HİBRİT SAVAŞ: TARTIŞMALI BİR KAVRAMIN ANATOMİSİ

Abstract

Hibrit savaş, son dönemde en çok tartışılan tehdit biçimlerinden biri haline gelmiştir. Ancak, hibrit savaşın birbirinden farklı birçok tanımı bulunmaktadır. Bu durum, hibrit savaş kavramını anlaşılması güç ve her şeyi kapsayan bir yapıya büründürmektedir. Devletlerin güvenlik terminolojisinde yer etmiş bir kavramın bu denli muğlak olması savunma politikalarının oluşturulması ve uygulanması açısından ciddi sorunlar yaratmaktadır. Bu makale, hibrit savaş kavramının ortaya çıkışını ve tarihsel süreçte geçirdiği evrimi analiz etmektedir. Makalenin temel amacı, hibrit savaş olarak nitelenen farklı çatışma biçimlerini sergilemek ve günümüzde hibrit savaş denildiğinde ağırlıklı olarak neyin kastedildiğini açığa çıkarmaktır. Makalenin ana argümanı, hibrit savaşın sürekli olarak “kavramsal esneme”ye maruz kaldığı ve günümüzde genellikle konvansiyonel savaş eşiğinin altında kalarak, askeri ve askeri olmayan enstrümanların bir kombinasyonuyla siyasi hedeflere ulaşma yöntemi olarak anlaşıldığıdır. Bu makalede bir durumu saptamayı amaçlayan; ele alınan olguya ve/veya kavrama ilişkin temel niteliklerin açıklığa kavuşturulduğu betimleyici araştırma yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Makale, hibrit savaşa dair derinlemesine bir literatür taraması üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Türkçe literatürde, hibrit savaş kavramının tarihsel evrimine dair akademik çalışmalar yok denecek kadar azdır. Bu nedenle, makalenin hibrit savaş literatürüne özgün katkılar sağlayacağı umulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Hibrit Savaş
• Hibrit Tehdit
• Kavramsal Esneme
• Güvenlik Terminolojisi
• NATO

HYBRID WARFARE: THE ANATOMY OF A CONTESTED CONCEPT

Abstract

Hybrid warfare has become one of the most discussed forms of threat in recent times. However, there are many different definitions of hybrid warfare. This situation makes the concept of hybrid warfare difficult to understand and all-encompassing. The fact that a concept embedded in the security terminology of states is so ambiguous creates serious problems in the formulation and implementation of defense policies. The primary aim of the article is to present the different forms of conflict labeled as hybrid warfare and to reveal what is generally meant by hybrid warfare today. The main argument of the article is that hybrid warfare has constantly been subjected to “conceptual stretching” and is nowadays generally understood as a method of achieving political objectives by combining military and non-military instruments, while remaining below the threshold of conventional warfare. In the Turkish literature, there are almost no studies on the historical evolution of the concept of hybrid warfare. Therefore, it is hoped that the article will provide original contributions to the literature on hybrid warfare.

Keywords

• Hybrid Warfare
• Hybrid Threat
• Conceptual Stretching
• Security Terminology
• NATO

References

1. Barger, A. (2023). The Future is Irregular. Our Doctrine Should be Too. Air University. Erişim: 12.09.2024. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Display/Article/3447572/#:~:text=Traditional%20warfare%20aims%20to%20win,instead%20by%20their%20distinctive%20means.
2. Bērziņš, J. (2014). Russia’s New Generation warfare in Ukraine: Implications for Latvian Defense Policy (Policy Paper No. 2). National Defence Academy of Latvia
3. Boot, M. (2015). Countering Hybrid Warfare. Armed Conflict Survey, 1(1), 11–20.
4. Carayannis, T. (2003). The Complex Wars of the Congo: Towards a New Analytic Approach. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 38(2-3), 232-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/002190960303800206
5. Catignani, S. (2005). The Security Imperative in Counterterror Operations: The Israeli Fight against Suicidal Terror. Terrorism and Political Violence, 17(1-2), 245-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550490520718
6. Connell, M. E., & Evans, R. (2015). Russia’s “Ambiguous Warfare” and Implications for the U.S. Marine Corps. CNA Analysis & Solutions.
7. Cook, L. (2021). EU Values, Laws under Threat amid Standoff at Belarus Border. Associated Press. Erişim: 14.08.2024. https://apnews.com/article/european-union-alexander-lukashenko-lithuania-minsk-united-nations-28b4c0ca00074caa1fff8384f5539811
8. Deep, A. (2015). Hybrid War: Old Concept, New Techniques. Small Wars Journal. Erişim: 17.08.2024. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/hybrid-war-old-concept-new-techniques

9. Der Spiegel. (2016). Russia’s Propaganda Campaign against Germany. Erişim: 27.08.2024. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putin-wages-hybridwar-on-germany-and-west-a-1075483.html
10. Dupont, A. (2003). Transformation or Stagnation? Rethinking Australia’s Defence. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57(1), 55-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/1035771032000073641
11. EURACTIV. (2017). Tillerson: Russian Vote Meddling was “Hybrid Warfare”. Erişim: 30.08.2024. https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/tillerson-russian-vote-meddling-was-hybrid-warfare/
12. European Commission. (2016). Joint Framework on Countering Hybrid Threats: A European Union Response. JOIN (2016) 18 Final. Erişim: 15.08.2024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0018
13. Fox, A. C. (2017). Hybrid warfare: The 21st century Russian way of warfare. United States Army Command and General Staff College.
14. Galeotti, M. (2019). Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine. Osprey Publishing.
15. Glenn, R. (2009). Thoughts on “Hybrid” Conflict. Small Wars Journal. Erişim: 16.08.2024. https://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/188-glenn.pdf
16. Hoffman, F. G. (2006a). Lessons from Lebanon: Hezbollah and Hybrid Wars. Foreign Policy Research Institute. Erişim: 12.08.2024. https://www.fpri.org/article/2006/08/lessons-from-lebanon-hezbollah-and-hybrid-wars/
17. Hoffman, F. G. (2006b). Complex Irregular Warfare: The Next Revolution in Military Affairs. Orbis, 50(3), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2006.04.002.
18. Hoffman, F. G. (2006c). Complex Irregular Warfare. Foreign Policy Research Institute. Erişim: 13.08.2024. https://www.fpri.org/article/2006/01/complex-irregular-warfare/
19. Hoffman, F. G. (2007a). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
20. Hoffman, F. G. (2007b). Preparing for Hybrid Wars. Marine Corps Gazette, 91(3), 57-61.
21. Hoffman, F. G. (2009a). Hybrid vs. Compound War- The Janus Choice: Defining Today’s Multifaceted Conflict. Armed Forces Journal. Erişim: 11.08.2024. http://armedforcesjournal.com/hybrid-vs-compound-war/
22. Hoffman, F. G. (2009b). Hybrid Warfare and Challenges. Joint Forces Quarterly, 52(1), 34-40. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA516871.pdf
23. Hoffman, F. G. (2009c). Hybrid threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict. Strategic Forum, 240, 1-8. Erişim: 14.08.2024. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/98862/SF240.pdf
24. Hoffman, F. G. (2010). Hybrid Threats: Neither Omnipotent nor Unbeatable. Orbis, 54(3), 441-455.
25. Hoffman F. G. (2016). The Contemporary Spectrum of Conflict: Protracted, Gray Zone, Ambiguous, and Hybrid Modes of War. Dakota L. Wood (Ed.), 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength: Assessing America’s Ability to Provide for the Common Defense (ss. 25-36). Heritage Foundation.
26. Huber, T. M. (2002). Compound Warfare: A Conceptual Framework. T. M. Huber (Ed.), Compound warfare: That Fatal Knot (ss. 1-10). United States Army Command and General Staff College Press.
27. Kofman, M., Migacheva, K., Nichiporuk, B., Radin, A., Tkacheva, O., ve Oberholtzer, J. (2017). Lessons from Russia’s Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. RAND Corporation.
28. Lasica, D. T. (2009). Strategic Implications of Hybrid War: A Theory of Victory. United States Army Command and General Staff College.
29. Mansoor, P. R. (2012). Hybrid War in History. Williamson Murray and Peter R. Mansoor. (Ed.), in Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present (ss. 1-17). Cambridge University Press.
30. Mattis, N. J. & Hoffman, F. G. (2005). Future warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Proceedings, 131(11), 18-19. Erişim: 13.08.2024. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2005/november/future-warfare-rise-hybrid-wars
31. McCuen, J. (2008). Hybrid Wars. Military Review 88(2), 107-113.
32. McWilliams, S. J. (2008). Hybrid War beyond Lebanon: Lessons from the South African Campaign 1976 to 1989 [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. United States Army Command and General Staff College.
33. Mockaitis, T. R. (1990). British Counterinsurgency, 1919–60. Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Mockaitis, T. R. (1995). British Counterinsurgency in the Post-imperial Era. Manchester University Press.
35. Morawiecki, M. (2021). Address of Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki to Officers of the Border Guard, Police and Soldiers. The Chancellery of the Prime Minister. Erişim: 23.08.2024.https://www.gov.pl/web/primeminister/address-of-prime-minister-mateusz-morawiecki-to-officers-of-the-border-guard-police-and-soldiers
36. Mumford, A & Carlucci, P. (2023). Hybrid Warfare: The Continuation of Ambiguity by Other Means. European Journal of International Security, 8(2), 192-206. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2022.19
37. Murray, W., & Mansoor, P. R. (Eds.). (2012). Hybrid Warfare: Fighting Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present. Cambridge University Press.
38. NATO. (2014). Wales Summit Declaration. Erişim: 17.08.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
39. NATO. (2024). Countering Hybrid Threats. Erişim: 17.08.2024. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_156338.htm
40. Nemeth, W. J. (2002). Future War and Chechnya: A case for Hybrid Warfare [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Naval Postgraduate School.
41. Pettyjohn, S. L., & Wasser, B. (2019). Competing in the Gray Zone: Russian Tactics and Western Responses. RAND Corporation.
42. Popescu, N. (2015). Hybrid Tactics: Neither new nor Only Russian. European Union Institute for Security Studies, Issue Alert, 4, 1-2. https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/hybrid-tactics-neither-new-nor-only-russian
43. Rácz, A. (2015). Russia’s Hybrid Warfare in Ukraine: Breaking the Enemy’s Ability to Resist (FIIA Report no. 43). The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
44. Sartori, G. (1970). Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. The American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356
45. Shedd, D. R., & Stradner, I. (2020, December 9). Putin is Winning Russia’s Hybrid War against America. National Review. Erişim: 23.08.2024. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/putin-is-winning-russias-hybrid-war-against-america/
46. Solmaz, T. (2022, February 25). ‘Hybrid Warfare’: One Term, Many Meanings. Small Wars Journal. Erişim: 12.08.2024. https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/hybrid-warfare-one-term-many-meanings
47. Tzu, S. (2014). Savaş Sanatı. İş Bankası Yayınları.
48. United Kingdom House of Commons Defence Committee. (2014). Towards the Next Defence and Security Review: Part two–NATO. Third Report of Session, 2014-15. The Stationery Office Limited.
49. United States Army Special Operations Command. (2015). Little Green Men: A Primer on Modern Russian Unconventional Warfare, Ukraine 2013-2014. USASOC.
50. United States Department of Defense. (2007). Irregular Warfare (IW) Joint Operating Concept (JOC). Government Printing Office.
51. Walker, R. G. (1998). SPEC FI: The United States Marine Corps and Special Operations. [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Naval Postgraduate School.