Kazakistan için Çağdaş Ulusal Seferberlik Sistemi Tasarımı: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Vaka Çalışması

Öz

Bu makale, Kazakistan’ın ortaya çıkan güvenlik tehditlerine, hibrid savaşlar, bölgesel istikrarsızlık ve sivil-ekonomik kırılganlıklara karşı nasıl modern bir ulusal seferberlik sistemi geliştirebileceğini incelemektedir. Çalışma özellikle, entegre bir sivil-asker seferberlik çerçevesinin Kazakistan'ın hem konvansiyonel hem de asimetrik tehditlere karşı stratejik direncini ve hazırlığını artırıp artıramayacağını sorgulamaktadır. Teorik olarak güvenlik yönetişimi, devlet kapasitesi ve stratejik dayanıklılık perspektiflerine dayanan çalışma, modern güvenlik ortamlarında topyekûn toplumsal hazırlığın önemini vurgulamaktadır. Karşılaştırmalı bir vaka çalışması metodolojisi kullanan makale; jeopolitik, kurumsal ve güvenlik açısından uygunluklarına göre seçilen Türkiye, Rusya, Çin, Finlandiya, İsrail, Polonya, Güney Kore, Fransa, Azerbaycan ve Kazakistan dahil olmak üzere dokuz ülkenin seferberlik deneyimlerinden çıkarımlar yapmaktadır. Bulgular, Kazakistan'ın halihazırda tutarlı bir seferberlik çerçevesinden yoksun olduğunu ve Sovyet döneminden miras kalan parçalanmış mekanizmalara bağımlı kalmaya devam ettiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Önerilen model, yasal reformlar ve düzenli ulusal tatbikatlarla desteklenen, doğrudan cumhurbaşkanının yetkisi altında bir Ulusal Seferberlik ve Kriz Koordinasyon Ajansı'nın kurulmasını savunmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu çok boyutlu çerçevenin benimsenmesinin Kazakistan'ın direncini artırması, politika yapıcılara esnek bir hazırlık stratejisi sunması ve Avrasya bağlamındaki daha kapsamlı güvenlik tartışmalarına katkıda bulunması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ulusal Seferberlik
• Ulusal Güvenlik
• Hibrit Savaş
• Sivil-Asker Entegrasyonu
• Avrasya Güvenliği

Designing a Contemporary National Mobilization System for Kazakhstan: A Comparative Case Study

Öz

This article examines how Kazakhstan can develop a modern national mobilization system to confront emerging security challenges, including hybrid warfare, regional instability, and civil-economic vulnerabilities. It specifically asks whether an integrated civil-military mobilization framework can enhance Kazakhstan’s strategic resilience and preparedness against both conventional and asymmetric threats. The study is theoretically grounded in the perspectives of security governance, state capacity, and strategic resilience, emphasizing the importance of whole-of-society preparedness in contemporary security environments. Employing a comparative case study methodology, the article draws insights from the mobilization experiences of nine countries including Türkiye, Russia, China, Finland, Israel, Poland, South Korea, France, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan selected for their geopolitical, institutional, and security relevance. The findings reveal that Kazakhstan currently lacks a coherent mobilization framework and remains reliant on fragmented mechanisms inherited from the Soviet era. The proposed model advocates the establishment of a National Mobilization and Crisis Coordination Agency under the authority of the president, supported by legal reforms and regular national exercises. In conclusion, the adoption of this multidimensional framework is expected to enhance Kazakhstan's resilience, provide policymakers with a flexible preparedness strategy, and contribute to broader discussions on security within the Eurasian context.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• National Mobilization
• National Security
• Hybrid Warfare
• Civil-Military Integration
• Eurasian Security

Kaynakça

1. Aloudat, A., Michael, K., Abbas, R., & Al‐Debei, M. (2011). The value of government mandated location-based services in emergencies in Australia. Journal of Information Technology Research, 4(4), 41-68. https://doi.org/10.4018/jitr.2011100103
2. Antai, I. & Hellberg, R. (2024). Identifying total defense logistics concepts: a comparative study of the Swedish pandemic response. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 14(2), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHLSCM-07-2022-0084
3. Antonovsky, A. (2022). Salutogenesis and the mental health of first responders. In M.B. Mittelmark et al (Eds.), The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79515-3_50
4. Baev, P. K. (2017). Russia: A declining counter-change force. In S. E. Cornell (Ed.), The international politics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict: The original “frozen conflict” and European security (pp. 71-88). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60006-6_4
5. Bartles, C. K. (2016). Getting Gerasimov right. Military Review, 96(1), 30–38. https://tinyurl.com/yckdf9c4
6. Başer, B., Akgönül, S., & Öztürk, A. (2017). “Academics for peace” in Turkey: a case of criminalising dissent and critical thought via counterterrorism policy. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 10(2: 10 Years of Critical Studies on Terrorism), 274-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2017.1326559
7. Boene, B. (2009). Shifting to volunteer armed forces in Europe: Why, how, with what effects?. Forum Sociológico, 19, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.4000/sociologico.347
8. Bowers, I. & Hiim, H. S. (2021). Conventional counterforce dilemmas: South Korea's deterrence strategy and stability on the Korean peninsula. International Security, 45(3), 7-39. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00399

9. Bureau of National Statistics. (2026). Population. https://stat.gov.kz/en/ Buzan, B. & Wæver, O. (2009). Regions and powers: the structure of international security. Cambridge University Press.
10. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: a New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
11. Chang, K. (2022). ‘I know something you don’t know’: the asymmetry of ‘strategic intelligence’ and the great perils of asymmetric alliances. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 25(3), 480-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/13691481221109727
12. Cheung, T. M. & Hagt, E. (2020). China’s efforts in civil-military integration, its impact on the development of China’s acquisition system, and implications for the U.S.. Acquisition Research Program. Report no: UCSD-AM-20-031. https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/4170
13. Chung, S. (2023). Challenges to hegemonic constructions of militarized masculinities in the neoliberal era: The case of South Korea. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 32(2), 346-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265231221571
14. Cooley, A. (2012). Great games, local rules: The new great power contest in Central Asia. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929825.001.0001
15. Davis, T. (2017). Leftovers of a Dissolved Empire: Assessing the Political Stability of the Former Soviet Republics of Kazakhstan, Georgia, and the Ukraine (Publication No.272). [Honors Undergraduate Theses, Taraleigh Davis University of Central Florida]. Stars Library University of Central Florida. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/272/
16. De Waal, T. (2021). The Nagorny Karabakh conflict in its fourth decade. CEPS Working Document No. 2021-02. https://tinyurl.com/ecuk437a
17. Edmunds, T. (2014). Complexity, strategy and the national security. International Affairs, 90(3), 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12125
18. Eilam, E. (2018). Israel’s military doctrine. Lexington Books.
19. Fedotenko, K. (2023). Cyber warfare as part of information warfare of Russia against Ukraine since the beginning of the 2022 Russian invasion. Věda a Perspektivy, 8(27), 351-357. https://doi.org/10.52058/2695-1592-2023-8(27)-351-357
20. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
21. Galeotti, M. (2016). Hybrid war or Gibridnaya Voyna? Getting Russia’s non-linear military challenge right. Lulu Press.
22. Galeotti, M. (2022). Putin's wars: From Chechnya to Ukraine. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
23. George, A. L. & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
24. Hoffmann, C. (2019). Neo-Ottomanism, Eurasianism or securing the region? A longer view on Turkey’s interventionism. Conflict, Security and Development, 19(3), 301-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2019.1608016
25. Holbraad, C. (1984). Middle powers in international politics. Macmillan.
26. Ihar, Z. (2023). Properties of war: the militarization of housing policy and urban planning in contemporary Azerbaijan. Catalyst Feminism Theory Technoscience, 9(1: Special Section: Domestication of War). https://doi.org/10.28968/cftt.v9i1.39527
27. Inbar, E. & Shamir, E. (2014). Mowing the Grass: Israel’s strategy for protracted intractable conflict. Journal of Strategic Studies, 37(1), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2013.830972
28. Irfan, I. (2018). Hybrid warfare: Escalation in Europe and implications for EU and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. International Affairs and Global Strategy, 64. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IAGS/article/view/42790
29. Irondelle, B. & Schmitt, O. (2013). France. In: Biehl, H., Giegerich, B., & Jonas, A. (Eds) Strategic cultures in Europe. Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften der Bundeswehr, Vol 13. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-01168-0_10
30. Jarosiewicz, A. (2016). Perestroika – the Nazarbayev way: crisis and reforms in Kazakhstan. Centre for Eastern Studies: Point of view No: 58. https://tinyurl.com/y8wap8xh
31. Jungwirth R., Smith H., Willkomm E., Savolainen J., Alonso Villota M., Lebrun M., Aho A., & Giannopoulos G. (2023). Hybrid threats: a comprehensive resilience ecosystem. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/37899
32. Kaldor, M. (2012). New and old wars: Organised violence in a Global Era (3rd ed.). Stanford University Press.
33. Kamel, A. H. & Zyla, B. (2018). The comprehensive approach to EU crisis management: Contexts, lessons identified, and policy implications. Journal of Regional Security, 13(1), 39-63. https://doi.org/10.5937/JRS1801039K
34. Karataş, İ. (2021). Analyzing article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty as an assurance of Turkey’s security. Ortadoğu Etütleri, 13(2), 155-176. https://doi.org/10.47932/ortetut.813769
35. Kofman, M. & Lee, R. (2022). Not built for purpose: The Russian military’s ill-fated force design. War on the Rocks. https://tinyurl.com/bdhta2zx
36. Kosonen, J. & Mälkki J. (2022) The Finnish model of conscription: A successful policy to organize national defence. In C. de la Porte, G. B. Eydal, J. Kauko, D. Nohrstedt, P. Hart, & B. S. Tranøy (ed.) (Eds.), Successful Public Policy in the Nordic Countries: Cases, Lessons, Challenges (pp. 456-472), Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192856296.003.0022
37. Kovacs, L. (2019). National cybersecurity strategy framework. Academic and Applied Research in Military and Public Management Science, 18(2), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.32565/aarms.2019.2.6
38. Kříž, Z. (2005). Tendencies in the development of Czech Armed Forces at the turn of the millennium. Central European Political Studies Review, 7(2-3), 276-289. https://journals.muni.cz/cepsr/article/view/4112
39. Kuokštytė, R. (2022). Revisiting France's commitment to defence integration. In Česnakas, G. & Juozaitis, J. (Eds.), European Strategic Autonomy and Small States' Security. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003324867
40. Liśniewska, H. (2017). Isolated personnel recovery – new direction in the military forces of the republic of Poland. About Security and Defense, 1(3), 113-121. https://tinyurl.com/yhrjyxdu
41. Luckham, R. & Kirk, T. (2013). The two faces of security in hybrid political orders: a framework for analysis and research. Stability International Journal of Security and Development, 2(2), Article 44, 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.cf
42. Marosvari, C. (2012). Cold reality in the land of fire: The interrelations of Azerbaijan’s natural gas export and foreign policy. [Master Thesis, University of North Carolina]. Carolina Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.17615/s8qb-nk13
43. Mun, O. (2014). Re-imagining national identity through early literacy textbooks in Kazakhstan. [Master Thesis, Lehigh University]. Lehigh University Library and Technology Services. https://asa.lib.lehigh.edu/Record/10545461
44. Ocal, A. (2021). Disaster management in Turkey: A spatial approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2021.3.1.2
45. Peimani, H. (1998), Regional security and the future of Central Asia: the competition of Iran, Turkey, and Russia. Praeger Publishers.
46. Rana, D. S. (2019). Chinese defence reforms and lessons for India. Claws Journal, 12(1), 138-165. https://ojs.indrastra.com/index.php/clawsjournal/article/view/95
47. Resmî Gazete (1983). Seferberlik ve Savaş Hali Kanunu (Kanun No.2941). [Law No. 2941 on Mobilization and State of War]. https://mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2941.pdf
48. Resmî Gazete (2024). Seferberlik ve Savaş Hâli Yönetmeliği [Mobilization and State of War Regulation]. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2024/05/20240522-1.pdf
49. Richter, E. & Wang, H. (2025). China’s transition to a war-oriented national defense mobilization system. In B. Frohman & J. Rausch (Eds.), The PLA in a complex security environment. The National Bureau of Asian Research. https://tinyurl.com/4udzv6et
50. Ringsmose, J. & Webber, M. (2020). Hedging their bets? the case for a European pillar in NATO. Defence Studies, 20(4), 295-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2020.1823835
51. Sayfutdinova, L. (2021). Ethnic boundaries and territorial borders: On the place of Lezgin irredentism in the construction of national identity in Azerbaijan. Nationalities Papers, 50(4), 794-812. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2021.3
52. Sazdovska, M. M. (2023, 27-29 Septenber). Protection of critical infrastructure – a challenge for the Republic of North Macedonia. In Security Horizons: The Strategic and Security Concept for the Countries of Southeast Europe (pp. 51-56). Skopje, North Macedonia. https://doi.org/10.20544/icp.8.1.23.p05
53. Schvachová, D. & Vojtek, J. (2024). Turkey's trust in the USA: causes of the criticised alliance member's approach. Vojenské Rozhledy, 33(2), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.3849/2336-2995.33.2024.02.003-017
54. Sederholm, T., Rannikko, R., & Salo, M. (2025). Total defence model at the heart of Finland’s national defence and resilience. In G. F. Rongved (Ed.), European total defence (1st ed.) (pp. 155-134). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003497370
55. Shim, J. (2017). A Study on the improvement of military manpower system of ROK Armed Forces through introduction of partial volunteer force system. [Master Thesis, KDI School of Public Policy and Management]. KDI Central Archieves. https://core.ac.uk/download/213855397.pdf
56. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
57. Stone, A. & Wood, P. (2020). China’s military-civil fusion strategy: a view from Chinese strategists. China Aerospace Studies Institute. https://tinyurl.com/3yv7ze5y
58. Sukhankin, S. (2019). David vs. Goliath: Kaliningrad oblast as Russia’s a2/ad ‘bubble’. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 2(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.20
59. Thorne, D. (2024). China’s national defense mobilization system. U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. https://tinyurl.com/j9jrtcj3
60. Tian, N., Lopes da Silva, D., Liang, X., & Scarazzato, L. (2024). Trends in world military expenditure, 2023 SIPRI Fact Sheet. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.55163/BQGA2180
61. Tibekov, B. L., Adams, S. J., & Prochaska, N. (2004). Characteristics of the labor market and human resources management in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 12(1), 44-56. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/facpubs/2407/
62. Verma, G. & Sharma, S. (2023). The paradoxical policies: Russia’s rampant resource quest and the devastating toll on the planet. Scientific Collection «InterConf+», 40(183), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.51582/interconf.19-20.12.2023.022
63. Wang, C., Lu, Y., Chang, Y., & Huang, A. (2021). Coordinated mobilization matters: how did Taiwan do it during the covid-19 pandemic? Chinese Public Administration Review, 12(2), 160-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/153967542101200206
64. Wither, J. K. (2020). Back to the future? Nordic total defence concepts. Defense Studies, 20(1), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2020.1718498
65. Yeo, Y. (2017). The good, the bad, and the forgiven: the media spectacle of South Korean male celebrities’ compulsory military service. Media, War & Conflict, 10(3), 293-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635217694122
66. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
67. Yousfi, S. (2024). The right to legitimate defense between international law and practice in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict. International Journal of Humanities and Educational Research,6(2), 185-196. https://doi.org/10.47832/2757-5403.25.11
68. Zulham, M., Saragih, H. M., Thamrin, S., & Silitonga, T. B. (2020). Turkey's involvement in the Syrian conflict from a defense management perspective. AJIS: Academic Journal of Islamic Studies, 5(2), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.29240/ajis.v5i2.1915