Sobriety in Ukraine

From the beginning, I have been pointing out that Ukraine is not at the center of the real tension, but the rivalry between the USA and Russia. As the area of ​​tension became more evident in Eastern Europe, the USA strengthened its partnership with the G7, European Union (EU) and NATO countries to maximize its interests there. The Ukraine Crisis, which developed after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, within the Eastern Europe problem between the two blocs, became the priority policy of Joe Biden in 2021.

Again, as I have stated before, the strategic rivalry between the USA and Russia, which has historical roots, should not be expected to find a solution immediately. In the same parallel, the North Atlantic Pact (NATO) continues its activities by getting stronger in response to the Warsaw Pact that was dissolved in 1989. With the NATO 2030 vision, an area of ​​pressure has been created with the Arctic region, cyberspace, and even with China, just like Russia, with the discourse on democratic issues. In other words, NATO’s field of work has become global. First of all, the US wanted to gain an upper hand in the Euro-Russia connection. After that, the USA would have the opportunity to concentrate more on the Pacific. For these reasons, NATO was perceived as a threat to Russia. Currently, Russia complains that the countries under its influence are moving to the USA, EU and NATO one by one. For example, as in Georgia in the shadow of Trans-Caucasus, Russia made a move with the Hybrid War method, although its military aspect is dominant, in order not to lose Ukraine to NATO and the EU in the Black Sea this time. The Biden administration has said it will respond. Today, this crisis escalating among the dominant powers stands before us as a matter of sphere of influence. If Ukraine moves to the Western bloc, this will follow, and therefore Russia signals that Moscow is under threat.

The US-Russian war continues in an unconventional way. He is constantly asked, “Will there be a war as we know it?” saying. No, there is already war, such is the wars of this age! Also, fake experts who do not fully understand the methods such as Hybrid Warfare come out and express their opinions, such as the war will be like this, it will be like this. However, the situation is clear! There is one thing that would be correct if explained as follows: If Russia gets too tight, it will increase the (more) risk it takes. This means that it is desired to go to the war phase of the known kind. The USA, EU and NATO have to be ready for this as well. Multi-faceted repression will be sustained continuously and ruthlessly, but if weapons are used, it will be escalated suddenly and ruthlessly; Even at the beginning of the conflict, when the casualties are low, it can be ensured that the opposing side’s step is taken back. Such a Hybrid War should be viewed as the continuation of the multifaceted and layered crisis in peace followed by the transformation of the crisis in conflict into profit. I will make one more explanation, the way this conflict will use weapons will also be different, no one should expect traditional methods of attack and defense. It may be possible in conflict, what are the multiple forms of creating effects that complement each other.

If Russia says Moscow is under threat, it is closer to demonstrating against armed conflict than its rival. He does so. But if it goes beyond this show, it will be Russia that takes the risk. The United States and NATO encourage Russia to make this mistake. Look, this is very important! Therefore, taking strategic risks, managing them and gaining profits are no longer carried out in known ways. My assessment is that Russia is being drawn into a risky area, if she realized this she should make a good decision! This is where the concept of “consistency” comes to the fore.

On the other hand, if the USA acts carelessly, it will see its losses later. An avalanche of anti-US sentiment could mean losing Asia altogether. It will not be limited to this, it may also lose Africa and the Middle East. In fact, the criticism led by Germany and France in Europe may become more evident. At the end of it all, the USA may face big losses 5-10 years later, even if it thinks it has won in Eastern Europe. Even the discourse of “liberal democracy”, which is seen as its only political foundation, can become controversial. As a matter of fact, China is rapidly developing the field brought by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and this creates attraction for those who walk with it.

I need to make a statement based on this Gray Zone Operations issue, which I have tried to inform over and over. Influence areas and gray areas should be well studied. This is the main issue that the US should handle more parameter-based in simulations. The USA is not conducting its Gray Zone Operations correctly and is constantly reacting. Countries, politicians, leaders, power centers are judging them from the inside. If the United States cannot read this inwardly developing situation well, we can say that Russia and China will have the chance to consolidate this situation more clearly. For example, the USA did not give Turkey the Patriot air defense missile system and actually made a mistake in the gray zone itself. Today, there is no defense expert or senator who has made this mistake, which is painful for them; Facing these conditions, US partners will increasingly want to create their own solutions.

In conclusion, let me say that the USA and Russia should move forward in the Ukraine issue by considering their own risks. They must choose to be restrained. This could be called a policy of strategic restraint.

NOTE: Due to intellectual property rights, you can use this information by reference.

Gursel Tokmakoglu