War is a problem-solving tool of mankind. It is a reflection of human nature. However, it is not possible to explain it only with human nature, because it is also very common among non-human beings. Therefore, it is possible to see war as a law of nature. The evolution of mankind has not yet reached the level to disable the war. If that level is reached in the future, if we see it (!), we will review our view. “Man is his own wolf” or “Man is the wolf of man” Those who say they are right for now…
What makes the issue independent of human will is the order of the world as well as the nature’s blessings. The competitive nature of the power struggle in general, and the requirements of the existing imperialist system in particular, make war inevitable. The system works in such a way that the role of man is limited, but not completely eliminated.
Therefore, both his own structure and the system he establishes make war a part of our lives.
While making these determinations, I should also state that I do not have an attitude that sees war as legitimate. Even though it is delusional to suggest that a life without war is possible for our world, if one looks at it optimistically, we cannot help but want it; because although wars are a means of solving problems, they essentially have a function that magnifies the problems. Can’t see this spot “strategic blindness” It would be appropriate to describe it as
The concept of war has undergone many evolutions since written history. The most common today is indirect warfare. That is, using tongs while holding the embers. Every indirect war necessarily includes elements of direct war (For concepts: Ethem BüyükışıkMan and War, Red Cat).
WAR FOR RUSSIA INDIRECT AND DIRECT
While the Russia-Ukraine war is a direct war for the two countries, it is an indirect war in terms of the global power struggle. The US and the West are on one side of the war, and Russia is on the other. Its area is Europe. The mistake of Russia is that it entered the war both indirectly and directly. It is a choice that is beyond his power. PutinIt is becoming more and more obvious that it is due to the will of the .
In his speech on September 30, Putin emphasized that they are fighting against the imperialist system in general and that they take a stance against Western impositions. Although the former is true for the other party, it is not true for himself. Occupying another country and annexing some of it is precisely an imperialist attitude. He also highlights some of the cultural aspects, which he lists as the imposition of the Westerners, in order to gain the support of his own public opinion. The scene displayed by the people to leave the country after the partial mobilization announced, indicates that the ancient Russian people did not give enough support to the Ukraine war.
EVALUATION ERRORS OF PUTIN
At this point, in my opinion, three erroneous points stand out in Putin’s assessment:
First, methodically indirect warfare versus indirect warfare is essential. Putin has engaged in both indirect and direct war against indirect war. He is above the power of his country. Although it is on the same side with China against the West, it cannot be said that it has received sufficient support. Considering its own power, China did not want to enter the war that it was not ready for yet. The fact that the USA did not fall for Taiwan’s provocation is an indication of this. Therefore, it continues its indirect war with the West.
Second, indirect war was inevitable for Russia, but direct war was something he could avoid. Putin wanted war. His goal was to seize the Donbass region. He used some unbelievable attitude of the Ukrainian administration as an excuse.
Third, there was no harmony between the political purpose of his direct war and the target he gave his army. So they lingered around Kyiv for months and suffered heavy casualties.
As a result, they returned from the error because they made a more realistic evaluation. Target narrowed. Donbass was enough. That goal seems to have been achieved. What about the main political goal of preventing Ukraine’s NATO membership? There is a loss there, because now the membership will accelerate. In these circumstances, the question is whether it is worth directly fighting to get the territory…