Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Dr. Peter Schaeck
Guest: Dr. Yunus Emre Ozigci
Episode: "NATO’s Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity"
Original Air Date: January 21, 2026
Book Discussed: NATO’s Meaning and Existence: Within the Interstate Intersubjectivity (Vernon Press, 2026)

Overview

This episode features a deep philosophical and theoretical discussion of NATO’s existence and role, centering on insights from Dr. Yunus Emre Ozigci’s forthcoming book. The conversation explores the philosophical foundations of international relations (IR), particularly the interplay of phenomenology, existential ontology, and key IR theories, to analyze how NATO is constituted and maintains meaning in the ever-shifting geostrategic landscape. Dr. Ozigci unpacks the ontological status of states and alliances, the authenticity of community within NATO, and the alliance's existential challenges amidst global change.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Dr. Ozigci’s Philosophical Approach to IR

• Personal Motivation: Dr. Ozigci emphasizes his drive to get beyond ordinary theoretical narratives to a “return to the things themselves” by investigating the ontology of international relations.

  • “Ultimately, my aim is to find a viable way to return in Husserl's world methodically to the things themselves as they appear in their pre narrative forms.” (03:45)

• NATO as a Study Object:

  • NATO provides a unique vantage point for understanding broader patterns of interstate relations due to its “sui generis, highly institutionalized interstate alliance” status (06:35).
  • Analysis of NATO becomes a window to scrutinize both the Cold War bipolarity and the post-bipolar/unipolar systems.

2. Ontology & Intersubjectivity in IR

• Nature of IR Entities:

  • Dr. Ozigci distinguishes IR study objects from those in positive and social sciences:
    • “No one has ever seen a state or an international organization. No one has ever seen a NATO. ...What we have originally have are appearances, meanings, collective meaning attributions without a direct anchor in objectivity.” (12:56)
  • The existence of states or NATO is not empirical, but phenomenological—intersubjectively constructed and maintained in shared meaning.

• Philosophical Anchors:

  • He incorporates Husserl’s concepts (intersubjectivity, intentionality, temporality) and Heidegger’s existential ontology to construct his analytical approach, employing both “in tandem” (23:23, 29:53).

3. Heideggerian Authenticity and NATO’s Mission

• Authenticity of NATO:
  • NATO’s existential health relies on its member states’ “authentic convergence” around core values/thesis.
    • “NATO meaningfully exists, authentically exists...composed of norms, values, practices...among its constituent states.” (30:38)
  • If member states weaken their commitment, existential problems—if not a crisis—ensue.

4. IR Theory Traditions vs. Philosophical Foundations

• Realism & Structuralism:

  • Dr. Ozigci values Waltz’s structural realism for its systemic framework, though critiques its selective focus on power at the expense of state individuality (34:50, 37:40).
  • Realism’s “de facto assumption” of state subjecthood aligns with his phenomenological focus.

• English School & Constructivism:

  • He appreciates aspects of Hedley Bull’s existential security, yet warns that heavy theorizing risks distorting the underlying intersubjective realities (40:00).
  • Constructivist approaches, in his view, often impose narratives rather than begin from original appearances.

5. Limits and Necessity of Theory

• IR Theorizing’s Limits:

  • Theorizing is inevitable and necessary but, due to the lack of material anchors for IR objects, risks “complications” and competing frameworks (“neo-neos,” 46:40).
  • “Nothing is wrong and everything is wrong.... We do need philosophy, ontology as a matter of fact.” (42:58)

• Return to Pre-theoretical Givenness:

  • The episode reiterates the need to “bracket” (set aside) biases and narratives and return to “the intersubjective stratum of lived reality.” (49:40)

6. Agency and Leadership in NATO

• Role of Leadership:
  • Leadership (e.g. Secretary General) is secondary to the “convergence of state members”; ultimate agency lies with the collective, not individuals.
    • “NATO is never in its leadership's hands, but in the hands of...entire state subjectivity and state subjects in interaction.” (55:16)

7. Continental Philosophy’s Contribution to Understanding NATO

• Phenomenology on NATO’s Role:

  • Continental philosophy (especially phenomenology) allows comprehension of NATO’s original, evolving givenness and anticipatory horizon—beyond current or preferred narratives (56:19).
  • The alliance’s substance is tied to “convergence” rooted in a thesis, which has become fragile in recent years (63:40).

• Transition to Multipolarity:

  • Dr. Ozigci argues true multipolarity lacks a uniting thesis, which challenges NATO’s existential foundation.

8. Speculating with Kant, Levinas, Derrida

• Kant: Might see NATO as either a stepping stone to perpetual peace or as an obstacle—an “exclusive club” potentially inhibiting egalitarianism (67:32).
• Levinas: Could critique NATO for totalizing and dehumanizing the Other—enforcing sameness (70:00).
• Derrida: Viewed NATO’s dilemmas (e.g., Kosovo intervention) as “autoimmune,” where every action has self-undermining aspects (71:45).

9. On Cognitive Warfare & NATO’s Future

• Cognitive Conflict:

  • NATO cannot “win” cognitive wars; only its member state convergence on core values can provide resilience. Dr. Ozigci refrains from offering prescriptive recommendations:
    • “NATO cannot [win] in a cognitive towards strike off. If there is to be any such struggle, its member states can; their own convergence on NATO.” (75:15)

• Personal Outlook:

  • Future research for Dr. Ozigci will continue to refine the use of phenomenology in IR studies (78:36).

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “My aim is to find a viable way to return ... to the things themselves as they appear in their pre narrative forms.”
  — Dr. Ozigci (03:45)

• “No one has ever seen a state or an international organization. No one has ever seen a NATO.”
  — Dr. Ozigci (12:56)

• “What we have originally have are appearances, meanings, collective meaning attributions without a direct anchor in objectivity.”
  — Dr. Ozigci (13:17)

• “NATO meaningfully exists, authentically exists ... composed of norms, values, practices of a [worldview] among its constituent states.”
  — Dr. Ozigci (30:38)

• “NATO is never in its leadership's hands, but in the hands of the actuality of entire state subjectivity and state subjects in interaction.”
  — Dr. Ozigci (55:16)

• “NATO cannot in a cognitive war strike off. If there is to be any such struggle, its member states can—their own convergence on NATO. ... The answer is within NATO, within the member states of NATO.”
  — Dr. Ozigci (75:15)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Dr. Ozigci’s philosophical approach and background – 03:16-06:10
• Why NATO? Anchoring analysis in a unique content – 06:25-08:44
• Intersubjectivity and the nature of IR entities – 09:04-19:26
• Heideggerian authenticity and NATO – 23:23-33:13
• Engagement with IR theory traditions – 34:50-42:29
• Limits of theory and necessity for philosophical return – 42:58-51:15
• Leadership’s secondary role in NATO – 51:47-55:51
• Continental philosophy’s value, NATO’s phases, and multipolarity – 56:19-66:53
• Kant, Levinas, Derrida, and NATO – 66:53-74:43
• Winning cognitive wars & personal recommendations – 75:11-78:27
• Future plans – 78:36-80:09

Conclusion

This episode is a masterclass in bridging high philosophy and practical international relations, using NATO as a lens to investigate deeper questions of collective meaning, agency, and existential risk in global politics. Dr. Ozigci's insistence on phenomenological rigor offers a counterpoint to standard IR theory, situating NATO's continued coherence not in power or structure alone, but in the enduring, if fragile, convergence of its members’ intersubjective commitments.