War Without Warning

25 Ocak 2022

In this article, it will be explained that the systematic known as war warnings and cautions, which develops due to the change of war and global competition, has become invisible. As an example, the Ukraine crisis will be mentioned. Let’s think about it, there is no need to declare a war or conflict for a while, we are already in a war. But we have different forms of this kind of war or conflict. The transitions between war or peace, conflict and agreement are very uncertain.

When did the problem start in Ukraine? Could it be said that it started with the Russian invasion in 2014? Maybe it started after the Cold War ended, it slept for a while and became visible in 2014. But that’s not it either! Was this crisis initiated by Ukraine’s desire to unite with NATO and the European Union? Is NATO enlargement the problem? Will there be peace when some countries do not want to unite with NATO? If we can’t explain when this problem started and what exactly is requested, what is the full name of the event in this time frame? How close is peace if there is some uncertainty?

The United States (USA) eliminated the issue of warning signs of war with the Full Spectrum Warfare method published with JP 3.0. Non-Linear Warfare, made famous by the doctrine of Russian General Valery Gerasimov, began to be practiced. It’s named Gerasimov Doctrine. We can also call it Hybrid Warfare. Today, it is known how this new conflict tempo is, it can be read from the published documents and the examples in the field can be reviewed again.

What has happened so far in the Ukraine crisis seen today was actually what was previously known as war warning sign. Any field that would be used for a serious conflict was suppressed, such as diplomacy, propaganda, preparation, methods of deception, information… Even in conditions of tension, all steps were taken to dominate the adversary. Military repalcements were made. The increase in strength shows its effect more and more every day. There are (limeted) economic sanctions. Military exercises are carried out intensively. Intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (ISR) missions increased. Command and control centers were made operational. Strategic and tactical flights were made. Warships are coming. Aircraft carriers are coming to the field. Submarines are in exercise. New weapon tests are being done. For example, hypersonic missiles are shown. Nuclear weapons and launch vehicles are also shown. Agents from the field were found and arrested. From a diplomatic point of view, very harsh statements were made. The embassy staff and their families were repatriated. It didn’t exist before, but it does exist today, cyber attacks have increased their dose. There’s more. On the other hand, not a single one was seen, that unwanted trigger was not pulled.

The USA and Russia look at the Ukraine crisis on a global scale. The US interest is global; but it gives the message “Not without Ukraine”. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014; but he says to his rival, “Let’s negotiate spheres of influence”. This means that there is a global intent. Europe, especially Germany, says, “I don’t want a World War because of Ukraine, it’s a problem we can solve among ourselves.” The US responds to Europe that “you pay for the size later”. China gives the green light to Russia. When Russia ends the Ukraine problem in its favor, China signals that it will solve the Taiwan crisis using the same methods. Global economic problems begin. Oil prices are affected by the crisis. Energy is still important. Currency prices add extra costs to the weaker side. So, the main factor that makes war warning signs that should be taken before a war or conflict become invisible is globalization. In other words, we understood that since the development of globalization was completed, the situation of war or conflict became permanent. It has a side effect, the situation is different for countries or powers that cannot complete the globalization process, they are still in local or regional capacity, they are affected by the global crisis, as if they are fighting more than anyone else. We know about the cyber-space effect, but let’s add to this, a very rapid effect emerges with the global crisis effect of the tension of the dominant powers such as the USA, as if the fusion effect, this situation affects many countries whether they want it or not.

Dominant powers continue to practice full-engagement against their target country. Full-engagement takes place by exploiting the global dimension; It has many aspects and different layers, and its depth is unknown. At this stage, diplomacy is always in action; but diplomacy is also used to escalate tensions, not to find solutions. The aim here is to deter and defeat the opponent while diplomacy is active. The effect of the pressures under operation flex-decisiveness is used. Global goals are pursued. Continuing the crisis at an increasing pace is a method, if you expect it to end tomorrow, but this is wrong. If the pace of the crisis is increasing, it confirms the success of the original power that created the game. Flexible stability operation is implemented. If needed, new operations are put into action in this context during the process. The important thing is which pressure tool should be activated and when. Here, economic sanctions, creating and using legitimate actors, increasing the dose and means of deterrent measures are listed under headings.

Under what condition do you learn that such a conflict has come to an end? If the tension of the crisis drops, it means that one side has won. For example, the party that withdraws soldiers from the field loses. In this case, the pressure applied must continue so that one of the opponents will not be able to hold on any longer. But it can also come as a surprise. Another global power could make a game-breaking move. For example, the European side can recognize Crimea and Russia’s actions for a price, and in this case, even NATO becomes dysfunctional. Here success will be for Russia, USA loses. If the USA sees this, won’t it use its possibilities while it is not yet on the trigger? All conditions are tied. This is to perpetuate the crisis. If the crisis continues, it means that the meaninglessness of war warnings and signs continues.

What are the prominent concepts in such a process? Partnership, diplomacy, engagement, limit, reciprocation, competition, tension, economic sanctions, network, peace, gain, protection, determination, deterrence, dominance of activities, taking initiative, regulation, knowledge… If these words are used a lot on the Ukrainian front, it is the US initiative. It means holding. We are still in some kind of war, it has begun. But this war is not as you know it. This war continues with post-modern methods. You expect something of the First or Second World War type. It is not needed at this time.

After all, it is possible to say that the target of the USA is Russia, the field of operation is Eastern Europe. This is a global view. The USA is keeping Europe busy and driving its development in the Pacific. It is clear that without Europe, NATO would not go to war. While Russia wants to change the administration in Ukraine and get closer to Europe and make NATO dysfunctional, it actually wants to discuss its Areas of Influence (Gray Zones) with the USA. On the other hand, while the US side seeks a global gain, it defines the issue as Ukraine. The problem area is in Europe, and the solution is in Europe’s hands. Look at Germany; and United Kingdom (UK) which sees itself in charge of balancing it. So the crisis is prolonged because it is not a declared form of war. The longer such a crisis drags on (for example) Ukraine moves closer to the West; Under these conditions, Russia gets tired and then comes to Europe with more clarity to negotiate.

Güvenlik 'ın son yazıları


Savaşta Teknoloji Kullanımı

Birincisinden dördüncüsüne kadar her nesil savaş biçiminde gördüklerimiz, sert güçten makine kullanım becerisine doğru bir değişimi gösterdi. Bugün yeni nesil savaşlar uygulanırken, artık beşinci nesil savaşlar oluyor, burada teknolojinin sahadaki taktik uygulama becerisini hesaba katmamız gerektiği açık. Konu şu, savaşta durumu değiştirme inisiyatifiyle hareket eden teknolojiyi kullanım bilinci yüksek askerleri düşünüyoruz. Bunlar bize yeni bir tariflerin yapılmasını gerektiriyor: Gelişen teknolojiye göre askerin sahadaki uygulamasını tam uyumlu hale getirmek, hatta askerin bu yeteneğine başvurarak savaşı kazanmayı bilmek.

Etki Ajanlığı Yasası

Bu çağda, etki ajanlarına karşı önlem almak ve ülke yararına çalışanların eline mücadele etmek adına imkan vermek gibi konularda aksi düşünülebilir mi? Bu gerekli, ülke güvenliği açısından yerinde bir hamle. En azında caydırıcılık çok önemli. Ajanlar ve etki ajanları öyle cirit atmasınlar... Gerekli önlemleri ve bu kapsamda belli yasal düzenleme imkanlarını yaratalım. Her türlü tehdit var. Onları caydıralım, caydırıcı nitelikte ülkenin somut eylemleri olsun. Türkiye'de istihbarat hizmetleri 2014'dan itibaren iyi bir seyirle gelişiyor. İlk olarak operasyon yapma imkanı oldu. Kötü mü? Operasyonel İstihbarat gayet başarılı. Teröristler ve bölgemizdeki hasım ülkeler bunu görüyorlar, dikkatleri çekildi. Şimdi de bu tür ilave yasalar olsun isterim. Doğru adım! Elbette ben bu konuyu istihbarat açısından ele alacağım, uzmanlığım bu yönde. Hukuk konusu ayrı.

Yeni Üstünlük Mücadelesi ve Savunma Anlayışı

Temel konumuz silahlanma ve polemoloji olacak. Bu alanda yeni anlayışları irdeleyeceğiz. Genel savunma ve silahlanma politikalarına, büyük güçlerin aldıkları pozisyonlara, örnek olarak ABD'nin savunma yöntemine ve son olarak yeni üstünlük mücadelesi kavramlarına değineceğim. Bahsedeceğim yeni üstünlük mücadelesi terimleri neler? Oyun değiştiricilik, sistemlerin sistemi mimarisi, otonom kor sistemler, tam baskılama veya üstünlük kurma (dominasyon), bütün yönleriyle nüfuz etme (penetrasyon), istihbaratın penetrasyonu ve caydırıcılık için silahlanmak, olacak. Bunları neyle yapabilirsiniz? Bu makalede size ipuçlarını vermiş olacağım.

Otonom Orduların Tartışması

Teknoloji geliştikçe otonom sistemler cephede yerlerini alıyorlar. Kara, hava, siber-uzay, deniz, derin ve geniş cepheler... Bu konu başka ülkelerde hem askeri hem sivil, çeşitli uzmanlarca tartışılıyorken, Türkiye'de henüz o noktaya gelinemedi. Savaşın bilim ve sanatı yönüyle ben size özgün bir tartışma başlatmak isterim.

İsrail’in İran Saldırısı ve Polemolojik Analizi

19 Nisan gecesi İsrail, İran-İsfahan'daki bir askeri hedefi vurdu. Önce alınan bilgiler ve geliş yöntemleri doğru mu yanlış mı tartışıldı. Ancak, olağanüstü denebilecek türden yeni bir süreçle ilgilendiğimiz gayet açıktı. Ben sizlere bir askeri analiz yaparak, eldeki bilgileri de kullanmak suretiyle, bazı poüemolojik sonuçlar çıkarıp sunmak istiyorum.

Okumadan Geçme