C (3:16)

But with your permission, Dr. Peter, I need for one moment fulfill the rational obligation during this interview. The views I will voice are strictly personal and will reflect my personal work. Therefore, they will not reflect official views of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign affairs at all and they will bind only my person. Returning to first question about myself. Well, I mean ordinary men and ordinary diplomat with an ordinary life routine, served in a number of countries, the world and a number of departments at home. Nothing really spectacular. However, I have a strange interest in international relations. This interest is not confined to the practice or to specific theoretical constructs and narratives. It extends to what makes theories and the act of theorizing possible. It takes sense to the ontology of the lived reality of the field of international relations. This has characterized my master's and doctoral studies before and then my publications. 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. In the field of international relations, these things themselves are the immediate, inter subjective, universal appearances, givennesses of entities and their interactions which otherwise do not exist within objectivity in the narrow sense of the term, but which are still integrated to causality and thus expand reality which we live within.

B (6:10)

Thank you for that. There's nothing ordinary about that, for sure. Could you tell me what led you to the idea behind the NATO's meanings and existence within the interstate intersubjectivity?

C (6:25)

Well, to be honest, it was first the need to anchor my studies of international relations to a suitable content that could provide me with a vantage point. Because since it's coming into being, NATO has been one of the most prominent IR entities on which the study of the interstate environment, general interstate environment, could be centered. It's a sui generis, highly institutionalized interstate alliance and at the same time a central institution of a specific system determining security community. It's a product of the act of community building attributed to states which appear immediately and intersubjectively as subjects of the IR field. Additionally, NATO is a constituent part of, or was a constituent part of two consecutive environments of interstate interactions which we name bipolarity and post bipolarity or unipolarity. Therefore, studying NATO's identity and temporality is also studying the substances and temporal courses of two international systems or structures and their major actors. So NATO was perhaps the most suitable content on which I could anchor my own approach to international relations. Hence NATO's meaning and existence.

B (8:44)

Thank you very much for that. Is that the reason why you approach NATO from different perspectives? Not like any other IR thinker, You basically, you use your philosophical insights into explaining many things. Does it help you?

C (9:04)

Basically, yeah, definitely. I try to study NATO and I try to study any IR entity, event, phenomenon, state of affairs on the basis of its, as I said, pre theoretical, immediate and intersubjective original appearance givenness. In other words, is they universally appear and present to intersubjective recognition in the first place. I seek to approach this original state of being of givenness, since it provides also any secondary reflective act in it theoretical effort and construct with its main inevitable reference and content. The givenness, the original inter subjectively meaningful and the immediate recognized appearance of the study object once it is reached and described displays a horizon of possibilities for subsequent theoretical acts and individual collective best law of meanings on this fundamental reference. On this referential basis, these secondary accent appearances theoretical efforts constructs may also be studied and put into perspective with their own givenness linked to this basic existential reference. Such an approach is necessary due to the very nature of theorizing in the IR field in my opinion, because it's different from the spheres of theorizing in positive and social sciences. Within the sphere of positive sciences, the act of the horizon has an irrefutable object to tinker, it's the independent self standing presence of the study object within the material reality. Such presence may only be contested by those who see, but it can be compartmentalized and well, it's intrinsically neutral within the sphere of positive sciences. Based on this between quotas irrefutable material study objects. These study objects are accessible by all as they are, and any theoretical effort and construct within this field can be assessed independently, but on the same material basis within the field of social sciences. The study objects of course are not often self standingly present in the material reality, but they're direct subjects which are individuals and their groups are there unreachable within objectivity and their relations and behavior patterns can be directly accessed as they make part of the objectivity in its narrowness with the same effects of independent assessment on irrefutable basis. But the IR field is different. No one has ever seen a state or an international organization. No one has ever seen a NATO. No one has ever seen even an IR event or a state of affairs in simple objectivity as they are originally defined and understood. But we directly and objectively experience within the filter things, events, states of affairs that are related to these intersubjective appearances, true links of representation and co presentational presentation together, such as true persons as decision makers, specific groups in their specific behavioral patterns and relations as institutions, even the specific buildings, those symbols, buildings like this very building in foreign affairs as representers and presenters of the state, and so forth. Here, in contrast to the general field of social sciences, these persons and groups, decision makers, bureaucrats, are not even IR subjects themselves. They, as I said, present and represent the appearance of direct IR subjects which are main need states. They gain these true subjects their meaningfulness from them, and states as subjects are intersubjectively and immediately given and referred to as substanding entities as if they made part of material reality. This state of affairs is questioned only a posteriorly, not immediately questioned through a secondary theoretical attitude. Remember what Alfred Schutz had said about the referral to states as subjects a grammatical phenomenon. But even this proposal secondary proposal refer to the prior fact of referral to status subject within the IR field. What we have originally have are appearances, meanings, collective meaning attributions without a direct anchor in objectivity. In contrast to positive sciences and social sciences area, these appearances and meanings are of course collectively constituted by true subjects like you and me. Their universal recognition indicates the presence of an intersubjective stratum of reality which is not but akin to objectivity. It is valid for anyone and everyone before any reflective act. Yet the same true subjects like you and me, we perceive, judge, feel, remember, anticipate, and more importantly, we theorize about this collective constitutions in our own ways, within a horizon of possibilities referring to and stemming from this intersubjective recognition, prior intersubjective recognition of otherwise non existent things which form what we call the IR field. Still, the lack of a solid anchor in simple material objectivity in this field liberates the theoretical effort. Perhaps too much then, the theoretical effort in the field tends to alter or replace by re explaining elements of the inter subjective stratum dimension when it produces their own its own axioms a priori proposals about the substance of the otherwise already appearing things and interactions. Theorizing in the IR field evolves toward building frameworks of alternative realities. Such frameworks within the study are imposed upon the prior preceding immediate intersubjective appearances of the study objects of the IR and pose a risk of distorting them in substance, but also in temporality.

B (19:26)

Since.

C (19:28)

The IR theorizing in particular tends to begin in its approach to its study objects tends to begin with a genetic narrative, a narrative of its objects coming into being. But quite often the study is related to the post genetic current or future givenness of its study object, not related to its moment of coming into being. But this genetic narrative has to be imposed upon the study object in another already in another temporal state. This does not mean that IR theories are necessarily wrong, inaccurate, etc. But there is this ontological risk of distortion and the risk of emergence during the study's Templar course related to its study object. So the study of NATO has been done, of course, is not different. And I do not work on NATO nor any other study object of mine like that. I instead employ the useful aspects of, as you mentioned, phenomenology, Husser's phenomenology and Heidegger's, let's say, phenomenological ontology, to anchor my study to things themselves, to their original state of being. In the case of this book, to NATO as it has been, is and could be in its immediate intersubject, a pre theoretical meaning, full appearance in different temporal states. I use backing, of course, backing theoretical acts and constructs and other secondary reflective efforts, trying to avoid the risk of distortion I have mentioned. But this is the sense of putting them into perspective and referring them as such, not at all attempting to erase them deeply.

B (22:26)

Thank you much for that. And basically, philosophy requires from you to adopt a different type of thinking. And Heidegger in particular, he was very keen on his concept of throwing us into the world and I guess NATO after 2022 experiences these dilemmas which are basically throwing us into the world, not knowing what is happening, not knowing how to re. And Heidegger is a huge part of your project. So could you tell me how do you interpret him? How do you use his insights into explaining different aspects of NATO, which is not NATO of 1989 or NATO of 1991, but NATO in 2026.

C (23:23)

Well, for trying to answer in detail, you are right, in fact. But perhaps I should try to dwell on how I do see Martin Heidegger, because he's one of the fundamental references in my work, one of the two fundamental references in my work. Well, I employ Heidegger very selfishly, I will say. And to apply Heideggerian phenomenological ontology pop up is on the one hand selfish application, but a little bit, well, more on the ontological side. Let me explain my approach and method. To begin with, bracketing the poke, include its main concepts first and foremost, the Fusarin concepts, intersubjectivity Intentionality, temporality. These are main references to Husserlian phenomenology. Could describe the collective and continuing constitution of states. Immediate and intersubject in their appearance, subjects in their interactions. However, this fundamental reference of my Sierra Lean phenomenology has its own problems. Particularly when we try to adapt it to IR studies. For example, intersubjectivity is related within the particular experience of the existence of other, which displays the irreducibility of the other to mindness, to ownness, which is called empathy, and is in self debatable or apart from this, in this later world crisis. Hussar had described intersubjectivity and the word phenomenon as part of the subject's fear of ownness, in contrast, therefore, impressiveness of specific experiences. But it's a sort of heritage of social interpreter, social interactions, social communication. In terms of temporality, also, there's a problem. The temporalization of experience is separated between different intentional acts. And the were mostly confined to perception. But Heidegger is useful because he defines these fundamental concepts of the study and of my study. Within the existential structure of the sign as inherent to its being world. In this sense, it's not surprising to see that Heidegger thinks the fuselian intentionality, for example, is very fragmentary, makes temporalizations also fragmentary. And I think that intersubjectivity's foundation social communication indicates a relapse to the complications of theorizing in Husserl. And it becomes something akin to more ontological and rigorous constructivism. In the IR film. Heidegger's display of intersubjectivity, intentionality and temporality, which are central to my work, also within Bazaj's existential structure. And as inseparable from each other, is indispensable. It corrects the Husserlian fragmentation and Husserlian relapses into theorizing of what is already there. On the other hand, Husserl's phenomenology is, you know, solidly methodical. It seeks to establish philosophy as a rigorous science, in fact, primal science. And I need this approach in my study as well. Therefore, I need to employ Heidegger and Husser in tandem, not with absolute fidelity to both or to one of them. Because my work, this may seem quite weird to a philosopher, as you know, to work internally with Husserl and Heidegger, which are very different in fact. But it is practicable enough study in our context. Because, well, my work is related to states which are collectively constituted by true subjects. Through the attribution of some subject like Design futures like limited within context, intentionality, grasp of intersubjectivity, interactionality and temporality. They present as such, they are post genetic immediacy and they make part of the lived reality. They are integrated into lived causality. Although Fuserlian and Heideggerian approaches differ very much in their dealing with the ego subject, oblong and Basile, for Heidegger, they do converge when the study objects are the appearances of these derivative subjects, states with object like or by sign like futures which are limitedly attributed to them with attributed acts of their own, including their own attributed community building acts, as in the example of NATO. And speaking of Heidegger and your question on this base about the existential, current existential problem of NATO, though in my opinion it may be considered the risk of its member states shift to inauthenticity in terms or more clearly their shift to denial of authenticity. NATO meaningfully exists, authentically exists. Or maybe the thesis, thesis composed of norms, values, practices of a welcome shang among its constituent states, member states. Without this thesis, NATO is but a simple multipolar era like alliance with no tangible foundation other than utfox, Solnslas. But states are constituted subject like entities. They are originally authentic in the first place, they are authentic because they are constituted entities, unlike true design, true subject their community building. Well, these are acts of authentic entities already authentic entities. Or as you know, in Heidegger, authenticity is something Dasein is towards. Dasein's everydayness is mostly inauthentic. It's different for these constituted subjects named states, if, well, NATO reflects authenticity therefore of its constituents, which is the convergence of its constituent states on a thesis, common thesis. And if this convergence is being totally significantly weakened, first by avoiding defending in deeds the thesis effectively visibly, and second, by politically and discursively self distancing from the thesis itself, it becomes possible to speak of a genuinely existential problem, if not as yet of an existential crisis, but certainly of a genuine existential problem.

B (33:13)

So as long as we remain true to our mission in NATO, the authenticity may be preserved in that case, as long as we will fulfill our obligation. And what I wonder, because you know, there's many IR theoreticians and many thinkers who don't feel that philosophy is important nowadays. But our founding fathers, such as Hans Morgenthau, he's basically, he thrived because of philosophy, because of his knowledge of Nietzsche, because of his knowledge of Machiavelli, Kant, because of that, he came up with these brilliant ideas of national interests and preservation of states, and so on, and so Forth. I like the fact that you relate Heidegger to the current basically issues which this organization faces. And I also like the fact that you are following up on a very interesting tradition because it's not only Heidegger, it's not only Morgenthau, but also Kenneth Walt's structuralism, Hadley Bull's existential Security. They all take something from these philosophical insights. They all try use philosophy to explain certain changing aspects of global environment. And I. I just wonder what's closer to your heart? Is it structural realism or English school in this. In this particular instance?

C (34:50)

You mean Wolves or. Or Ant or Teddy Bull or both of them combined? Well, you already know that Walt's structural realism is particularly important in our current work and other applications. It's for its Walt's systemic approach and concept of polarity. Structuralism provides my studies in it with a very useful framework and elements in order to be able to describe the entire subject, the general entire subject, the environment of entire state interactions at a given time, the context of it, the general appearance givenness of it. This does not mean that I agree with theoretical construct in its entirety. In fact, I disagree in particular with this selective narrowing of parameters of interstate interactions to predefined selected aspects, narrated aspects of power and power relations. The world separates the state subjects own individuality since they are given and which consist of other elements besides their relative power. Not from the analyze of foreign policies. Very interesting short article. But from the systemic study. These individualities often define the state sectors, yes, policy directions, particularly in terms of alignments. And as such they also built the system structure in contrast with Walt's approach. The complications of IR theorizing that I mentioned earlier are therefore valid for structural variation as well. But realism and structural realism. We mentioned Hans Morgenthal in connection with Friedrich Nietzsche. It's very interesting they rewrite in my opinion for some aspects. But realism and structural realism do assume the state's original appearance givenness as a subject. This de facto assumption, or perhaps omission to comment on that instead of narrating states as social constructs, while privileging some dynamics, identities, norms, beliefs, ideologies, practices, so forth. This assumption is very valuable, for it is linked in my opinion to the immediate pre theoretical, pre reflective intersubjective appearance of the states. This assumption in realism and structural realism holds throughout the theoretical effort. The entire theoretical effort and the theoretical narrative here does not suppress eliminate this assumption of substance. It only tries to explain it a posteriorly, thus confining its possible distortion, distortion distortive effect to an ulterior level, which can be more easily break and put into perspective. This contrasts, for example, to constructivism, which narrates objectivity and intersubjective substance themselves. Thus, the structural realistic polarity as the expression of the general interstate environment has an inherent intersubjective validity ground which precedes structural realist explanation which comes after. So structural realism in particular of Waltz is, with results very important for me, even more important than the constructivism that some had wrongly in fact had drawn some parallelisms with my work, between my work and consulate tours. Regarding the English color bulls existential security concept, it's also very valuable because it underlines individualities of these individualities as their existential base. But then Bull also proceeds to narrate the concept of security, for example, linked to the concept of subordination earlier and in the later works, profectivates speaking of you in a subjective direction, secondary direction, therefore risking theoretical distortion in substance and temporality of the study objects. This risk becomes even heavier with his narrative of international society, the societal wonder based on, but to dare say but this is the case in my opinion, subjectively, the selective narrative of his parameters, which are what they are war, diplomacy, responsibility of major powers, balance of power, law, in fact, determination. Well, after all, both are of course favorable, very useful, we're contributing, illuminating indeed. And both approaches require being submitted to bracketing before they also display the IR theories omission of the existential basis of what they study.

B (42:29)

Thank you much for that. Dr. Ozici, could you tell me from your perspective, what's the main problem with our methods in IR theory? Can we actually use our theories to address tomorrow's problems? Because theory is somehow not as applicable sometimes to explain various global circumstances, global issues at hand.

C (42:58)

Nothing is wrong and everything is wrong. It's not unblocking, that's not about yesterday's or tomorrow's problems or circumstances in the first place. Terrorizing the field of international relations, to avoid misunderstanding is necessary and is inevitable, of course, since the act of terrorizing is basically systematical thinking within a specific field of specific study objects, problems, appearances, and it's about building a viable structure for thought for approaching these study objects to combat. However, as I try to outline, the international relations field has no self standing, directly accessible object detector, neither in terms of its objects, events, states of affairs, nor in terms of its appearance and direct subjects, mostly states. They are all intersubjective and collective constructions that make objectively observable events and entities otherwise meaningful in a different manner of their presence in the material objective. The material reality, such as a clash between an armed clash between two groups of people, gains meaning from its representation and representation of an event of war. Otherwise we do not see, we never see war as is in material object, and we see the crashes the material, but appearing in another, more comprehensive, more profound meaning. Thus these things we have these things influence and which expound reality, that is that we collectively live. Once these things appear, they often present substance and temporality which is akin to self standing objective things. So they do not need to be made to exist again and again in a certain fashion they are already there as part of reality, as they are pre theoretically immediately intersubjectively given. Now the IR theories, they basically tend to create anchors in their approach to them instead of reaching trying to reach the already present inter subjectively anchored appearances as they already are. As such, creating anchors means creating, as I said, axioms or priori proposals in order to narrate the study objects genesis and to apply the narrative framework to their otherwise immediate intersubjective appearances. So it is not surprising that numerous and often conflicting theoretical structures coexist in the field of ir. I remember Tangis truly a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven and he was a member of my Trinidad for the PhD had once described this situation not with his exact words, but the gist of it is the presence of newer neo neos of whatsoever reasons which is indeed the case and we still tend to multiply theoretical variants instead of thinking about the ontology of our study objects within the IR field which is otherwise very much attempted and rich. So yesterday's theories textbooks are mere suitable in fact for the study of the higher phenomena, events, entities because they bring forth many useful concepts to refer to and to express the phenomena encountered within the field. They cannot totally cut their bonds with the original inter subjective immediate given assess of the study objects, they are always linked somehow to them, even in alteration. I myself gladly used the structure of realist polarity concept for example, or also the notion of security community excessively in my work among others. On the other hand, they are not these theories entirely suitable and will not be sold tomorrow as long as they consist of the researcher's own narrative based on researchers own axioms. Well, due to the nature of the IR field, their nature of the IR field, which is different even from that of the social sciences in general. I think we do need philosophy ontology as a matter of fact, but otherwise Hussein and Heidegger are not gruesome prophets and as you know very well they originally have nothing to do with Arab Studies and the state is neither a subject itself or Dasein, but an entity co constituted by true subjects. Is subject like Dasein, like things in a restricted limited way. But Husserl and Heidegger, as I said earlier in tandem are very useful to find a method to return to kings themselves to the pre theoretical, original and valid state of being of our study objects to reach the intersubjective stratum of lived reality, the intentional indexing terms of true subjects to which our context is anchored. New Year, New Me. Cute, but how about New Year, new Money? With Experian you can actually take control of your finances, check your FICO score, find ways to save and get matched with credit card offers giving you time to power through those New Year's goals. You know you're gonna crush start the year off right. Download the Experience Experian app based on FICO scoring model offers an approval not guaranteed. Eligibility requirements and terms apply subject to credit check which may impact your credit scores. Offers not available in all states. See experian.com for details.

B (51:15)

Experian Living Ontology for For a bit There is a prevailing opinion in the policy making world that NATO experiences some difficulties and existential problems as a matter of fact also because of its current leadership. The crisis of current leadership how would philosopher explain what is going on under the current leadership?

C (51:47)

With the current leadership? You mean the Secretary General?

B (51:54)

Exactly.

C (51:59)

So the decision maker and bureaucrat? Well, the leadership means decision maker and the team of bureaucrats? Well, the decision maker or the bureaucrat. Well, this is a true subject who is integrated into an institution or a state subject which it represents and up presents his four acts. The decision makers or the bureaucrats. Acts occur within the existential framework of but the decision maker bureaucrat represents and presents at a level that is at a level of embodiment with the entity Popcorn which is pre assigned and visible in his third title. This does not mean that the bureaucrat or decision maker is irrelevant or unimportant. This does not mean that the decision maker is devoid of his or her own individuality, individual being either. However, the body, the institution that is represented and represented must and will precede and determine this true subject acts within a horizon of possibilities. The decision makers acts are enabled, conditioned and restricted, restrained by the very institution entity within its own interactional horizon. Let us say, therefore, NATO may appear to display to have success, brilliance or failures shortcomings under one or another leader bureaucrat and the bureaucrat may have indeed a substantial role in it individual and substantial in it. But what NATO is the convergence. Basically the convergence of its state members appearing as subjects at a given time and within a given interactional setup of other factors will constitute the a priori here. So I am interested in my work exactly on that. So not the leadership, be it Ruthe Stoltenberg who was before Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, or someone else who were by nature secondary to NATO itself. And NATO in turn is secondary to its state members. So NATO is never in its leadership's hands, but in the hands of the actuality of entire state, entire subjectivity and state subjects in interaction.

B (55:51)

Thank you much for that. That's a very interesting response to my provocative question. Can you tell me from your perspective what continental philosophy can offer to redefine NATO's role in today's ever changing geostrategic landscape through a profound philosophical inquiry to comprehend the problems of the transition from the unipolar to multipolar momentum?

C (56:19)

Oh, I see. First of all, the continental philosophy. Well, it is necessary continental philosophy, at least a part of it, to be able to grasp comprehend NATO within the environment of interstate interactions not only of today, but also of yesterday, and always within an anticipatory horizon of possibility related to future tomorrow. We need to go beyond the constant risk of complications of the current IR theorizing, without discarding the IR theorizing. For this we need some specific parts of the continental philosophy, because we need to anchor in misconducts our study of NATO, but also of any IR event, entity, phenomenon to its original givenness, intersubjectively recognized original givenness. This original givenness is after all, so numerous IR theories own fundamental references. Because in narrating or even in distorting, you need the presence of something to narrate, something to distort. In the extreme case, as parts of continental future philosophy, let us see phenomenology and all this phenomenological ontology become your sphere. They serve to back it, put into perspective, display while correcting each other. If they tell that they are correct, not only the study object, specific study object, but also the levels and mechanisms of meaningfully constituting them, attributing meaning to them as collective appearances, including states as derived their material subjects and their communities like NATO. So redefining NATO, therefore continental philosophy is useful to try fittingly to reach to what NATO treat theoretically was, currently is and may become. It's not about defining and redefining its role according to our preferences. It's about what it is in different temporal states. And in my view, Valeto was The three generous alliance and security community institution within a systemic bipolar. It was an alliance before all, a muscle led by a pole, but built upon the convergence of a number of state actors. Convergence which was strictly bound to the presence of a thesis which was confronted by an antithesis. The antithesis and its counter muscle Warsaw act collapsed at a given time. NATO became other less despite its own original state of being, and then seemed to have entered into an ontological limbo. And many thought that it was the end of its wrong. It indeed became more of an institution of a security community than an alliance which was against a symmetrical systemic alliance. But it remained in place because in my humble opinion, its alliance identity was temporalized on the unanticipated future horizon due to the possibility of the re emergence of a symmetrical systemic component. Well, it continued to represent the thesis, therefore the convergence of its state members through muscle still visible in internations, not the earlier unipolar time and attraction also which is visible in NATO's enlargement. The muscle site was however, diminished relative to NATO's original environment, bipolarity, I mean, and the convergence seemingly became more flexible and how to say, weaker. And when asymmetrical or at least quasi symmetrical opponent emerged, NATO's seemingly weakened convergence, constituent convergence reacted only slowly, clumsily, postponingly, during the 2008 NATO Bucharest and you will remember the map issues, seems that the Reliance Identity Phase 2 opposition had been preserved too long in. Well, in a motorolt state. And then this opposition stiffened, became aggressive or more determined. And when the actualization of the original alliance identity of NATO became obligatory, perhaps bringing also heavy burdens for state members, we saw that the constitutive convergence of its state subjects had weakened too much. And the thesis itself, the norms, identities, various well transformed practices, had become quite fragile, even perhaps partially discarded. Now will it be truly discarded? We will see. But this is the very minimal ground of NATO's existence and everything it represents. You mentioned, however, something the transition to a multipolar order from unipolarity to multipolarity. Now let us see if such process will be completed, its completion. The transition to multipolarity, however, in my humble opinion, requires any thesis to become at least non systemic, to be confined to the individualities of this or that state, subject or lesser communities of them. Because the multipolar era, which occupied well a great majority of the major part of what we call history, had no thesis systemic thesis to define the structure and system and interstate convergences at that level. So international norms existed then, but were not effectively backed by the convergence socio states. However, the multipolar order to which we are supposedly transiting is being understood by many and presented so as an environment where international law, international institutions like the UN would have relative preponderance, more respect in a more egalitarian way. But I do not know. We do even need philosophy, continental philosophy, to remember the multipolar times. And even in multipolar periods where international norms were very fashionable, such as the era of the Concert of Europe and of the League of Nations. I don't know if we need continental philosophy even to have an idea about the nature of what we call now the multipolar international order.

B (66:53)

Thank you for that. We basically covered so far lots of thoughts related to Husserl, Hegel, Heidegger. But how about Kant's Therida, Habermas? How would they approach the changing nature of today's NATO?

C (67:11)

Kant usa. Right.

B (67:17)

Yes. Levinas.

C (67:20)

Levinas. Let us begin with Kant. What would you think about NATO in particular?

B (67:30)

In particular?

C (67:32)

Well, I think we could see NATO as an intermediary stage between the state of nature, but international state of nature and the idealized folk Armond. In fact, because of the nature of its thesis, of the thesis it represents, could be he could think that NATO would help. Might help to establish a liberal between quotas, liberal rule of law, which would be anathema to despotic arbitrary tendencies. It could sort of increase. It was very much interesting interactions between peoples and states and ensured about help progress towards perpetual peace. But he could see NATO as an obstructing factor too on this line of progress. State of nature to forgive. Both because he could think that NATO. He could think NATO is an exclusive club. And some elements of even some elements of the thesis, the Weltan, Shao and related policies of NATO or represented through nature is oppressive, imposing not only in the physical interventions, but through the traction as well, which would undermine the very spirit of an idealized folk element. Because Lacant sees folk element as well is successful version of the League of Nations, mostly that Kant would in fact support the NATO members, constituent members converge of discourse and welfare as expressed. But as he would see NATO also as an obstructing factor. Well, he could also support the elements of Russian criticism of NATO. But leaving us, you mentioned. Well, leaving us even hypothetically towards NATO, of course it will be based on the atmospherics of grasping and interacting with the other, the other one which will be prominent. He could see NATO is an entity perhaps. Perhaps serving to totalize a possible or actual order in the face of itself. As opponent. Even NATO could be seen for him as something which would sort of dehumanize, deform the other's opponent, even despite its own liberal, progressive looking discourse and thesis. And perhaps he could criticize NATO by for constituting an attempt to reduce to uniformity, to sameness of its own member states could be mentioned. Derrida talked about the NATO you shall remember the Kosovo crisis, right? Therefore, he would see NATO's post bipolar evolution correlates as a series of autoimmune acts also caused thrown at it by the dilemmas which stemmed from the international environments circumstances. But in Kosovo crisis, during the crisis. Well, he talked about such a dilemma of acting, intervening and not acting. Not intervening, Kosov. Right. So not acting, not intervening would be catastrophic. It would contradict to the very existence of NATO, undermine the thesis itself, which made NATO meaningful and maintained as meaningful. But acting would also undermine other parameters, also fundamental parameters which NATO and its its state members supported, which is international law, right? Principle of sovereignty, territorial integrity, non interference. So it would be an autoimmune situation in both cases, whatever the choice would be, he would, I suspect, for example, NATO enlargement is another such dilemma with autoimmune excellent results. Then he would not, I think, reject the necessity of the for example, NATO enlargement. But that would not prevent him to see that necessary act of responsiveness to the European countries willingness to join NATO. It would not prevent him to see these necessary steps also as a twin, because it stirred, encouraged or made obligatory. I don't know the stiffening of a systemic opposition. But this is Derrida, right? Bravo.

B (74:43)

Amazing. Thank you much for that insights. This is very rewarding to our listeners for sure. Considering all of the issues which we covered and all of the dimensions of NATO which you covered in your book. What would be your recommendation, your personal recommendation on how NATO can win cognitive wars against Russia and China in the 21st century?

C (75:11)

It is canceling the Prince. I won't do that. But cognitive war. Yeah. Well, NATO, let me give the diplomatic answer first. NATO cannot in a cognitive towards strike off. If there is to be any such struggle, its member states can their own convergence on NATO. It's important to state here that NATO is not a simple interstate alliance like those during the multiple earth region, but an alliance that was originated, as I said, by bipolarity, by the central dialectic of bilaterities, international structure of them. NATO was an alliance that was not therefore simply an expression of balance of power, but an alliance and an institution of a security community with a foreign Thesis a weltanschang and a very real strong and immediate antithesis. Though natostasis appeared to have of course prevailed during the terminal phase of bipolarity and the earlier phase of unipolarity which ensued it. But for some time, yes, the fundamental thesis which made NATO exist meaningfully has very much been contestant and not by bipolarity like antithesis, which would be the structure equivalent to what it contradicted. But it has been contested by very strong, admittedly reactionary stance. So this is not a dialectic in terms of bipolarity. And in my opinion the question is about this struggle, cognitive struggle. The question is whether the convergence of NATO member states will halt and halt with the thesis or not. The answer is within NATO, within the member states of NATO. Otherwise I do recommend nothing. So the counseling the prince, as I said, well, it's not my place and certainly not my intention, not the aim of my work. Even disinterested, there is an, in Hussarian terms, you know, the indifference spectator. And I will remain a different spectator.

B (78:27)

Dr. Ozici, thank you much for that. Could you tell us about your future plans? What future holds for you in 2026?

C (78:36)

Happiness and richness. But no, this will not happen. We are living in the real world. I need to continue to write, Dr. Petersen. Well, the use of phenomenology and phenomenological ontology in the IR studies. Of being further and further defined. And there's much work to do in this direction, both fortunately and unfortunately. Unfortunately, because this indicates also, you know, the double life in terms of work for myself, I have already a job and thanks to it I'm able to pay the bills. Well, I may consider change seriously. We'd like to strengthen the life course for itself. I don't know. Perhaps I will find something conducive to a radical change. Or perhaps something will find me, I don't know. But in any case, no need to complain much I even able to manage so far. I shouldn't be able to manage this during this year as well.

B (80:09)

Fingers crossed. Fingers crossed. For all of your initiatives, both academic and diplomatic. Thank you very much for your time. On behalf of New Books Network and instantaneously Think tank. It's been a real pleasure to talk to you today.

C (80:23)

Thank you very much, Dr. And to.

B (80:24)

Our readers, I strongly recommend you NATO Meanings and existence within the interstate Intersubjectivity. It is book which will be available from March 2026 onwards. Thank you very much and all the best.