusion of three sea basins - Mediterranean, Black Sea and Caspian - and a security aspect). NATO's approach is a reflection of US foreign policy and this situation is a breaking point in relations with OPEC and Russia by creating a security dilemma, paving the way for either polarisation or cooperation. From this perspective, NATO's energy security approach is at the initial stage and still debated, as, apparently, there is no defined energy security policy. At this stage, Turkey, which is at a critical point on the Eurasian energy corridor, will play a significant role and contribute in defining NATO's security concept. We assert that NATO needs Turkey as much as Turkey needs NATO in energy security and this can increase the strategic significance of Turkey as in the Cold War. Finally, NATO's missile defence and global energy security expansion is part of the quest for global hegemony.

*Caucasia & Central Asia Specialist, Global Strategy Institute