When French President Emmanuel Macron last year declared NATO “brain dead,” he was neither intending to be disparaging nor relishing the prospect. He was merely observing the result of developments in the alliance in recent years. Above all, the Trump administration’s inconsistent behavior and explicit threats to the principle of collective defense, coupled with the White House’s deep skepticism toward any kind of multilateralism, means that, for the first time since the Second World War, other allies cannot automatically rely on the US to intervene to defend them, unless America also stands to gain from doing so. But the US has not been the only party actively working to hollow out NATO from the inside. The other country that has repeatedly undermined the alliance, both through rhetoric and an explicit realignment in its geopolitical stance, has been Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. From adopting Russian weapons and materiel to cultivating a friendship with Vladimir Putin, NATO’s easternmost flank has raised several questions about the integrity of the alliance. Yet now we are faced with the flashpoint of Idlib. Idlib is the last province of Syria to resist the Assad regime. It has also been the last point of refuge within Syria for those fleeing the regime’s onslaught in other regions. The overwhelming majority of refugees who have not crossed the borders into Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey have found temporary respite in Idlib. By some estimates, Idlib’s population swelled from 1 million before the war to 3 million as Syrians fled the carnage in Aleppo, Ghouta and elsewhere. The Damascus regime and its Russian and Iranian allies have been pushing into Idlib in earnest since December in an attempt to wrap up the war. In so doing, and by using the same civilian-busting tactics and famine siege strategies they used elsewhere, they have already displaced as many as 900,000 people — 80 percent of whom are believed to be women and children. They have been mostly headed toward Turkey. Turkey is already struggling to cope with the more than 3.5 million Syrians to have arrived up to September last year and, by Ankara’s reckoning, it has neither the economic nor political capacity to absorb more — let alone the expected 2 to 3 million if Idlib were to fall. From Turkey’s point of view, it is a strategic imperative, as much as for the rest of us it is a humanitarian imperative, that the Assad onslaught is halted, and that Idlib can remain a safe refuge for internal Syrian refugees on some kind of permanent basis. Erdogan and Putin may have ironed out a detente, but they are at cross purposes Dr. Azeem Ibrahim The Russian-Syrian assault on Idlib, and the Turkish defense of the area, has also brought into the open a direct conflict between a NATO member and Russia. This is especially true of the past fortnight, with between 33 and 100 Turkish soldiers killed by Russian-backed Syrian government forces, and Turkey retaliating hard by decimating a substantial number of Assad assets. Curiously, since these events, Russian troops on the ground have reportedly effectively withdrawn from front-line exposure. Turkey has also declined to acknowledge Russia’s role in the attack on its forces and instead chosen to focus exclusively on hitting Assad targets in its retaliation. Erdogan and Putin last week met in Moscow and seemingly made up during a six-hour meeting, after which they announced a cease-fire in Idlib. As we learned before, when Turkey downed a Russian warplane in the same area in 2015, Russia is all bark but no bite when it comes to direct confrontation with NATO troops — especially in areas near NATO borders that might trigger the collective defense policy. And, equipment and power-wise, Turkey is able to match up to Russia, while it would stomp over Assad’s forces on its own. Erdogan and Putin may have ironed out a detente, but they are at cross purposes. However, another way is possible. On this issue, it is in Turkey’s best interest, NATO’s best interest, and the people of Idlib’s best interest, that Ankara be able to secure Idlib from further Assad attacks, and perhaps bring the Syrian civil war to a comprehensive truce that allows former rebels and refugees from other areas to live in peace in Idlib, protected by Turkey — and NATO. NATO has guaranteed support and backing to Turkey within its established borders, but has not yet committed to aiding Ankara in establishing a safe zone in Idlib. This can and should change. That would give Erdogan the leverage he needs vis-a-vis Putin to demand a settlement and a conclusion to the civil war along these lines. After all the puff and fury from Erdogan about NATO in past years, he now needs it. And it needs him to succeed in Idlib, for both their sakes, and especially for the sake of the people of Idlib. This is a good opportunity to renew our commitments to each other under NATO. We must make the most of it. • Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Professor at the US Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute and Director at the Center for Global Policy in Washington D.C. Twitter: @AzeemIbrahim Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view