Provocative Thoughts, New Horizons (3)
One of the most productive tools of human beings in the effort of understanding is analogy. He compares something new with what he knows, looks for similarities and differences, and evaluates it accordingly. Let's examine the Russia-Ukraine war, which we are currently watching, from this perspective. I don't know about you, but I am in favor of comparing this analogy with ISIS.
Social Media:
Since the day it was founded, the ISIS organization has displayed its greatest presence in the field of social media and internet. He used communication tools extremely effectively. He displayed his primary effort on the internet, both to spread fear and to gather fans.
We see that Ukraine uses the same concept. All kinds of operation images are on display. On the contrary, ISIS adopts a discourse that centers the concept of compassion and westernism, not fear. Of course, the enemy's killed soldiers and destroyed / captured military vehicles are used abundantly as a 'material' in this environment. However, images and conversations of Russian soldiers who were captured or surrendered are also shared.
Professional Use of Social Media:
Another difference of the posts on social media is their professionalism. The ISIS organization contained a lot of intelligence data, albeit unintentionally. When geolocation studies were carried out, it became possible to obtain many data on the broadcast regions.
Ukraine, on the other hand, follows a very professional media use policy, despite all the voluntary participation of recruits and civilians. Except for drone footage, they do not share easily source-oriented or intelligence-wise sharing that can be beneficial to the other party as data. Therefore, this causes a perception in people that they are supported by the forces holding the source of the river.
ISIS's Policy of Winning Sympathizers:
The ISIS organization had to gather sympathizers from all over the world, enable them to reach the geography they dominate through various means, train them in its own system for a certain period of time, and ultimately aim to become a global movement.
International Legions:
Similarly, from the first days of the war, we see that Ukraine also introduced the concept of "International Legions" and opened its ranks to participants from all nationalities. Of course, a mixed force of veteran western veterans, mercenaries, and war dogs emerges. (War Dogs is an American idiom that describes the personality structures that enjoy the brutality of war and realize themselves in this field.) As a result, the problem gains an international identity thanks to these people.
Use of Geography:
The ISIS organization was spreading its force structure all over the geography and only concentrating it in a certain region for an attack. And he usually made his attack at the most unexpected time and way, in the most surprising way and to the minimum of personnel. In this way, he captured huge militia units or cities and executed those who surrendered en masse.
We observe that the Ukrainian army has similarly spread all over the country. Cities, forests, other underground available points. Naturally, he does not, does not want to take out his regular troops against the regular army of the enemy. It aims to lure the Russians into city warfare. In the open field, he avoids fighting on the plains of Ukraine. It does not interfere with convoys of tens of kilometers. (Militarily, they're doing the right thing, in my opinion. It's a viable strategy. I listen to our commentators with amazement.) They don't care if the enemy takes over highways or abandoned army barracks. They constantly wear them out by hitting them in unexpected ways in an unexpected area. The effective use of artillery fire and mortar weapons plays an active role in this.
Upgrading Military Ability in Combat:
ISIS; It has gone down in history as the first asymmetrical organization that uses drones and all kinds of unmanned aerial vehicles. It has even established workshops and small R&D centers to manufacture such vehicles.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is working with one of the best forces in the world, namely our country. It prefers to use a much more technological, effective and difficult to mix drone force with continuous systematic attacks against Russian troops.
Leadership of War:
ISIS had a charismatic, secretive, enigmatic but influential leadership. Their forces dispersed in all geographies, "Be a fist when throwing a blow, be a cloud when taking a blow." The effectiveness of the chain of command in his military actions was clearly evident.
Ukraine, on the other hand, has another kind of leadership that is clear, humane, charismatic. Under the leadership of a leader of Jewish origin, who is openly targeted and tried to be disabled by Russia, they are showing a national resistance against the Russians in front of the whole world. The good thing is, just like ISIS, this leadership also maintains a clear chain of command in the military field, despite a dynamic and bitter battlefield spread across the country. It is clearly visible. In other words, the presence of symbolic names in both movements stands out.
The Role of American and British Intelligence Reflected on the Field:
I can add dozens of different items to these similarities, however. Let's move on to the last and most important item that constitutes the essence of the work. It is now clearly known that the ISIS terrorist organization is an entity that was established and shaped by the US intelligence during the invasion of Iraq. Then, the same concept was used by the Americans, especially in Syria, in the reorganization of the PKK terrorist organization under different names.
The Ukrainian Army, on the other hand, is a larger and regular military structure that was reshaped after the occupation of Crimea, organized by the same power, namely the USA and the United Kingdom, and trained with the same concept. The most striking aspect of the work is that this structure has started to give the appearance of a much more durable and well-established structure, as it has grown on the territory of a country with a national consciousness and a separate identity.
Why is Russia's Syria Experience Not Reflecting on Ukraine?
The point that I understand but have difficulty in explaining is this: Why did the Russian staff, who have the experience of fighting in the Syrian geography, never see the big picture? Is it a habit? Boredom? The sterility of the education system and cultural structure? Short of analysis? Not being able to read or even listen to the developments in the world? A shortage of statesmen and thinkers?
Conclusion:
The Turkish nation has been at war for decades against organizations fed from the same source, not only in Syria, but also in Iraq and our country. He has more than enough intelligence and experience to see the change and transformation in them, analyze and make inferences. Do we have a consensus that can really benefit from our experience?
Military comments on the screens do not say this. Why don't real soldiers speak or be made to speak?
