With a population of less than 10 million, limited natural resources, and surrounded by nations it perceives as “threats,” Israel anchors its economic strength and independence on advanced technologies.

• The high-tech sector accounts for 19.7% of Israel’s gross domestic product (GDP).
• 52.9% of the country’s exports stem from high-tech industries.
• High-tech workers comprise 11.6% of the total workforce.
• Israel is a global leader in R&D spending as a percentage of GDP.
• According to a study ranking the world’s most attractive start-up and innovation hubs, Tel Aviv ranks fourth after Silicon Valley, New York, and London.

Even during times when cybersecurity wasn’t a prominent agenda item, Israel consciously integrated cybersecurity into its military defense and offensive capabilities. For Israel, cybersecurity is a force multiplier. While Israel and a few other nations have become synonymous with robust cybersecurity capabilities, opting for policies that aim to “pull the plug” on technologies instead of developing necessary defensive and offensive capabilities has proven to be an unsuccessful and unsustainable strategy.

Israel’s proficiency in cybersecurity has forced Hezbollah to resort to traditional communication methods like pagers, landlines, and human couriers instead of smartphones. The high reliance on pagers, along with their inherent vulnerabilities, created an exploitable channel for an unprecedented Israeli operation on September 17, 2024. This operation, different in scale and methodology from past examples, was critically effective.

Possible Scenarios

Based on available information, three scenarios emerge, with the first two being less likely:

1. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack: The first and least likely scenario suggests that an EMP attack targeted the pagers. While such methods have been used recently against autonomous systems like drones, this approach would require close proximity to thousands of pager users. Furthermore, even if an EMP attack occurred, the likely outcome would be system disruption rather than the explosions observed.
2. Software Vulnerability Triggered Battery Overheating: The second scenario posits that a software vulnerability caused the devices’ batteries to overheat rapidly, potentially triggered by a single broadcast message. However, visual evidence of the damage indicates an intensity far exceeding what could be caused by the batteries of such small devices. Additionally, synchronizing the overheating of thousands of batteries would require extremely specific conditions, making this scenario improbable.
3. Explosives Embedded in Devices: The most plausible scenario is that Israel obtained information about Hezbollah’s pager orders, secretly embedded small amounts of explosives and triggering mechanisms into the devices, and waited for an opportune moment to detonate them using the broadcast feature.

The simultaneous detonations across thousands of locations and reports of surviving users receiving messages seemingly from Hezbollah leadership reinforce the likelihood of the third scenario.

Psychological and Strategic Implications

The immediate impact of Israel’s operation includes fatalities and injuries, including among children. However, the broader implications lie in the psychological warfare waged through meticulous planning and execution. Israel’s ability to infiltrate, exploit vulnerabilities, and turn an everyday communication tool into a weapon is both a psychological blow and a demonstration of technical superiority.

This incident cannot be merely categorized as a cyberattack; it represents a highly opportunistic and calculated operation that strikes deep psychological and strategic nerves. Israel sends a message: “I can enter your home, your pocket, and strike you at will.” Succumbing to this narrative would mean falling victim to Israel’s psychological warfare tactics.

The increasing number of connected devices and the growing trend of “smart” technologies have expanded the attack surface significantly. However, contrary to some social media claims, it is not feasible to destroy a device simply by entering specific IDs or phone numbers. Risks to individuals or groups strategically targeted by intelligence agencies differ vastly from those faced by general consumers.

Lessons for Turkey

While comparing Hezbollah’s technical capabilities to Turkey’s would be inappropriate, this incident highlights certain overlooked realities:

1. We cannot rely on Israel or third countries like the U.S. and China in the critical high-tech sectors central to Israel’s development. Awareness of and resistance to digital colonization policies are essential.
2. Even when critical technologies must be imported, the technical measures to mitigate potential risks must be thoroughly executed.
3. Success in sectors like defense and aerospace cannot excuse insufficient progress in other sectors or technological trends.
4. In strategic high-tech sectors like cybersecurity and telecommunications, we cannot remain silent as global monopolies attempt to eliminate domestic producers through unfair practices.
5. We must halt the strategy of foreign companies obtaining “domestic goods” certificates through bureaucratic processes and using this leverage to establish new technological dependencies in Turkey.
6. Strong R&D and innovation efforts, coupled with fair and mutually beneficial global partnerships, will strengthen our economic, diplomatic, military, and societal security.

By addressing these priorities, Turkey can shield itself from external dependencies while fostering a sustainable high-tech ecosystem that secures its future.

Source: İsrail’in Psikolojik Savaşının Ardından Gerçeklere Odaklanmak (savunmatr.com)

Dr. Alper Özbilen addressed the challenges facing Turkey’s defense industry.

Dr. Alper Özbilen, Chairman of the Board of PAVO Group, authored an article highlighting the challenges in Turkey’s defense industry. According to Özbilen, associating technological advancements with concepts like independence and sovereignty, which define the fate of nations, is not merely a coincidence. Actors with different historical backgrounds, priorities, and technical capabilities are in a fierce race to protect and strengthen their local technologies. This competition, which spans a wide spectrum, serves as a cornerstone for maintaining the status quo for some countries, while for others lagging behind, it presents a rapid development opportunity to shift the global power balance in their favor. On the subject, Özbilen states:

“The telecommunications sector, at the center of U.S. ‘espionage’ accusations against China, is one of the first areas where significant reflections of the technology race have been observed. The U.S. administration has implemented various restrictions to prevent the risk of data and communication traffic being controlled and slowed down by China. The primary concern here is the possibility that China, either deliberately or inadvertently, could gain unauthorized access channels to U.S. data through ‘backdoors.’ The fact that 5G enables the processing of larger amounts of data and its significant impact on every component of the global economy has made this risk even more critical for the U.S.”

Network security risks alone are not sufficient to fully explain the conditions of risk. In the telecommunications sector, which is an inseparable part of both individual lives and institutional processes, dependency on any global monopoly poses a significant risk. Fundamentally, this dependency increases the vulnerability of critical information and communication capabilities to direct or indirect embargoes. The time and financial costs involved in network architectural changes further highlight the level of risk.

Once a cycle of technological dependency begins, it triggers a challenging journey that is hard to reverse. This process also leads to over-attributing meanings to technology beyond its outputs, forcing institutions into new purchasing decisions in pursuit of technological gains. This state, which could be termed ‘digital fetishism,’ creates even more challenging conditions in the telecommunications sector. Although it warrants separate analysis, particular attention must be paid to this issue during the transition to 5G. In this critical technology, more relevant to industry than individual life, an accelerated and populist approach such as “let’s also transition to 5G” and fully entrusting 5G infrastructure to foreign technology monopolies will not yield favorable outcomes for Turkey.”

Furthermore, Özbilen emphasized the strategic impact and importance of the telecommunications sector in information and communication, as exemplified by the race between the U.S. and China. He noted that countries seeking to create their own national success stories based on their interests and priorities might not necessarily reduce network security risks or build cost-effective infrastructures by choosing one of these two actors. Özbilen argued that relying entirely on local technologies for network needs is neither feasible nor efficient. According to Özbilen, the key considerations in this matter include:

• Conducting R&D and innovation activities in high-value areas,
• Opposing the policies of actors offering unfair trade conditions to dominate the domestic market,
• Establishing global partnerships based on mutual benefit, and
• Fairly comparing local and foreign technologies.

With its young population and high phone and internet penetration rates, Turkey presents significant opportunities for economies of scale in the telecommunications sector. However, Özbilen noted that this potential has not been adequately utilized to date. While success has been achieved in indicators such as coverage area, speed, and capacity, this success heavily relies on foreign technologies.

Özbilen stated, “We should not wait for compelling outcomes to become concerned about the diplomatic, economic, social, and military implications of dependencies. To avoid repeatedly struggling with the same difficulties, we must transfer our experiences across different domains. In this context, I believe it is essential for Turkey, which has developed new products and solutions in fields such as electronic warfare and unmanned systems that have shifted regional balances, to spread its awareness, experience, and knowledge to other sectors.”

He further cited the painful experience of TELETAŞ, a company conducting advanced R&D in telecommunications infrastructure, being acquired by a foreign technology provider and transformed into a sales and marketing office. Özbilen expressed optimism that the sale and elimination of value-added domestic companies to foreign competitors would not be repeated under current conditions. However, he pointed out the ongoing challenges of domestic companies competing against the unfair competition and pricing policies of global monopolies, which pose unsustainable risks.

“In this context, I believe we need to reconsider what qualifies as a ‘domestic product.’ Companies that lack advanced capabilities but use ‘domestic and national’ branding as a marketing strategy are not part of the sensitivities I have mentioned above. Neither are foreign companies, which engage in assembly-based, low-value-added activities and are labeled as ‘domestic goods’ based on some bureaucratic processes.

Domestic telecommunications companies sometimes have to compete with global monopolies, which are also certified as ‘domestic’ for developing ‘local’ products, as if they were domestic competitors. I am not sure if there are other examples of this globally, but this process allows these foreign monopolies to benefit from the support designed to strengthen local advanced technology by our state and institutions.

While telecommunications infrastructures are globally dominated by about five companies, the situation is even more challenging in Turkey. More than half of the market depends on the capabilities of a Chinese global monopoly, which now also holds a ‘domestic goods’ certificate.

In the face of all diplomatic, commercial, and academic actors focusing on dependency cycles rather than fair global partnerships based on mutual benefit, I believe we must boldly echo our President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s statement, ‘The world is bigger than five.’ In the context of this article, I would say: ‘The telecommunications sector is bigger than five.’

The empowerment of companies operating as part of Turkey’s national narrative against global monopolies will enable us to achieve highly valuable outcomes for the future of our country.”

Source: Yerli ama Yabancı Şirketlerle Teknoloji Yarışına Girmek (defenceturk.net)

With its history spanning thousands of years, humanity has yet to clarify its relationship with nature. It has not developed a definitive rule of behavior regarding whether it is nature’s guest, master, or rival. Now, it debates the nature of its relationship with the algorithms it has designed itself.

It is widely acknowledged that artificial intelligence constitutes a new milestone, like the wheel, gunpowder, steam engine, and electricity, which have shaped human history. The discussion revolves around how many years it will take for artificial intelligence to transform the world and in what direction. However, those answering these critical questions are not just scientists and researchers. For a long time, artificial intelligence and related concepts have been a major area of interest for artists adept at redefining reality.

Through blockbuster films like Star Wars, Terminator, The Matrix, Avengers: Age of Ultron, I, Robot, and Dune, millions have witnessed how artificial intelligence and robots have shaped—or might shape—the world, whether in the present or historically. As a local example, I must also mention the film Japon İşi (1987), starring Kemal Sunal and Fatma Girik.

In the realm of fiction, artificial intelligence is sometimes portrayed as an ally capable of solving all problems and at other times as humanity’s greatest enemy. Generally speaking, however, it is easier for artists to focus on the potential negative aspects of technology.

Indeed, fictional threats such as artificial intelligence and digital technologies taking over humanity, large-scale wars between robots and humans, or the world regressing to a mechanically-based technology ecosystem—possibly even to its origins—carry a high perceived risk level.

The prevalence of minds shaped by the fears of the fictional realm, combined with the multifaceted nature of artificial intelligence and the challenges of thriving in this field, has led humanity—already struggling to fully embrace its authority, role, and responsibilities in the face of nature throughout its long history—into an even more complex process.

Amidst this complexity, trends such as minimal resource consumption, moving away from cities, returning to nature, and digital detox have gained popularity. At the same time, in line with the “quantified-self” trend, people are enabling more data collection and analysis regarding their daily lives and bodies. Particularly evident in the field of health, the quantified-self trend manifests itself through smart wearable devices that track data such as step count, heart rate, blood oxygen levels, blood glucose levels, and sleep patterns, and provide various analyses. [1]

This movement is only one aspect of “augmented humanity.” Potentially perceived as an unsettling concept, augmented humanity refers to efforts aimed at enabling “technologically enhanced humans” to unlock their full potential and perform at levels unattainable without technology, by creating an interaction between digital and physical worlds. [2]

In light of the current use of devices integrated into the human body, such as pacemakers, it can already be said that many people are “augmented humans.” However, with advancements in artificial intelligence and IoT, the capabilities and use of devices and sensors integrated into the human body are expected to grow. This will accelerate developments in Healthcare 5.0, with functions such as smart disease control, smart disease detection, smart monitoring, and smart decision-making. [3]

It is important to emphasize that sensors integrated into the human body provide higher precision and more accurate results compared to removable wearable devices. However, integrating such technologies directly into the human body requires overcoming specific or additional challenges such as biocompatibility, durability, signal transmission, and power supply. [4]

Nanobots, microscopic self-operating small robots, are expected to contribute significantly to processes like cancer treatment and the early diagnosis of various diseases (e.g., cancer and infectious diseases). Moreover, according to the European Technology Platform for Nanomedicine (ETPN), there are already over 80 products in the field of nanomedicine available in the market. [5]

AI-powered nanobots are not yet a fundamental part of our lives. Rapid short-term development in this area may not be feasible. Nonetheless, amid speculative discussions about humanity achieving immortality, significant scientific research is underway in the field.

Augmented humanity is increasingly emerging as a new societal phenomenon, blurring the line between natural and artificial. Hugh Herr, a lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), lost both legs in a 1982 mountaineering accident. Through his work, he acquired bionic legs equipped with various sensors and microprocessors.

While Herr can move his bionic legs by thinking about it, he cannot feel them. He has stated that although he is a “bionic human,” he is not yet a “cyborg.” According to Herr, being a “cyborg” would require him to feel his bionic legs. However, Herr has led the development of a brain-controlled bionic leg for Jim Ewing, a climber who severely injured his leg in an accident, allowing full position and movement sensing. [6]

In a 2018 TEDx talk, Herr envisioned a futuristic future where wings could be attached to the human body. In a 2022 interview, he encouraged imagining a 75-year-old walking as if they were 18 again with the help of a special pair of shoes. In another interview, Herr speculated that in the future, anyone wearing external skeletal devices could run 160 miles (257.5 km) across any terrain without becoming breathless. [7]

Such radical predictions allow us to envision a future where we could complete a 252 km journey from Istanbul’s Üsküdar district to Bolu by running without tiring.

For over 40 million visually impaired people worldwide, advancements in bionic eyes are critically important. Even today, bionic eye surgeries for vision loss caused by certain diseases are successfully performed in Turkey and globally. However, scientists in this field are not focused on bringing individuals with disabilities to natural/normal limits. Existing bionic eyes enable seeing blurry and often difficult-to-interpret images.

At this point, Michael Beyeler, the director of the Bionic Vision Lab in the U.S., is working to develop an AI-powered “smart bionic eye.” Beyeler stated, “I imagine a smart bionic eye that can locate misplaced keys on a bench, read medicine labels, inform the user about people’s movements and facial expressions during social interactions, warn of nearby obstacles, and map safe paths.” [8]

The path toward augmented humanity has also garnered significant interest from technology billionaires. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are among the investors in Synchron, an Australian-based company specializing in brain-computer interfaces. Synchron enables decoding brain signals of paralyzed individuals and translating them into commands for external technologies through a system placed within blood vessels. With human trials already underway, this system allows users to control smart devices and computers using their thoughts. [9]

Synchron’s CEO, Tom Oxley, stated in September 2023 that the integration of the system costs between $50,000 and $100,000. The company is also working to incorporate AI capabilities into its systems. [10]

The brain-computer interface is also one of Elon Musk’s areas of interest. Known for his futuristic plans like establishing a colony on Mars, Musk has become a key player in challenging markets like self-driving cars and satellite internet. In February 2021, Musk invited his followers to join Neuralink, his brain-computer interface company. According to Musk, the company is addressing brain/spinal injuries in the short term, with long-term goals of achieving “human/AI symbiosis.” [11]

Unlike Synchron, Neuralink’s system must be implanted directly into the brain. Founded in 2016, Neuralink aims to treat neurological conditions like paralysis and blindness and improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities through brain-implanted microchips. At the center of discussions on this topic, Neuralink announced in April 2024 that a paralyzed individual successfully played chess on a laptop using a chip implanted in their brain. [12]

With advancements in augmented humanity, we may witness the elimination of congenital or acquired physical disabilities through new technologies. However, attributing such outcomes solely to technological progress would be an incomplete evaluation, given that today’s global system has failed—or refused—to provide even basic necessities like food and clean water to all of humanity. Achieving such results fundamentally requires humanity to adhere to moral and ethical values.

Even assuming all societies have access to augmented humanity technologies, critical uncertainties remain:

• To what extent will humanity be enhanced, and how blurred will the line between natural and artificial become during this process?
• Could humanity manage the risk of hacking the human body in an era where ensuring cybersecurity for network infrastructures remains a challenge? Is such a risk acceptable?
• What is the role of governments in storing and analyzing health data voluntarily provided by citizens?
• Will people with challenges like mobility issues, color blindness, and speech difficulties reach the average abilities of healthy/normal individuals or exceed them through AI and augmented humanity technologies?
• Does artificial always offer the best outcomes compared to natural/normal?
• In the absence of a justification like eliminating disabilities, is the arbitrary alteration of human anatomy a feasible, reasonable, or desirable outcome?

Having yet to internalize its role in nature after thousands of years, can humanity develop global ethical values for coexisting with algorithms?

As humanity embarks on this journey toward augmented humanity, it is essential to recognize that potential “superhumans” may not be limited to physical abilities. According to some experts, combining augmented reality with artificial intelligence could provide humanity with sensory superpowers. For instance, through wearable devices like smart glasses or smart lenses, we may gain access to analyses in areas such as detecting whether someone is lying, their emotional states, financial power indicators, and signs of addiction. [13]

Although the ethics of such capabilities are a separate debate, the growing prevalence of wearable devices with the quantified-self trend and advancements in computer vision suggest that at least some of these features could be made available to end users in the medium term.

However, this vision of the future raises profound questions:

• Can we address the risk of hacking the human body in a world where even network security is challenging?
• What role should governments play in safeguarding and analyzing health data voluntarily shared by citizens?
• Should individuals with physical disabilities be enhanced to reach average or beyond-average human abilities through augmented humanity technologies?
• Does artificial enhancement always provide superior outcomes compared to natural capabilities?
• In the absence of pressing needs like eliminating disabilities, can arbitrary modifications to human anatomy be deemed desirable or ethical?

Humanity’s ethical alignment with these advancements will determine whether it can navigate the blurred boundaries of nature, technology, and augmented existence effectively.

Source: İnsanlık, Doğa ve Yapay Zeka (savunmatr.com)

We are witnessing that advancements in critical technologies are often associated with concepts such as national security and national sovereignty, and even secondary status can become synonymous with defeat. The complex conditions of the 21st century have rendered traditional explanations inadequate.

Under the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent chip crisis, imbalances in supply and demand have emerged across many sectors, with telecommunications being particularly affected, and costs have significantly risen. This ongoing situation has clearly demonstrated that some global companies, which are claimed to be managed according to universal governance principles, have preferred to focus on the interests of their home countries and/or selected regions during crises.

Under the war conditions between Russia and Ukraine, the sanctions and restrictions imposed by the US and EU countries on Russia are not limited to traditional rivals. Today, Russia also has to contend with indirect restrictions from its “ally” China. Although the Russia-Ukraine War developed as a result of Russia’s aggressive policies, the direct and indirect restrictions faced by Russia are related not to Russia’s war crimes but to the creation of “suitable” conditions to pressure Russia in the global balance of power.

Under these challenging competitive conditions, while the importance of domestic production and design might be considered a “well-known” reality, we need to ensure that this well-known reality is being closely followed in both discourse and action, especially in critical sectors.

The significant success of the Turkish Defense Industry, which cannot be ignored even by institutions that have made publishing anti-Turkey news a principle, stands out as one of Turkey’s strongest steps in the face of this well-known reality.

The progress made by the Turkish Defense Industry offers valuable opportunities for the widespread adoption of high-quality production disciplines in Turkey. The defense industry, as evidenced by many different examples, holds potential as a supportive and complementary force, particularly for sectors such as telecommunications and cybersecurity. Therefore, failing to reflect the successes achieved in the Turkish Defense Industry in other sectors would represent a significant loss for Turkey.

We should take pride in the contributions of our national military capabilities to our strong military operations, as well as their pioneering role in changing the course of history in critical regions like Azerbaijan, Libya, and Syria, and continue to advance this power further. At the same time, we must question why this power is not felt at a similar level in sectors such as telecommunications, which form the foundation of our age.

With a population exceeding 80 million, Turkey has a domestic market capable of enabling the development of its own products. However, we are not sufficiently benefiting from the price advantages promised by economies of scale in the telecommunications sector. Achieving certain price levels by domestic producers requires sufficient demand and, consequently, reaching production levels.

Except for actors who use the concepts of domesticity and nationalism as marketing tools while trying to increase their commercial activities without a genuine effort to create value, it must be stated without any doubt that our telecommunications sector is ready for competition. For global companies expected to internalize the requirements of competitive conditions through their activities in different countries, making this statement is quite challenging.

In line with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s famous saying, “The world is bigger than five,” examining our telecommunications sector will be sufficient to summarize the current conditions in the industry.

Generally speaking, on a global scale, telecommunications infrastructures are dominated by five companies. As observed in various cases, these monopolistic companies focus not on connecting with their customers but on making their customers dependent on them, fully exploiting their monopolistic power. They may even lower their pricing below cost conditions to drive out competitors they perceive as threats to their monopoly.

Monopolies that place great importance on establishing strong relationships with operators have been reluctant to take necessary actions on the ground while dealing with Turkey’s largest disaster in history.

Under these conditions, expecting that the supply of products from global monopolies will become more difficult in order to create the necessary demand conditions for domestic capabilities will only make it harder for Turkey to maintain its digital sovereignty.

The capabilities of Turkish engineering, which has long met military communication requirements largely with domestic capabilities, must also address the needs of the telecommunications sector as a fundamental necessity.

In this process, we must also understand and be a part of the trends related to open-source-based design and production activities, which are gaining strength in the global telecommunications sector day by day in the face of monopolies.

The telecommunications sector is bigger than five.

Source: Telekomünikasyon Sektörü Beşten Büyüktür (savunmatr.com)

Artificial intelligence technologies, while frequently discussed, have evolved beyond merely representing a technology; they have introduced a new dimension, scale, and a distinctly “new direction” different from previous methods. Amid the countless necessary and unnecessary debates ongoing in this field, we must not neglect to advance and refine our own methods. Such neglect will lead to irreversible consequences for both companies and societies. Despite being in its nascent stage, the measurable market for artificial intelligence tells us a lot. In my personal prediction, the developments in the coming years will surpass all research forecasts and expectations. However, it is also crucial to eliminate works that lack depth, offer no new contributions, and are merely labels. Now, let us revisit our journey from the beginning to the present around significant figures and confront the reality we face. Because we are facing a new reality without “ifs,” “buts,” or “howevers”—artificial intelligence has the power to transform the entire system, sectors, and culture we have built so far.

In these times when confronting the reality of artificial intelligence technology has become essential to staying in the game, one of the fastest ways to face this technology is by confronting the size of the market.

Image 1:

Source: https://marketresearch.biz/report/artificial-intelligence-market/

According to a study published in March 2023, the global artificial intelligence market, which was valued at $111.7 billion in 2022, is projected to reach $2,371.5 billion by 2032.\

Image 2:

Source : https://market.us/report/artificial-intelligence-market/

According to a study published in January 2024, the global artificial intelligence market is expected to grow from $129 billion in 2022 to $2,745 billion by 2032.

Image 3:

Source: https://www.precedenceresearch.com/artificial-intelligence-market

According to another study published in October 2023, the global artificial intelligence market was valued at $454.12 billion in 2022 and is projected to reach $2,575.16 billion by 2032. According to this study, in 2022, 23.38% of the revenue in the global AI market came from hardware, 36.98% from software, and 39.64% from services.

Image 4:

Source: https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS50454123#:~:text=Worldwide%20Spending%20on%20AI%2DCentric,in%202023%2C%20According%20to%20IDC

According to a study published by IDC, the sectors expected to make the most artificial intelligence investments in 2023 are banking, retail, and professional services. The study indicates that global spending on AI-centric systems was $154 billion in 2023, and this figure is projected to exceed $300 billion by 2026.

Image 5:

Source: https://www.precedenceresearch.com/artificial-intelligence-market

Studies examining the potential impact areas of artificial intelligence seem to enumerate all sectors contributing value to the global economy from A to Z in a single breath. As noted in Visual 5, when evaluated in terms of revenues from end users, sectors such as healthcare, finance, media, advertising, retail, automotive, transportation, and manufacturing emerge as prominent in this process.

While data on the development of the AI market is quite clear, AI technology is a highly advanced field requiring significant know-how and high costs.

Even for small models, GPU costs range from $700 to $1,500. Larger models like GPT-2 require multiple high-end GPUs and other hardware like AI accelerators. The unit cost of GPUs suitable for this level ranges between $10,000 and $20,000. [1]

Compared to GPUs, FPGAs offer lower costs but come with more challenging programming requirements. Basic FPGAs can be accessed at around $5, but advanced FPGAs needed for high-level applications can exceed $10,000. [2]

In addition to high hardware costs, AI users who prefer to use their own hardware also incur annual electricity and maintenance costs of approximately $2,000 to $5,000. [3]

According to a publicly released study, the server infrastructure and operational costs in the “Generative AI Data Center” field are projected to exceed $76 billion by 2028. [4]

The total cost of AI technology includes various parameters such as hardware and infrastructure costs, as well as high employee, data collection, and storage costs.

Even for technologies that can be developed at relatively low costs, maintaining continuous R&D investments and progressing with great discipline has proven to be a significant challenge. In the realm of AI technology, this challenge reaches a much more complex dimension.

Discussing the importance of AI technology in terms of economic and technological capabilities may seem like repeating what is already known, but the substantial investments required by the technology can obscure this known fact or cause it to be perceived solely through the lens of technology giants. The biggest mistake in this process begins precisely at this point.

It is clear that conducting R&D investments in AI technology requires enormous resources. However, viewing the contributions of technology giants with strong financial resources and years of data collection efforts as the only possible centers of the AI ecosystem is an extremely myopic stance. If we only focus on news such as Google’s DeepMind AlphaGo system requiring 1,920 CPUs and 280 GPUs or OpenAI accessing billions of dollars in funding, we risk merely admiring the size of technology giants rather than understanding the broader picture. [5]

While the management issues of these billion-dollar organizations or the costs of making their seemingly boundless big data meaningful can be examined, if the goal is to build a strategy for success in the target sector, reducing success to the challenges faced by major competitors would reflect an insecure and misleading perspective.

Firstly, it should be recognized that leveraging AI algorithms does not require having data power equivalent to a global search engine or a service provider shaping the e-retail sector. Even relatively limited data, collected or produced around a specific purpose, can be sufficient for many vertical product developments. This reality should guide actions in this field.

Those who embrace this reality and escape the “we’re already going to lose” mindset face a real challenge: computing power. For innovative researchers who need similar capabilities to their counterparts generating value for global players with six-figure salaries, the fundamental issue is the requirement for computing power. Expecting researchers to secure or organize funding for this resource will not enable sustainable development.

Opening up the computing power required for AI based on a cloud-based shared resources approach will facilitate effective resource management according to the “shared resources” principle. This process will enhance the accessibility of AI technology by spreading technological development more broadly.

For this process to deliver the promised value, it requires comprehensive planning focused on using infrastructure as efficiently as possible. Without this, thousands of dollars’ worth of infrastructure will merely serve as “technology centers” that become exhibition and foyer areas, and regional elites will continue to form new ones.

Unless we can facilitate the correct alignment of resources with the right actors, we will remain bound to marveling at the impressive economic outputs of the AI market, admiring the successes of technology giants and other global elites, and being users of technologies shaped by the ethical values of these global elites.

The profound difference between the existence and absence of AI technology demands urgent and planned efforts aligned with this new reality. We will observe the deep divide between winners and followers within a few years. Which group we belong to will be determined by what we do in this regard.

Source: Ölçekleri Değiştiren Yeni: Yapay Zeka – SavunmaTR

The Importance of Enhanced Human Capabilities in Military Contexts

Superior capabilities of military personnel have always been a primary source for achieving set objectives. Under the harsh conditions of battlefields and border areas, soldiers need to possess not only physical capabilities such as high endurance, strength, and speed but also social skills like leadership, teamwork, and crisis management. Maintaining psychological resilience is also a fundamental condition in this process.

According to a Washington Post article from April 1988, which was further accessed by the CIA in 2000, the U.S. Army’s interest in endorphins, meditation, paranormal phenomena, and other extraordinary performance enhancement methods is not new. The Army has conducted various tests on extrasensory perception (ESP). The publication also indicated concerns within military and intelligence circles about the Soviet Union’s progress in developing psychic abilities. It was noted that “the Russians could influence others’ behavior, alter emotions or health, and incapacitate or kill people through mental telepathy.” Moreover, some Western researchers in the field of psychic phenomena were concerned about the potential harmful effects of subliminal perception techniques (subliminal messages, television signals, or telepathic methods) on U.S. or allied personnel in nuclear facilities. [1]

While the potential activities of security forces in the psychic realm are a separate area of research, the parallels with contemporary contexts are quite intriguing:

1. Security forces need to acquire new capabilities to gain superiority.
2. Activities of rival elements in areas considered to have critical impacts may require manipulative expressions to address concerning levels of threat.

Today, artificial intelligence determines security strategies under entirely similar conditions. Of course, this process, as seen in past examples, involves many conscious and unconscious variables.

U.S. military official Troy Denomy, speaking at SXSW 2024, mentioned that early on, leaders in the army would say, “Hey Troy, I want AI… do AI things for me.” Denomy emphasized that significant learning had occurred in the army regarding this, stating, “AI is not a cure-all; it is a tool.” [2]

Without clear determination of its purpose and fundamental priorities, AI cannot go beyond being just a new expenditure item. To operate based on this principle, it is crucial to accurately interpret the transformation and assess the power and scope of potential impacts.

The Role of Augmented Humanity in Modern Warfare

As the battlefield becomes increasingly unmanned, the human element remains a crucial factor in the complex and dynamic environment of war and peace. Artificial intelligence, which accelerates the unmanning of the battlefield with its capabilities in military assets like air defense platforms and unmanned land-air-sea systems, also enhances human capabilities.

This is where “augmented humanity” comes into play. According to a May 2021 report titled “Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm” published by the UK Ministry of Defence, it is a paradox that the human at the heart of warfare is often the weakest link. Regardless of their role (drone pilot, infantry, cybersecurity specialist, etc.), security forces are expected to be more powerful, faster, smarter, more resilient, and mobile to overcome enemies and their environment. The Ministry emphasizes that they are designing technologies that “increase lethality, survivability, and mobility.” According to the Ministry, as technology has become more sophisticated, scientists have focused more on machines than on humans, but this trend is beginning to change. [3]

How Can Augmented Human Soldiers Differentiate Themselves?

Physical Performance

• Increased strength, speed, and endurance
• Enhanced sensory functions and range

Psychological Performance

• Improved attention, alertness, and memory
• Enhanced perception and situational awareness
• Better decision-making
• More effective learning

Social Performance

• Improved communication
• Better group cohesion – stronger units

Health and Combat Readiness

• Enhanced health and well-being
• Faster recovery from injuries and wounds
• Improved resilience and determination [4]

According to Joel Mozer, Director of Science, Technology, and Research at the U.S. Space Force, who spoke in July 2021, Western civilization transitioned from an industrial-based society to an information-based society over the past century. Today, however, we are on the brink of the “human augmentation” era. To avoid falling behind strategic competitors, the U.S. must embrace this new era in its national defense activities. According to Mozer, technology can create “superhuman” abilities through the combination of human intelligence with machine efficiency, power, and speed. In the coming decade, we will reach new levels of human-machine collaboration and witness unprecedented new capabilities that were previously unimaginable. [5]

In December 2020, then-French Defense Minister Florence Parly emphasized that humanity has long sought ways to enhance physical or cognitive abilities to better cope with warfare. Parly noted that potential advancements might lead to the incorporation of capacity-enhancing features into soldiers’ bodies. [6]

According to a February 2021 report, France addresses the concept of “augmented soldiers” within the framework of ethical values and rejects technologies that could lead to changes in human genetics. However, the report also notes that this does not mean there is no interest in augmented soldiers. France is focusing on “Iron Man”-type augmented soldiers rather than “Spiderman”-type augmented soldiers. [7]

Considering the fictional developments in the Marvel universe, it can be said that the French are aiming to equip their soldiers with advanced capabilities similar to Iron Man, who has enhanced features through AI-supported armor, rather than Spiderman, whose genetics are altered by being bitten by a radioactive spider.

According to a report published by the U.S. Army in 2019, U.S. Department of Defense personnel should conduct a global assessment of societal awareness and perceptions regarding human/machine enhancement technologies. The report indicates that technologies viewed with ethical concerns by Americans might be more easily adopted by adversaries. However, it also notes that the attitudes of “enemies” toward these technologies have never been confirmed. Furthermore, societal concerns emerging after the introduction of new technologies could create unexpected political obstacles, potentially slowing the local adoption process regardless of its value or realistic risk. Evaluating global attitudes will help predict areas where socio-political barriers may make the adoption of new technologies difficult and where adversarial technologies might be more readily accepted. [8]

In the journey towards augmented humans, a global approach will determine the direction of technology. According to the report, the U.S. Department of Defense should invest in developing dynamic legal, security, and ethical frameworks to govern these technologies. Given the rapid development of these technologies in the U.S. and other countries (“allies and adversaries”), the frameworks are currently inadequate. Therefore, the Department should support forward-looking policies (both domestic and foreign) that maximize the defined benefits for the U.S. and its allies while maintaining security, protecting individual privacy, and managing personal and institutional risks. These frameworks should be structured to respond quickly and effectively to new technologies developed within or outside the U.S. [9]

Thus, ethics is one of the most powerful elements that can guide the development of technology beyond reputation, trust, and adherence to fundamental principles. In this regard, ethics has a significant impact on technology-related factors, such as investing in fundamental technologies, directing the private sector towards specific goals, detecting adversary doctrines, and ensuring the compatibility of potential augmented soldiers with allied doctrines. [10]

According to information released to the public at various times, the U.S. is interested in wearable exoskeleton systems to achieve objectives such as protecting soldiers’ safety, reducing physical injury risks, decreasing fatigue, and enhancing strength. For example, according to a 2018 article published by Lockheed Martin, the company secured $6.9 million in funding from the U.S. Army to develop an AI-supported exoskeleton system.

DARPA aims to develop high-performance, bidirectional brain-computer interfaces. It is considered that this could enable various national security applications, such as controlling unmanned aerial vehicles, active cyber defense systems, or successfully multitasking during complex military operations through collaboration with computer systems. According to DARPA, the system will be non-invasive and portable by humans. [11]

According to information released in 2020, DARPA is working on making soldiers resilient to common health issues such as limited access to safe food and water, and sleep disorders. DARPA aims to address this need through devices implanted under the skin or ingested and retained in the intestines. [12]

Another program run by DARPA focuses on addressing issues such as opioid overdose (dangerous levels of opioid medications used as painkillers or narcotics), organophosphate poisoning (poisoning resulting from exposure to organophosphate chemicals like those in pesticides), exposure to gamma rays, and influenza infections. The program aims to develop countermeasures without making permanent changes to the genome. However, unofficial evaluations suggest that, while theoretically possible, permanent modifications could offer soldiers new features beyond current scientific knowledge, such as expanding auditory range or providing night vision by adding genes from animals. [13]

The U.S. government’s high expectations for technological contributions cause similar “concern” among competitors regarding their activities in the field.

In 2020, then U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe stated that the Chinese government intended to achieve dominance over the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily, and technologically. According to information from U.S. intelligence, Ratcliffe reported that China was conducting human tests on soldiers with the goal of developing biologically advanced capabilities. [14]

In an analysis published in 2023 by the Mad Scientist Laboratory, a community supported by the U.S. Army, it was claimed that China’s Civil-Military Fusion national strategy includes gene editing efforts aimed at creating specific traits in Chinese soldiers, such as reptilian night vision or high intelligence. [15]

The technological competition between the U.S. and China can result in U.S. authorities attaching greater significance to Chinese activities. However, it is noteworthy that scientist He Jiankui, who was tried for “illegal use of medicine” for altering the genes of twin babies, received only a 3-year prison sentence and a 3 million yuan (approximately $430,000) fine. [16] In 2024, He Jiankui stated that he takes “pride” in his intervention that led to his arrest. He Jiankui claimed that the twins, who he says are immune to HIV, had no medical changes made to their genes other than for the intended purpose. [17]

Advancements in artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, and biology are blurring the line between the normal and the artificial, disrupting the “normal perception” of what is considered natural.

In a 2019 assessment, Qi Jianguo, former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of China, noted that in the mechanical warfare era, “air superiority,” “naval superiority,” and “electromagnetic dominance” dominated the battlefield, while in the information age, “information dominance,” “brain dominance,” and “intelligence dominance” would prevail. According to Qi Jianguo, it is crucial to avoid thinking that artificial intelligence can “do everything,” remain strategically vigilant, and approach military applications of AI from a scientific perspective. Scientifically, it is necessary to better address what AI can do at different stages of its development, how extensively it can perform tasks, and what can be achieved in areas requiring deep integration between human and artificial intelligence. [18]

According to open-source information, the National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) affiliated with the Chinese military has been working on brain-computer interfaces for over twenty years. According to Hu Dewen, who leads the program: “The combination of high functionality in machines with high intelligence in humans is an important application area for achieving high system performance.” Similarly, research on controlling drones and robots through brain interfaces is being conducted at the Information Engineering University, also affiliated with the Chinese military. [19]

According to a report from PLA Daily (a Chinese military press agency), Chinese sources have stated that “war has shifted from the pursuit of destroying bodies to paralyzing and controlling the opponent.” As such, the brain has become a primary target in new weapon concepts for both attack and defense. This includes potential capabilities such as “brain control weapons.” [20]

China’s approach to augmented humanity in ethical terms may differ from the Western approach. Under current conditions of free thought, the West has to contend more intensively with negative perceptions and societal pressures influenced by dystopian narratives in the art world. However, China is not a technology development region isolated from regulations. For instance, in February 2024, China published guidelines outlining ethical principles for brain-computer interfaces. According to the guidelines, participants in brain-computer interface research should have their rights to information and personal dignity respected, their decision-making autonomy maintained, and the highest possible degree of integrity in the brain’s structure, functional, and mental consciousness preserved. Research on brain-computer interfaces should fully evaluate risks and benefits, and studies involving neural development in children and adolescents should adopt stricter ethical assessments, scrutiny, and risk prevention measures. [21]

In an era where technology increasingly resembles science fiction realities, understanding potential changes in military capabilities and perspectives on this issue is crucial for survival. However, it is important to recognize that current motivations, whether aimed at enhancing soldiers’ performance through different diets as in the 5th century BCE or through psychic abilities under limited technological capabilities in the 20th century, are not fundamentally different.

Even if groundbreaking advancements in the capabilities mentioned above were achieved, soldiers would not be rid of fear for the first time in history. Military units desensitized to fear through various stimuli have repeatedly appeared on the battlefield throughout history.

Moreover, an important consideration is not to perceive contemporary technologies as miraculous entities that solve all military and civilian problems or always provide the best response, despite the potentially surprising results. Assigning meanings to technology beyond its current and potential capabilities could fundamentally create a technology bubble contrary to the intended goals.

To define our expectations of technology and achieve results in this regard, we must first accurately identify our problems. This principle also applies to new and striking military realities, such as augmented human soldiers.

Source: Harekat Kodu: Artırılmış İnsan Askerler – SavunmaTR

In modern combat environments, the new realities faced necessitate that the defense industry continually develops innovative solutions. We are witnessing an increasing centrality of data-driven approaches in this transformation. The integration of technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, ELINT/SIGINT, and the Internet of Things (IoT) into military capabilities ensures more effective and accurate decision-making.

The global defense industry is positioning big data technologies as a primary component rather than a supplementary one in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data.

Military big data infrastructures supported by artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms enable the detection of threats and the generation of predictive insights for various attacks. This provides significant support for operational decision-making.

Autonomous systems primarily reduce the need for direct human intervention on the battlefield, which is the most valuable element of combat. On the other hand, they perform critical tasks such as target detection, analysis, and destruction with high performance and efficiency.

ELINT/SIGINT (electronic intelligence and signal intelligence) provides critical information by detecting the communication and radar signals of target elements. This offers a valuable advantage in predicting and countering the adversary’s movements and strategies in advance.

In this process, having a broader level of data scanning is critically dependent on the presence of equipment equipped with IoT sensors. IoT sensors, which form the foundation of real-time data collection capability, enhance situational awareness on the ground.

The use of data-driven instruments, which has become the new norm in warfare today, is at an unprecedented level. It has reached a point where, aside from the harsh realities of war, it is not an exaggeration to say that the world has transformed into a laboratory for testing and applying many methods previously unexperienced.

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, particularly the conditions that have developed since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, is a crucial example for understanding modern combat environments.

In this war, highly comprehensive solutions have been employed to access, integrate, and analyze all critical data. At this stage, technologies previously unused or only marginally used in warfare are now integral elements of this conflict.

Ukraine, which is at a disadvantage compared to Russia in terms of conventional military capabilities, is attempting to mitigate this disadvantage largely with next-generation products provided by Western companies. This paper examines the foundations and applications of data-driven warfare in the context of the Russia-Ukraine War.

Instruments of Data-Driven Warfare: Examples from the Russia-Ukraine War

Intelligence and Surveillance

1.a. Commercial Satellite Imagery and Analysis:

Ukraine has accessed high-resolution satellite images through partnerships with commercial satellite companies. According to open sources, companies like Maxar Technologies and Planet Labs have provided Ukraine with real-time satellite data, enabling the military to monitor troop movements and perform target detection. The images obtained from this data have played a critical role in identifying the locations of Russian troops around Kyiv.

Figure 1: Military Convoy in Kyiv Captured via Maxar on February 28, 2022

Source: “New Documentary on Ukraine Underscores the Importance of Maxar’s Commercial Satellite Imagery and Capabilities”, https://blog.maxar.com/earth-intelligence/2023/new-documentary-on-ukraine-underscores-the-importance-of-maxars-commercial-satellite-imagery-and-capabilities (Erişim Tarihi: 20.06.2024).

(1.b.) AI-Powered Image Analysis:

It is reported that Ukraine, utilizing AI-based image analysis systems from companies such as Orbital Insight and Descartes Labs, has been able to analyze satellite data quickly and efficiently. It is not difficult to infer that these systems have been used for the automatic detection and classification of potential targets. These technologies are said to have played a significant role in distinguishing between civilian and military targets during the conflicts in Mariupol, Ukraine.

Image 2: This image, showing human movement in Kyiv on February 23, 2023, was created through Orbital Insight.

Source: “Satellite Images Reveal how Russia’s Ukraine Invasion Unfolded”, https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Ukraine-war/Satellite-images-reveal-how-Russia-s-Ukraine-invasion-unfolded (Accessed at: 20.06.2024).

ELINT and SIGINT Systems

Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) and Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) systems are essential for Ukraine’s monitoring of Russian military communications and radar signals. Systems such as the AN/ALQ-217 Electronic Support Measurement (ESM) system developed by Lockheed Martin and the AN/ALR-69A Radar Warning Receiver by Raytheon have been used to detect enemy communications and radar signals, providing Ukraine with strategic advantages. Some leaked reports suggest that these technologies have been employed to identify and neutralize Russia’s radar and communication systems.

(2.a.) AN/ALQ-217 Electronic Support Measurement (ESM) System:

The AN/ALQ-217, developed by Lockheed Martin, is a system that passively detects radar signals. It is used to identify the locations and operating modes of radar signals across a wide frequency range. By using this system, Ukraine has been able to detect the locations and characteristics of Russia’s air defense radars, allowing it to develop appropriate countermeasures to neutralize these radar systems. The AN/ALQ-217 is reported to have played a critical role in Ukraine’s air operations and the secure operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

(2.b.) AN/ALR-69A Radar Warning Receiver:

The AN/ALR-69A, developed by Raytheon, is an advanced radar warning receiver system. This system detects radar signals from adversary elements, providing pilots with warnings and quickly identifying radar-based threats.

It is claimed that Ukraine has used this system to analyze signals emitted by Russian radars and target these radars to gain operational advantages. The system is reported to have made significant contributions to reducing the effectiveness of air defense elements and maintaining air superiority.

(2.c.) Crypto Decoders and Radio Listening Systems:

Ukraine is known to have used crypto decoders and advanced radio listening devices to enhance its ELINT and SIGINT capabilities. These systems are employed to decrypt encrypted Russian military communications and obtain critical intelligence information. For example, Harris Corporation’s RF-300 series radio receivers are believed to have been used to monitor and analyze a wide frequency spectrum of Russian communications. This allows Ukraine to obtain valuable information to shape its military strategies.

(2.d.) Ground-Based Listening Stations:

Ukraine has established ground-based listening stations in strategic areas to monitor Russian military movements. These stations are used to scan a wide frequency spectrum to detect enemy communications and electronic signals. Based on this information, Ukraine is able to provide real-time intelligence to its forces in the field, enhancing operational effectiveness. For instance, listening stations set up near Kyiv have monitored Russian military communications to detect some attack plans in advance, allowing for countermeasures to be taken accordingly.

(2.e.) HARM Missiles and Electronic Warfare (EW) Aircraft:

Ukraine utilizes U.S.-made AGM-88 HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile) missiles to target and neutralize Russian radar systems. These missiles are designed to seek out and destroy radar signals from enemy systems.

Figure 3. An Image of an AGM-88 HARM in the Region

Ukraine’s Field Capabilities

Ukraine’s field capabilities also include electronic warfare aircraft equipped with powerful electronic jamming systems designed to neutralize adversary radar and communication systems. In this context, Ukraine has conducted operations to disrupt Russian communication and radar systems using electronic warfare aircraft (e.g., EA-18G Growler).

Social Media and Open Source Intelligence (OSINT)

(3.a.) Social Media Monitoring:

Leveraging Western technologies, Ukraine has utilized data collected from social media platforms to monitor Russian military movements and assess public morale. According to publicly available information, Ukraine employs social media analysis tools such as Hootsuite and Sprout Social to analyze public sentiment and information flow.

Given Russia’s extensive use of disinformation campaigns throughout the conflict, the use of such tools has proven to be a highly strategic approach.

(3.b.) Crowdsourced Intelligence:

Ukraine has widely employed crowdsourcing methods to gather information and imagery from the public. Platforms like Ushahidi have been reported to facilitate the rapid collection of information about frontline events and enemy movements.

This example further demonstrates that the use of mobile phone images and location data shared by the public to determine enemy positions has become an indispensable practice in both symmetric and asymmetric warfare.

Autonomous and Semi-Autonomous Platforms

(4.a.) Bayraktar TB2 Drones:

Ukraine has gained significant advantages on the battlefield by utilizing Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones. Equipped with artificial intelligence-based target recognition and attack capabilities, these Turkish drones have become a key asset for conducting effective operations through real-time data analysis. Consequently, the effectiveness of Turkish drones in attacks on Russian convoys near Kyiv has drawn international attention.

Figure 4: Bayraktar TB2 Drones in Ukraine

(4.b.) Semi-Autonomous Ground Vehicles:

Ukraine has also employed semi-autonomous ground vehicles on the battlefield. Publicly available information indicates that vehicles like Robo-Team’s Probot and Milrem Robotics’ THeMIS are remotely operated and use artificial intelligence algorithms to navigate obstacles and reach their targets. It is certain that these systems are used to reduce human casualties and enhance operational effectiveness.

Figure 5: Milrem Robotics’ UGVs Deployed in Ukraine

Source: “Ukrainian Forces are Taking Full Advantage of Their THeMIS UGVs”, 

https://milremrobotics.com/ukrainian-forces-are-taking-full-advantage-of-their-themis-ugvs/ (Accessed at: 20.06.2024).

Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Cybersecurity

Ukraine has utilized artificial intelligence (AI)-powered cybersecurity solutions to counter Russian cyberattacks. Systems such as Darktrace and CrowdStrike are reported to analyze network traffic to detect anomalous activities and take swift action against attacks. The reports also note the adoption of proactive cybersecurity strategies. Additionally, AI and machine learning-based systems like Cylance and FireEye are said to predict potential cyber threats and implement preventive measures.

According to current information, these systems are highly effective in preventing attacks on critical infrastructure.

Humanitarian Aid and Logistics Management

(6.a.) Logistics Optimization Through Data Analytics:

Publicly available information indicates that Ukraine leverages big data analytics to optimize the distribution of humanitarian aid. Although specific details about the effectiveness and scope of these operations are not available, reports suggest that data analytics companies like Palantir are ensuring that aid materials reach those in need in the fastest and most efficient manner.

(6.b.) Real-Time Monitoring:

In Ukraine, logistics convoys and aid materials are known to be equipped with IoT sensors and GPS tracking systems. Technologies such as Samsara and Geotab are reported to provide real-time tracking of materials and ensure the safe execution of logistics operations.

Drones and Anti-Drone Technologies

(7.a.) Anti-Drone Systems:

Ukraine widely employs advanced anti-drone technologies to neutralize Russian drones. Additionally, it should be noted that Ukraine is also testing emerging, not yet standardized drone and anti-drone technologies that are still in development.

Figure 6: An Anti-Drone System Used by Ukraine

Source: “As Ukraine Braces for Winter Drone Attacks, Allies Rush to Provide Defenses”, 

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/11/ukraine-braces-winter-drone-attacks-allies-rush-provide-defenses/391740/ (Accessed at: 20.06.2024).

DroneShield and Dedrone Electronic Warfare Systems:

Reports indicate that electronic warfare systems such as DroneShield and Dedrone, along with laser-based weapons, have been used to detect and neutralize Russian drones. These systems are said to be employed in protecting critical military and civilian infrastructure. However, it is important to note that assessing the true effectiveness and success of anti-drone systems at this stage is challenging.

(7.b.) Swarm Drones:

Swarm drones are frequently reported to be used for coordinated attacks and surveillance operations. Drones developed by companies such as Swarm Technologies and Anduril are said to operate effectively by communicating with each other through artificial intelligence algorithms. These drones are understood to be utilized for surveillance over large areas and for rapid response.

Conclusion

The war in Ukraine provides unique examples of how data-driven technologies and innovative strategies can be utilized on the battlefield. Practices in areas such as commercial satellite imagery, social media intelligence, autonomous systems, ELINT/SIGINT solutions, anti-drone applications, cybersecurity solutions, and humanitarian aid and logistics management are causing profound changes in the dynamics of modern warfare.

Given Ukraine’s new-generation military capabilities, criticisms suggesting that it has not achieved sufficient strength against Russia seem unjustified. The process has resulted in Ukraine, which was conventionally far behind Russia, transforming the war into a data-driven conflict and enhancing its resistance against Russia.

In the future, it is inevitable that these technologies and methods will be further developed to create even greater impacts both in global defense industries and operational doctrines.

It should be noted that if war is not inevitable, it is nothing more than a series of murders. A world without war has never existed in the past and remains a utopia in today’s reality. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly wish that enduring peace one day becomes seen and embraced as the “ideal of humanity.” However, I believe that it is unacceptable to be unprepared and wait like “sacrificial sheep” with empty romanticism like “no to war.”

Regardless of how the challenging dynamics of the Russia-Ukraine war conclude, the continuous war experiences occurring on Ukrainian soil offer valuable lessons for other countries and demonstrate that data-driven warfare will become a primary element rather than a supporting factor in the years to come.

Source: Veriye Dayalı Savaş Laboratuvarı: Rusya-Ukrayna Savaşından Öğrendiklerimiz – SavunmaTR

When investing in AI, expecting such investments to guarantee absolute returns would be a mistake. On the other hand, failing to analyze trends or not giving them the necessary attention just because they might be a bubble could mean losing the technology race right from the start.

From the 1990s to the 2010s, AI succeeded in providing valuable solutions in various application areas such as data mining, industrial robotics, logistics, business intelligence, banking software, medical diagnostics, recommendation systems, and search engines. However, the 1990s marked a period when AI did not hold a prestigious position in the business world. As a result, many AI researchers deliberately labeled their work with different names during that time. Terms like informatics, knowledge-based systems, cognitive systems, optimization algorithms, or computational intelligence were used instead.

The first decade of the 2000s was characterized by the widespread adoption of machine learning techniques, which can learn from data, make decisions, and make predictions. Machine learning was seen as a powerful field for analyzing data, finding patterns, developing insights, making predictions, and automating tasks at speeds and scales previously impossible.

On the other hand, machine learning was also used as a tool to disguise AI research, as AI was often perceived as too “extraordinary.”

As we moved into the 2010s, significant advancements were made in the field of machine learning, particularly in an area called deep learning. Thousands of AI startups in the global market became known for their work in deep learning. Deep learning gained prominence through its ability to classify and detect objects in search engines or generate natural responses in AI-powered speech assistants.

Machine learning may require human experts to establish a certain hierarchy to understand differences between data inputs and often relies on more structured datasets. Deep learning, however, eliminates some of the human intervention. While deep learning requires more data points to increase accuracy, machine learning relies on less data.

Machine learning algorithms are typically designed to make decisions based on specific rules or criteria, enabling interpretability. In contrast, the way deep learning algorithms operate can be a significant obstacle in scenarios where end-users or stakeholders need explanations for the decisions made by an algorithm. While deep learning can solve more complex problems, it may also require specialized hardware.

As technology advances daily, AI, despite achieving different usage areas and popular successes, continued to be perceived as a “strange” field by certain segments. Achievements such as DeepMind’s AlphaGo program defeating South Korean Go master Lee Sedol in 2016 managed to capture the attention of a broad audience. However, this process had an impact on only a few people who played with the AlphaGo program and a specific circle, without enabling the global society to establish direct contact with AI. Similarly, AI-powered applications used by different industries during that period managed to attract the interest of only those with specific expertise.

With the advent of the 2020s, the widespread adoption of generative AI, which can create new content such as videos, images, code, text, animations, 3D models, etc., has led to a shift in interest towards AI.

Founded in December 2015, OpenAI had already made significant contributions in the field of generative AI before ChatGPT. However, the process following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 established OpenAI and ChatGPT as the flagship of generative AI. The fact that ChatGPT, a generative AI-powered chatbot, reached 1 million users within five days in 2022 represents a critical turning point in the development of this process.

The primary reason behind the intense interest in ChatGPT is its ability to be used for various individual and professional purposes, such as revising existing articles in terms of grammar and tone, conducting quick research on a specific topic, summarizing reports, translating texts into different languages, writing code, and creating social media content plans.

What sets ChatGPT apart from its competitors is the breadth of its use cases and the suitability of its outputs, which surpass those of other examples. While ChatGPT may not always generate the most accurate and appropriate outputs, it often serves as a resource that guides users and facilitates their processes. The availability of ChatGPT’s web application for free or for a limited fee and its strong initial step in the industry are other reasons for the intense interest.

It is clear that ChatGPT has confronted the global society with the reality of AI, even those who have been reluctant to acknowledge AI’s existence and viewed it as the latest technology bubble.

Today, we use capabilities that once seemed “strange” and “fictional” to many in a completely ordinary way. Just 3-4 years ago, having AI write a text was presented with “scary” headlines in the media. Now, ChatGPT and its competitors are being used by nearly every segment of society, including small children who need help with their homework. Although OpenAI CEO Sam Altman emphasized a certain improvement, he described GPT-2, GPT-3, and GPT-4 as “bad,” stating that GPT-5 would not be too bad. Therefore, users will likely encounter a more advanced AI in the future.

While OpenAI’s success is quite impressive, I believe that focusing solely on idolizing the leader in any matter narrows the perspective. As with all other technologies, we have not yet taken the necessary steps to address the risks posed by technology in this early stage of generative AI. There is no general consensus on what exactly these risks entail. However, as always, regulations and other discussions lag behind technology. At this point, focusing on the risks of monopolization in the field of generative AI and alternative efforts will broaden our perspective on the subject.

Firstly, the success of ChatGPT is closely related to its advanced AI capabilities as well as its access to large datasets and computing power. According to an analysis published in February 2023, ChatGPT’s computing power (hardware) cost is approximately $694,444 per day. It requires around 3,617 NVIDIA HGX A100 servers (28,926 GPUs). Accordingly, the cost per search is 0.36 cents.

The investment by tech giants in companies operating in the generative AI field, amounting to billions of dollars, is not limited to the example of OpenAI.

Anthropic, an AI company established in 2021 by Dario Amodei, former Vice President of Research at OpenAI, and his sister Daniela Amodei, who works on AI ethics, distinguishes itself from its competitors with the resources it has secured and its unique positioning. The company claims to focus on building reliable, interpretable, and steerable AI systems and has aimed to differentiate itself from rivals based on these principles since its inception.

Anthropic can be considered one of the strongest players in the generative AI sector alongside OpenAI. Alphabet (Google) has committed $2 billion, and Amazon has agreed to invest $4 billion in Anthropic. Both Alphabet and Amazon also support Anthropic with chips and cloud infrastructure. Dario Amodei, co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, has presented their simultaneous partnerships with both tech giants as a sign of “independence.” According to Amodei, this “independence” and “choice” set the company apart from other agreements.

In a statement made by Amazon in March 2024 following the investment decision, it was noted that the collaboration between Amazon and Anthropic to bring the most advanced generative AI technologies to customers worldwide was “still in its early stages.” Dr. Swami Sivasubramanian, Vice President of Data and AI at Amazon Web Services (AWS), emphasized that the two companies were helping organizations of all sizes globally integrate advanced generative AI applications into their operations.

Although Amazon has stated that Anthropic’s “primary cloud provider” is AWS, Anthropic has emphasized that the company adopts a “multi-cloud” approach. Not being tied to a single cloud provider helps spread risks. While labeling this approach as “independence” is a successful marketing strategy, it does not fully reflect the reality.

While Anthropic falls short of the $13 billion sourced by OpenAI from Microsoft, it still has access to a very strong resource base. However, Amodei has noted that while training models currently costs around $100 million, this is expected to rise to $100 billion in the future.

Anthropic’s Claude AI offers features that can compete with ChatGPT. Similar to ChatGPT, Claude AI can be accessed via the web and mobile platforms or as an API. While there is no significant pricing difference for the web and mobile-based technologies aimed at direct consumers, Anthropic offers a notable price advantage in the APIs designed for developers.

Generative AI-powered chatbots have the potential to influence every component of global society, from individual processes to private and public institutions operating in various sectors.

Naturally, this power significantly impacts the investment decisions of actors who can invest at the billion-dollar level. As concerns and investigations regarding monopolies become more prominent, the presentation of investments may also change.

In March 2024, Microsoft invested $650 million in Inflection AI. Following this investment, the majority of the company’s 70 employees, including its co-founders, began working within Microsoft. It was also decided that the company’s AI model (API) would be accessible via Microsoft’s cloud platform. With this decision, Inflection AI shifted its focus from general consumers to corporate clients and developers.

There are assessments suggesting that this process, presented by Microsoft as a “recruitment” rather than an “acquisition,” may have been formed to avoid intensifying federal antitrust investigations.

This type of investment is likely to attract significant attention, regardless of the sector or location where it occurs. Furthermore, Inflection AI’s development process adds to the importance of this decision.

Founded in 2022 by Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, and Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder of DeepMind, Inflection AI’s generative AI-powered chatbot Pi (“personal intelligence”) distinguishes itself from competitors with its high level of emotional intelligence. While ChatGPT often emphasizes that it is an “AI model,” Pi offers responses that come closer to human dialogue with natural language expressions. According to Inflection AI, Pi is designed to be a kind and supportive “companion,” offering friendly advice and concise information in a natural and fluent style during written and verbal communication.

In June 2023, Inflection AI managed to secure a $1.3 billion investment from Microsoft, NVIDIA, Reid Hoffman, Bill Gates, and Eric Schmidt. With the $225 million first-round investment obtained in 2022, the company has thus raised a total of $1.525 billion.

During this period, Inflection AI was valued at $4 billion, and Suleyman announced that the company had built “the world’s largest supercomputer.” This process, advanced with the support of CoreWeave and NVIDIA, was stated to involve the use of 22,000 NVIDIA H100 Tensor Core GPUs.

Just a few days before Microsoft’s March 2024 investment decision was announced, Mustafa Suleyman commented that Pi’s new version, Pi 2.5, had achieved results using only 40% of the training computation power of GPT-4. Suleyman emphasized that Pi 2.5 was on par with GPT-4 in many parameters. However, according to official information shared with the public at that time, while Inflection AI had 6 million monthly and 1 million daily active users, ChatGPT’s weekly active user count was at the level of 100 million.

At this point, while Mustafa Suleyman has started working as CEO of Microsoft AI, Inflection AI, under its new CEO Sean White, will focus on integrating its AI model, known for its emotional intelligence, into various business bots.

This chaotic landscape has led the U.S. government to direct its pressure toward tech giants through various investigations and statements.

In a June 2023 publication, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission stated that generative AI relies on certain inputs (data, talent, computing power). In this context, it emphasized that if specific companies or a company controls one or more of these key inputs, they could use their control to weaken or distort competition in generative AI markets. According to the Commission, if generative AI becomes an increasingly critical tool, those who control these key inputs could have significant influence over a large part of economic activities.

At this point, the Commission stated that while having large amounts of data is not “illegal,” many lawsuits have been filed alleging that companies’ data collection, storage, or usage policies and practices are unreasonable, unfair, or deceptive. On the other hand, according to the Commission, even with responsible data collection practices, companies controlling data can also create entry or expansion barriers that prevent fair competition from fully developing.

Given the current technical, economic, and lobbying power of tech giants, it is relatively easy for them to move from one monopolistic area to another. Indeed, this situation carries the risk of making monopolization an endless cycle. This risk has led to deep concerns (sometimes excessive) about tech giants.

While the relationships between U.S.-based tech giants and startups are considered risky even by the U.S. government, the perceived risks of this process can escalate significantly for other actors. This becomes even more evident given the potential outcomes of generative AI.

Microsoft, which has strengthened its position in the generative AI field with OpenAI, made a €15 million investment in February 2024 in Mistral AI, a French competitor to OpenAI. This investment is a relatively small amount compared to Microsoft’s size and its past investments in OpenAI. It also represents a small portion of the $544 million that Mistral AI has raised from a total of 22 investors. Nevertheless, Microsoft’s investment in a European competitor to OpenAI, regardless of the amount, is highly noteworthy.

Catherine Morin-Desailly, a member of the French Senate, commented on the matter by stating that the French government “should not boast” and “should stop waving around the term ‘digital sovereignty.’” According to her, “The government is completely lacking in coherence.” Kim van Sparrentak, a member of the European Parliament, also mentioned that Microsoft and Mistral AI had been lobbying during the negotiations for the EU’s AI Act. She stressed that the agreement should be evaluated not only from a monopolistic perspective but also from an ethical standpoint.

Brad Smith, Microsoft’s Vice President, commented on the investment, saying, “We see this as the emergence of a new sector of the economy; we call this the AI economy. (It) will create entirely new businesses and new categories of jobs.” According to Smith, the broad debate that regulators will eventually focus on is whether companies without data centers and cloud infrastructure, like those of Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, will have widespread access to the necessary infrastructure to train and develop AI models. Smith stated, “If this were not accessible, it would be a situation that restricts the development of the market. The important thing is that we are committed to making this accessible.”

According to Microsoft, its collaboration with Mistral AI focuses on three key areas:

1. Supercomputer Infrastructure: Microsoft will support Mistral AI with its Azure AI supercomputer infrastructure, providing “best-in-class performance and scale” for AI training and inference workloads for Mistral AI’s leading models.
2. Market Access: Microsoft will offer Mistral AI’s best models as Models as a Service (MaaS) to its customers via Azure AI Studio and Azure Machine Learning model catalog. Microsoft believes that this process will provide positive outcomes for Mistral AI in terms of promotion, sales, and distribution.
3. AI R&D: Microsoft and Mistral AI will collaborate on training purpose-built models for specific customers, including the European public sector.

While focusing on monopolies and their power, it is also essential to understand why startups may be inclined to collaborate with giants. In an interview given shortly after announcing the partnership with Microsoft, Arthur Mensch, co-founder and CEO of Mistral AI, highlighted several key points:

• Mistral AI is competitive with OpenAI or Google. “Agility is a strength.”
• Microsoft’s investment is a small part of Mistral AI’s total funding.
• More than 75% of Mistral AI is owned by Europeans. However, due to structural issues, European growth funds cannot provide sufficient investment for Mistral AI to achieve its goals.
• Mistral AI also utilizes different cloud providers in addition to Microsoft for computing power.
• The strategic partnership with Microsoft is an important first step in expanding distribution. Having Mistral AI’s models on Azure is expected to increase accessibility and reliability.

When asked how to avoid the dominance of tech giants, Mensch stated that the proximity between cloud providers and actors offering AI models should be examined. He emphasized that users should not be forced to use specific AI models. The importance of this issue becomes even more apparent when considering allegations that users were forced to choose a particular internet browser.

Mistral AI’s business model includes both open-source models, which offer free access expected to drive distribution and demand, and commercial models accessible for a fee. The company’s open-source models are primarily aimed at developers, but Mistral AI also targets general users. Le Chat, introduced by the company in February 2024, is similar in nature to ChatGPT, though it has a relatively higher error rate.

Therefore, Mistral AI’s business model positions collaboration with Microsoft and other tech giants as advantageous.

For government institutions and certain companies operating in critical areas, the question of who to collaborate with and under what conditions can be as important as the technological capabilities acquired.

This focus is particularly evident in the approach of Aleph Alpha, a Germany-based company active in the generative AI field.

With the emphasis on “Sovereignty in the AI Era,” Aleph Alpha defines its mission as empowering businesses and governments with the most advanced generative AI technology to gain a decisive advantage in the emerging AI economy.

Operating in the generative AI field with a focus on general consumers and competing with global giants while also emphasizing the principle of “sovereignty” is extremely challenging. At this point, Aleph Alpha focuses on “critical and complex processes” rather than B2C (direct-to-consumer), targeting sectors such as public services, healthcare, finance, law, and security. Companies and government institutions make up Aleph Alpha’s primary customer base.

Developing a product for direct consumers in the generative AI field requires competing in highly intense conditions. In addition to the standard-setting leadership of ChatGPT, various chatbot providers aim to attract direct consumer interest. Aleph Alpha’s CEO, Jonas Andrulis, has highlighted this intense competition, stating that there is nothing for them to gain in the B2C area. Accordingly, Andrulis emphasized that their strengths lie in “sovereignty” and “explainability,” but direct consumers are not interested in “data sovereignty” or “transparency.”

According to Andrulis, focusing on government institutions and companies has led them to establish their own data centers and work with “different partners” from the beginning.

Founded in 2019, Aleph Alpha has managed to raise more than $530 million in total investment. Of this, $500 million was secured in a funding round in November 2023 led by Germany-based Innovation Park Artificial Intelligence (Ipai), Bosch Ventures, and Schwarz Group. This funding round also included significant companies such as Germany-based SAP and U.S.-based Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE).

It is expected that the $500 million will be spent on category-defining research on foundational models, advanced product capabilities in business-critical environments, and commercialization activities with selected key partners.

According to Andrulis, with this investment, Aleph Alpha will:

• Continue expanding its services by providing customers with independence and flexibility in infrastructure, cloud compatibility, on-premise support, and hybrid deployments.
• Expand its interfaces and customization options tailored to business-critical needs.
• Remain the best option in strategic environments where sovereignty is at risk and for customers with significant responsibilities.

The investment and prior collaboration between Aleph Alpha, primarily funded by European companies, and the U.S.-based corporate IT solutions provider Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) is particularly noteworthy.

HPE has linked its investment in Aleph Alpha to specific qualities the company possesses. According to HPE, Aleph Alpha:

• Develops enterprise-grade capabilities to ensure Data Sovereignty, encompassing aspects such as data security, regulatory compliance, and the reliability of model outcomes.
• Holds a significant position in offering on-premise solutions to enterprise customers at a time when most competitors are focused on public cloud or solving consumer problems.
• The participation of major corporate companies like SAP and Schwarz Group, which are Aleph Alpha’s customers, in the funding round has provided a potential ecosystem advantage around Aleph Alpha.
• Plays a central role in EU AI regulations and participates in these regulations.

Aleph Alpha’s CEO, Jonas Andrulis, has stated that they do not want to build their technology entirely on a cloud provider or specialized accelerator chips. The LLM model family “Luminous” was created in Aleph Alpha’s own data center, purpose-built for this task. In this regard, Andrulis emphasized that the last thing they would want is to force those who do not want to be in the cloud into the cloud. This special data center, which includes various hardware and software from HPE and is owned by Aleph Alpha, is considered a crucial factor that differentiates the company from its competitors. Andrulis also underscored that they can perform their customers’ use cases in Aleph Alpha’s data centers without forcing them to send their data to the cloud or any third party.

Another outcome of the ongoing collaboration between HPE and Aleph Alpha has manifested in the context of cloud services. It is now possible to access Aleph Alpha’s models through HPE’s cloud service, GreenLake for Large Language Models, which enables corporate users to train, fine-tune, and deploy large-scale AI models.

According to HPE, this collaboration, which focuses on mutual benefits for both companies, goes beyond technical capabilities and commercial interests. The two companies also share a strong alignment in values and beliefs. HPE emphasizes the need to find solutions to operate generative AI technology in a reliable, sovereign, and sustainable manner.

So, where do we stand now?

We are in a new phase where generative AI can produce novel outcomes for humanity. While the outputs of generative AI are based on cumulative intelligence and the data sets created by humanity, it is crucial to consider who uses this cumulative intelligence to train AI models.

At the core, most generative AI chatbots, which are predominantly based in the U.S., perform best in English, posing a significant risk for other societies. This could exacerbate the digital divide. The digital divide, which refers to inequalities in access to technological devices, the internet, digital literacy, and technology skills, goes beyond differences in individual income and capabilities. For example, a native English speaker may achieve better performance from a chatbot, for which they pay the same access fee, compared to someone whose native language is Turkish, Bosnian, Albanian, or Arabic.

Generative AI, which is rapidly adopted for the efficiency and effectiveness it enables in all components of global society, is at the center of concerns about monopolies.

Understanding the risks posed by global technology giants that can invest billions of dollars, have access to diverse data sets, and can easily attract human resources, as well as the chaotic structure they create in the sector, is a prerequisite for offering alternatives.

On the other hand, exaggerating the risks and threats in this process can lead to the mistaken belief that AI researchers cannot generate value unless they have power similar to that of monopolies. Despite their vast resources, it is significant that technology monopolies are increasingly acquiring innovative technologies through investments in start-ups rather than their internal capabilities. However, it is a grave mistake for a company that has not yet achieved any sales success to compare itself to giants like OpenAI or smaller players that have managed to secure millions of dollars in investment.

By pulling back from engineering ambitions and focusing on market needs, gaps, and existing in-house capabilities, every player can generate value in any critical area, including generative AI, through specialization in vertical markets.

However, for small companies to succeed in this field, conditions and decisions are required, such as offering computing power at fair prices and ensuring that cloud-based service providers do not differentiate certain AI APIs from their competitors. Unless the commercial ecosystem in Germany that supports Aleph Alpha is replicated in different versions for other companies, the pace of development will remain limited.

It is unrealistic to expect actors who tend to fill their inventories with products offered only by monopolies, even in low-cost software and hardware, to make significant decisions in areas requiring strategic investments like generative AI.

Therefore, it is clear that alternative players who:

• Have the ability to generate value in a defined area,
• Understand the power of global technology giants,
• Can make fair agreements with these giants when necessary,
• And receive support from regulatory mechanisms in their country and from partners in various sectors globally, can offer significant value.

It should not be overlooked that AI is on the path toward artificial general intelligence (AGI), a capacity to perform any intellectual task that a human can accomplish.

Countries with various risks concerning technological sovereignty have a very short time to take the necessary steps to strengthen cloud infrastructure, provide resources to AI experts, and become part of the global ecosystem.

In the near future, the difference between lagging behind and not participating at all will become negligible.

Source: “Egemen” Olmayı Sürdürmek: Üretken Yapay Zeka – SavunmaTR

With artificial intelligence (AI) technology, humanity is facing a groundbreaking reality: machines mimicking human intelligence, learning from human experiences (data), and adapting to new situations.

While the potential outcomes of this transformation dazzle humanity, artificial intelligence has a history almost as long as that of computers.

In 1947, British mathematician Alan Turing, known as the father of AI, used the term “machine that can learn from experience” in a speech at the London Mathematical Society. By 1955, the term “artificial intelligence” appeared for the first time in the proposal letter for the 1956 Dartmouth Conference, which is considered the first AI conference.

Although the idea that every aspect of learning or any characteristic of intelligence could be perfectly defined and simulated by a machine dates back to the 1950s, what distinguishes today is the sheer volume and diversity of data.

In this context, even though artificial intelligence is an established term, it is woefully inadequate in expressing the content and scope of the current paradigm shift. The technology we are facing is not “artificial” intelligence created to counter organic intelligence. Instead, it is a cumulative and collective intelligence that brings together everything humanity has accumulated over the years, allowing us to build on it without needing to repeat what has already been done. AI is either the data and knowledge accumulated by many systems and sensors created by human hands and minds or a model derived from it.

This cumulative and collective intelligence cannot exist and evolve without human effort and experiences. For example, if we examine AI search engines, we will see that the answers they provide result from models built on billions of lines of files, documents, and studies accumulated by humanity.

A similar situation applies to AI models that make sense of the data collected through sensors integrated into different types of civilian and military vehicles, drones, and aircraft. After all, it is humans who determine which data will be collected, how, and for what purpose.

Populist questions such as “Will the human race come to an end in the AI era?” and “Will humanity become slaves to machines?” position AI algorithms as an entity that aims to seize absolute control and is willing to commit any evil to achieve that goal.

Throughout history, including modern history, humanity has faced genocide many times. Unfortunately, in today’s world, certain societal groups are ostracized and exterminated based on ethnic, religious, linguistic, and other cultural differences. Entire societies can be wiped off the map in the pursuit of valuable resources.

Given this reality, I would advise those who see algorithms developed by humans as a threat to confront their prejudices within their societies and themselves rather than targeting technology. After all, what will determine the consequences of AI technology is who writes the algorithms and for what purposes.

The only reason AI technology is subject to populist, speculative, and manipulative debates is not the “killer robot threat.”

AI technology can transform actors with data collection capabilities into new power centers, even challenging national governments. The data collection capabilities of tech giants provide these companies with a power domain that can also be used for intelligence purposes. The self-reinforcing cycle in which tech giants gain more data collection and processing capabilities in the AI era leads to these companies growing uncontrollably. As a result, countries like the US and China, which aim to maintain or achieve hegemonic status, demonize each other’s tech giants. Meanwhile, third parties like the EU attempt to ensure that technology aligns with their values through regulations and seek to limit the power that can be derived from their citizens’ data.

While AI technology offers significant power to the home countries of tech giants, it is clear that this power can also affect the authorities of those countries.

The situation of tech giants being “too big” due to their control over personal data, which shaped the initial debates, could reach a different level with industrial data. This reality can be seen in the words of EU Commissioner Thierry Breton in February 2020: “We realize that we lost the first wave (the AI wave), the first battle, which was the war for personal data… The ‘good news’ is that the EU understands that the next battle will be over industrial data.”

Today, AI has become the foundation of many technologies, thanks to the significant progress it has made in recent years. When analyzing the potential impact areas of AI, almost all sectors of global trade and many different technologies appear on these lists. Health, finance, education, security, agriculture, e-commerce, cybersecurity, and personalized services are just a few examples that can be quickly listed.

Just as yesterday we used terms that seem meaningless today, like computer-assisted education, computer-assisted architecture, and computer-assisted tomography, tomorrow we will not define any field as “AI-assisted.” Just as computer technology has become a horizontal foundation, AI is on the verge of becoming the technological foundation for all forms of productization.

Given this reality, within the next three to five years, using AI technology will no longer be a choice or advantage. Not using AI technology will be tantamount to waiting for death in a vegetative state. Therefore, today AI has become a prerequisite not for competing but for staying in the game.

While standing against any populist debate that seeks to diminish the importance of AI technology, we must not ignore that AI poses risks and threats, such as:

• Becoming a tool of oppression by violating personal privacy,
• Distorting reality through applications like deepfake,
• Creating destructive effects by empowering disinformation operations,
• And reducing efforts to produce organic knowledge.

The prerequisite for mitigating these risks is to become one of the players in the AI market.

First, AI technology may not be the source of another success story for engineers who emerged from their garages to become tech giants. After all, AI requires not only competent expertise but also vast datasets and significant computing power. This requirement is becoming the primary challenge for researchers and entrepreneurs in the AI field and is one of the main reasons why various global initiatives in AI are absorbed by tech giants due to the need for resources.

Today, “shared resources” applications are gaining popularity in various areas, such as vehicles, work environments, and equipment. Instead of designing a new office from scratch and bearing the general overhead costs, companies can rent shared workspaces for specific periods. Or, instead of purchasing expensive equipment that will only be used a few times, companies can acquire it through shared use, paying only for the time it is used.

Reflecting this approach, AI-based ‘as a service’ offerings are making computing power more accessible through cloud computing services. Opening the computing power needed for AI to cloud-based shared use could potentially remove this technological foundation from the exclusive control of elites (tech giants, hegemonic governments, and powerful organizations).

It is worth noting that ensuring that AI data centers, which can only be established through high costs and intensive import activities, operate at full capacity or close to it throughout their operational lives is also a condition for the efficient use of national resources.

The widespread adoption of AI-based ‘as a service’ offerings, with their accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and scalability, is critical for allowing experts from different layers to contribute to technology. While emphasizing this potential outcome, I hope that AI data centers do not share the same fate as laboratories, which can become “showrooms” in the hands of a limited group.

While supporting the use of shared resources, we must also avoid ideas confined to shared spaces. Unfortunately, today, many experts and institutions are focused on continuously repeating the same ideas. Worse still, some expect to achieve the exact same results as the AI activities of tech giants, which have billions of dollars of economic power and decades-old foundations. These out-of-touch approaches should not be allowed to stifle creative ideas.

While data is the fundamental fuel of AI, achieving meaningful results does not always require access to information about what millions of people have liked, where they have been, and what they have searched for over decades. It should not be overlooked that even relatively limited data, gathered or produced for a specific purpose, can be sufficient to bring about many vertical products.

As AI becomes more prominent with its economic and strategic power, as governments offer millions of dollars in incentives to lead, and as existing elites have a significant head start in the race, focusing on populist debates, positioning technology as a sales-marketing element, and misinterpreting trends will have irreversible consequences. It is clear what must not be done to avoid being left out of the game.

As I conclude the second edition of “Staying in the Game” with this article, I would like to inform you that I am working on a new study focused on AI.

With the hope that game-changing new ideas will disrupt the monopolistic balance of the technology ecosystem…

Source: https://www.savunmatr.com/kumulatif-zeka-birikimi-isleyebilmenin-gucu/

One such technology that can be evaluated within this context is deepfake, which can be summarized as the manipulation of images through artificial intelligence technology. Deepfake videos, which became usable by late 2017, are considered a potential threat to individual rights and democratic governance, beyond just being a source of humor. The AI-generated fake videos, even in their early stages of development, already make it difficult to distinguish between fake and real.

The first point of concern regarding deepfake videos is that they can be produced not only by comedians and anonymous internet users but also through official channels.

In May 2018, the Flemish Socialist Party (SPA), a political party in Belgium, created a deepfake video of U.S. President Donald Trump, who was known for not supporting policies aimed at combating climate change, in an effort to draw attention to climate change. At the end of the video, which was shared on the party’s social media platforms, the manipulated Trump says, “We all know that climate change is fake, just like this video.” Interestingly, Trump’s lip movements were not fully manipulated, yet some social media users failed to recognize the video as fake. Given that deepfake videos can already shake certain users’ perceptions of reality under such conditions, what might we face if deepfake technology advances further and those who create these videos intentionally seek to create the impression that they are real?

According to the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, deepfake poses significant challenges to national security and democratic governance because it undermines individuals’ and voters’ ability to trust what they see and hear on screen. In this context, before the U.S. presidential election in November 2020, American politicians were concerned that deepfake could influence election outcomes and urged social media companies to take action to prevent the spread of misinformation before the elections.

A report published by New York University’s Stern Center for Business and Human Rights in September 2019 suggested that social media, which accelerates the spread of misinformation, should detect and remove deepfake videos before they cause harm. Reflecting the general trends in the U.S., social media companies imposed bans on deepfake videos before the elections.

While deepfake is inherently “fake,” this does not necessarily mean that it is a technology that inherently harms democracy. Deepfake does not have to be used solely for malicious purposes.

Before the local parliamentary elections in the Delhi National Capital Region in February 2020, Manoj Kumar Tiwari, the Delhi representative of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) (no longer in office), used deepfake technology in his election campaign.

A political campaign video originally filmed in Hindi by Tiwari was transformed into videos in English and Haryanvi (a regional language) using AI-based deepfake technology. According to an official, deepfake allowed the campaign efforts to be scaled because it enabled Tiwari, who could not speak Haryanvi, to reach his voters in their language while still appearing as himself. Another official stated that some voters (housewives) found it “encouraging” to hear Tiwari speak in Haryanvi.

Although Tiwari suffered a crushing defeat in the elections, the ethical use of AI-generated videos in an election campaign, rather than as a tool for manipulation, marked an important turning point.

The intense concern of the American public (especially Democrats) towards deepfake before the 2020 U.S. presidential election primarily stemmed from allegations that AI had been used as a method to manipulate voters in the 2016 presidential election and that Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was linked to this.

Such strong allegations were made possible by data obtained without individuals’ consent, often through malicious intent or system errors. As some may recall, in 2018, several media outlets claimed that Cambridge Analytica had accessed the data of 270,000 Facebook users who volunteered for a personality test, as well as their friends’ data. The claims suggested that data on 50 million users had been accessed. More dramatically, Facebook later admitted that data of a total of 87 million people, most of whom (70.6 million) were Americans, may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.

According to publicly available information, Cambridge Analytica worked for conservative candidates in the 2014 U.S. Senate elections, the Leave.EU group during the Brexit process, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz in 2015, and later for Donald Trump, the official Republican candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Of course, the success of these actors (most of them) cannot be entirely attributed to Cambridge Analytica’s AI-based “solutions.” However, this does not change the fact that data obtained improperly has been a powerful factor in making decisions that were democratically taken and continue to influence the global system in various ways today.

According to Andy Wigmore, communications director for the Leave.EU group, AI tells you “everything” about individuals and how to persuade them with an advertisement, just like the one they used. In this context, according to Wigmore, Facebook “likes” are the “most powerful weapon” of their campaign.

Artificial intelligence is a technology capable of developing different solutions to different societal conditions. For example, in the U.S., AI can also be used to analyze the components that help bills become laws and to determine the likelihood of bills being enacted. One of the main reasons for using AI to predict the passage of bills is the relatively low rate of bills being passed into law in the U.S. Congress. Since the 93rd Congress (January 3, 1973 – December 20, 1974), the highest percentage of bills passed into law was during the 100th Congress (January 6, 1987 – October 22, 1988), where the rate was only 7%. After it became possible to derive meaningful conclusions from complex data, a “solution” to this long-standing situation in the U.S. was found. According to publicly available information in 2018, FiscalNote, known for its activities in this field, collects data on more than 1.5 million bills in Congress, 50 state legislatures, and 9,000 city councils by scanning official websites. This data is available to the public.

FiscalNote, founded by Tim Hwang in 2013, uses self-learning AI to evaluate bills based on specific contextual keywords and phrases that have historically influenced the likelihood of success. It then combines this with information on the sponsors of the bill and the voting records of lawmakers to indicate the probability of the bill passing. However, there are criticisms that these capabilities empower a small segment of society even further. Given that lobbying plays a central role in the creation and passage of bills in the U.S., these criticisms are not unfounded.

There are also assessments that simple correlations in historical data may not produce meaningful results regarding whether a bill will pass or not. Furthermore, FiscalNote is considered to have failed in predicting the likelihood of bills becoming law. However, the fact that FiscalNote is not the only company operating in this field and the potential for further development should not be overlooked.

In an environment with political uncertainties, as well as uncertainties caused by the coronavirus, FiscalNote’s solutions, which use AI to bring together government records and offer personalized data to its clients, have been met with great interest. In other words, AI can also lead to increased transparency in the face of uncertainties caused by politicians and other circumstances.

Conclusion

AI is both a threat and an opportunity for democratic governance at the same time. However, this outcome is more related to how the data, the basic “nourishment” of AI, is obtained and how other societal processes are managed than to the characteristics of AI itself. Therefore, regulations will determine the significance of AI for our democracy. However, as is often the case, the de facto situation is ahead of the legal situation in this field as well.

On the other hand, as we will discuss in our next article, AI can also become a tool that empowers anti-democratic regimes and destroys human rights. Thus, AI will likely continue to be both a threat and an opportunity for democracies in the future.

İnsanlığın gelişiminin bir unsuru olarak görülse de teknoloji insan elinin değdiği her yerde olduğu gibi kategorik olarak iyi veyahut kötü olarak tanımlanabilecek bir olgu değildir.

Kaynak: Comparitech, “Surveillance Camera Statistics: Which Cities Have The Most CCTV Cameras?”, https://www.comparitech.com/vpn-privacy/the-worlds-most-surveilled-cities/ (Erişim tarihi: 18.01.2021).

Kapalı devre güvenlik kameralarının ve yüz tanıma sistemlerinin küresel bazda kullanılan ve kamu otoritelerinin güvenliği sağlama misyonuna güç veren unsurlar olduğu söylenebilir. Bu hususta güvenliğin sağlanması misyonunu, doğrudan doğruya bireyler üzerinde kurulmak istenen yeni bir güç alanı olarak tanımlamamak gerekir. Ancak Tablo 1, rastlantı olamayacak bir gerçekliği tüm çıplaklığı ile gözler önüne seriyor. Tablo 1’de belirtildiği üzere, en çok gözlenen 15 şehrin 14’ü Çin’de yer almaktadır.

Uzmanlara göre, büyük veri ve yapay zeka teknolojilerindeki gelişim Çin’in kapalı devre güvenlik kameralarındaki gelişimi desteklemektedir. Bunun bir sonucu olarak Çinli konvansiyonel kamera üreticileri aynı zamanda yapay zeka alanındaki büyük oyunculardan biri haline gelmiştir. 2016-2017 yılları arasında Sincan polisiyle 1,9 milyar yuan değerindeki kamu-özel sektör ortaklığı sözleşmeleri imzalayan ve bu sözleşmeler kapsamında yüz tanıma ve gözetim sisteminin camiler için de kullanılmasına “imkan” tanıyan Hikvision, bu şirketlerden biridir.

Kaynak: Mary Wolff, “The Camera in the Classroom: Lessons From China’s AI Obsession”, https://www.kairos.com/blog/the-camera-in-the-classroom-lessons-from-china-s-ai-obsession (Erişim tarihi: 05.02.2021).

Kovid-19 salgınının sunduğu toplum sağlığı argümanının bir uzantısı olarak Çin’de evlerin önüne ve hatta bazı durumlarda evlerin içine bile kapalı devre güvenlik kameraları yerleştirildi. Resmi makamlarca ev karantinasındaki kimselerin 24 saat gözlenebilmesi gibi ifadelerle savunulmaya çalışılan bu kameraların bazılarının yapay zeka ile desteklendiği ifade edilmiştir. Dahası yapay zeka destekli güvenlik kameralarının maske takan kimselerin yüzünü dahi tanıyabileceği belirtiliyor.

Comparitech’in verileri neticesinde değerlendirildiğinde 1.000 kişi başına düşen kapalı devre güvenlik kamerası sayısı bakımından kırk dördüncü şehir olan Guiyang’da bir BBC muhabiri ile gerçekleştirilen testin sonuçlarına göre, kapalı devre güvenlik kameralarının ve yüz tanıma sistemi vasıtasıyla Çinli polislerin BBC muhabirine ulaşmaları yalnızca 7 dakika sürdü. BBC’ye değerlendirmelerde bulunan Çinli bir polis memuruna göre, büyük veri tabanından sıradan insanların verileri yalnızca yardıma ihtiyaç duymaları halinde çekilmektedir. Kısaca sıradan insanlar için endişe duymayı gerektirecek bir durumun bulunmadığı ifade ediliyor.

Bu noktada şu soruyu sormamız gerekir: Yapay zeka destekli kameralarla yüz tanıma, yaş, cinsiyet ve etnik köken tahmin etme gibi kabiliyetlere erişen bir ülkede sıradan olmamanın bedeli nedir?

Uygur Türklerinin “sıradanlaştırılması” arzusunu taşıyan toplama kampları Çinli kaynaklara göre, insanların dini “aşırılıklarından” uzaklaşmaları ve topluma yeniden girişleri için gerekli mesleki becerileri sağlamak maksadıyla kurulmuştur.

Çinlilerin domuz etine olan yoğun talebi göz önüne alındığında bir Uygur Türkünün domuz eti tüketmemesi hiç de “sıradan” bir davranış olmasa gerek ki kamplarda insanlara zorla domuz eti yedirildiği iddia edilmektedir.

Kültürel ve dini değerleriyle Çin tarafından bir tehdit olarak algılanan Uygur Türkleri Çin’in gözetim sisteminin birincil hedeflerinden biridir. Eylül 2020’de Brookings tarafından yayınlanan bir raporda 1.400’den fazla Çinli şirketin Sincan’daki gözetim sürecine yüz, ses ve yürüyüş tanıma yetenekleri ve ek izleme araçları sunduğunu belirtilmiştir.

Çin’in Uygur Türklerine yönelik gözetim süreci devletin her an “ensenizde” olmasından öte anlamlar içeriyor. Bu hususta kamuoyu pek çok acı tecrübeye şahitlik etmek durumunda kaldı.

2019 yılında kamuoyuna yansıyan bilgilere göre, yurtdışında eğitim aldıktan sonra vatanına dönen 20’li yaşlarındaki bir Uygur Türkü olan Alim, Çin’e varır varmaz polisler tarafından uçaktan indirildi. “Sağlık kontrolü” adı altında DNA, kan grubu, parmak izi, ses kaydı ve yüz taraması gibi verilerini polise teslim etmek durumunda kaldı. Diğer nice sıradan Uygur Türkü gibi bir kampa yollandı. Kampta geçirdiği iki haftanın sonrasında serbest bırakılan Alim, bu olaydan birkaç hafta sonra gittiği bir AVM’nin girişindeki yüz tanıma sisteminin kendisini tanımasının ardından gözaltına alındı. Zira Alim, Sincan’daki kontrol noktalarını izlemek için yapay zeka kullanan bölgesel veri sistemi olan IJOP tarafından kara listeye alınmıştı. Bu sisteme göre o artık potansiyel bir “teröristti”. Memurlar gözaltına alınmak istemiyorsa evinde kalması gerektiğini belirtti.

Huawei 2020 yılında yayınladığı bir rapor ile iş dünyasının, toplumlar arasındaki güveni, karşılıklı saygıyı ve anlayışı güçlendirmeye yardım etmesi gerektiğini belirtse de şirketin söylem ve eylemleri arasında önemli bir farklılık söz konusu. Kamuoyuna yansıyan belgelere göre, Huawei, yayalar arasındaki Uygur Türklerini tespit eden bir sistemin patenti için başvuruda bulundu.

Benzer biçimde Alibaba’nın yüz tanıma sisteminde de Uygur Türklerini tanımlayan kod bulunduğu iddia edildi. Dolayısıyla yapay zeka yoluyla etnik kimliğin tespitine yönelik “çözümler” yerel bazda faaliyet gösteren şirketlerin ötesinde Çinli küresel şirketler tarafından da sağlanmaktadır.

ABD’nin tavrı ve bir sonuç

Donald Trump yönetiminin Çin’i ulusal güvenliğe ilişkin temel bir tehdit olarak değerlendirmesi; Çin’in Uygur Türklerine yönelik insan hak ihlallerini, Çinli şirketlere yönelik kısıtlamalara bir gerekçe teşkil etmesine sebep olmuştur. Kısıtlamalar öncesinde ABD’li şirketlerin tutumu ise insan haklarından öte ekonomik çıkarlara dayanmaktadır.

Kasım 2019’da kamuoyuna yansıyan bilgilere göre, HP, Seagate, Western Digital ve Intel gibi ABD’li teknoloji şirketleri Çin’in gözetim sistemine milyarlarca dolarlık donanım ve yazılım satışı yaptı. Kasım 2020’de yansıyan bilgilere göre ise Intel ve Nvidia’nın çipleri Uygur Türklerinin izlenmesinde merkezi bir öneme sahip olan Sincan’daki bulut bilişim kompleksinde kullanıldı.

ABD’nin eski Dışişleri Bakanı Mike Pompeo görevini teslim etmesine birkaç gün kala “Çin yönetiminin Müslüman Uygur halkı başta olmak üzere Sincan’daki diğer etnik ve dini azınlıklara yönelik insanlığa karşı soykırım işlediği sonucuna vardım.” ifadesini kullandı ve 1 milyondan fazla sivilin keyfi olarak tutuklandığını vurguladı.

Pompeo’nun ifadelerinin ardından ABD Dışişleri Bakanı Antony Blinken (değerlendirmeyi yaptığında henüz bakan adayıydı) Çin’in Uygur Türklerine soykırım uyguladığı görüşünde olduğunu belirtse de ilerleyen süreçte kısıtlamaların ne yönde şekilleneceği belirsizliğini koruyor.

Joe Biden yönetiminin; Çin’in bir türlü durdurulamayan yükselişinin neden olduğu tehditler ile Çin gibi büyük bir pazarın göz ardı etmenin neden olduğu kayıplar arasında nasıl bir denge kuracağı ilerleyen günlerde Uygur Türklerinin uluslararası kamuoyundan alacağı desteğin yoğunluğunu belirleyecektir.

Bugün Uygur Türkleri neredeyse tekno-kobay haline getiriliyor, insanlık yararına olması gereken bir gelişme insanlığın unutulmayacak günahına çevriliyor.

Çin’in bir bilim kurgu filmini andıran baskı uygulamaları film senaryolarının gerçekliğimizin çok da uzağında olmadığını gösteriyor. Ancak bu acı gerçeğin teknolojiyi bir “canavar” olarak görmemize gerekçe teşkil etmesine izin veremeyiz. Teknolojiyi bir canavar olarak görmek yalnızca geriden gelen konumumuzu daha da belirginleştirir.

Haklı olmak maalesef ki yetmiyor, güçlü de olmak lazım. Bir gün tekno-kobaylara dönüşmemek için yabancı teknolojinin takipçisi değil üreticisi olmak lazım.

Source: https://www.gokbayrak.com/yapay-zeka-zulum-gercek-tekno-kobaya-donusturulen-uygur-turkleri/

According to scientific research, 87% of the information relayed to the brain is through the eyes, 9% through the ears, and 4% through other senses. While decision-making is a complex process influenced by various factors such as intuition, we are now in an era where people can be deceived through their senses.

Deepfake, a technology summarized as the manipulation of images via artificial intelligence, can influence decision-making mechanisms by making the fake seem real.

In deepfake technology, which erases the distinction between the fake and the real, it is not the technology itself that determines the direction of the effect, but rather the purpose for which it is used. Currently, most videos made with this technology are meant to surprise and amuse us. However, the trajectory doesn’t seem to be heading just towards amusement.

Before the February 2020 Delhi National Capital Region local parliamentary elections, Manoj Kumar Tiwari, the Delhi representative of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) (no longer in this position), officially and legally used deepfake technology in his election campaign.

A political campaign video shot in Hindi by Tiwari was later converted into videos in English and Haryanvi (a local language) using artificial intelligence-based “deepfake” technology. According to an official, deepfake allowed the scaling of campaign efforts. Since Tiwari couldn’t speak Haryanvi, deepfake enabled him to reach his voters in their language. According to another official, some voters (housewives) found it “encouraging” to listen to Tiwari speak in Haryanvi.

In May 2018, the Flemish Socialist Party (SPA), a political party in Belgium, created a deepfake video of former US President Donald Trump, known for not supporting policies against climate change, to draw attention to the issue. At the end of this video, published on the party’s social media platforms, the manipulated Trump says, “We all know climate change is fake, just like this video.” Moreover, Trump’s lip movements were not fully manipulated. Despite this, some social media users couldn’t tell that the video was fake.

Even under these circumstances, when the reality perceptions of certain users can be shaken, what awaits us if deepfake technology advances further and the creators of deepfake videos deliberately aim to create the impression that the videos are real?

According to the US House Intelligence Committee, deepfake poses significant challenges to national security and democratic governance as voters can no longer trust their own eyes and ears when evaluating what they see on the screen. Similarly, many politicians expressed concern that deepfake could affect the results of the November 2020 US presidential election.

A report published in September 2019 by the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights assessed social media as a factor accelerating the spread of misinformation and recommended that deepfake videos be identified and removed before causing any harm. As a reflection of these general trends in the US, social media companies implemented bans on deepfake videos before the elections.

The intense concern of the American public (especially Democrats) about deepfake before the 2020 US presidential election stems mainly from claims that artificial intelligence was used as a method to manipulate voters in the 2016 election and that Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was related to this.

As you may recall, in 2018, some media outlets claimed that Cambridge Analytica had accessed the data of 270,000 Facebook users and their friends, who volunteered for a personality test created by the company. It was claimed that the data of 50 million users were accessed. More dramatically, Facebook admitted that the data of a total of 87 million people, most of whom (70.6 million) were Americans, may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.

According to publicly available information, Cambridge Analytica worked for conservative candidates in the 2014 US Senate elections, the Leave.EU group during the Brexit process, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz in 2015, and Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

According to Andy Wigmore, communications director for the Leave.EU group, artificial intelligence, “just like the way they used it,” tells you everything about individuals and how to persuade them with a specific ad. In this context, Wigmore considers Facebook “likes” the “most powerful weapon” of their campaign.

Thus, data obtained through bad intentions and system errors based on simple clicks reflecting Facebook users’ likes have likely changed the fate of different nations and the world. Moreover, this process can continue with new technologies like deepfake.

In March 2021, the FBI stated that they expect synthetic content obtained through deepfake or generative adversarial networks techniques based on artificial intelligence to be used by malicious actors in cyber and foreign influence (infiltration) operations in the next 12-18 months.

According to the FBI, Russian and Chinese actors are already using synthetic content in foreign influence operations. Malicious cyber actors will use these artificial intelligence-based techniques in their cyber operations as an extension of existing spear-phishing and social engineering processes. However, the complexity of synthetic content will cause a more severe and widespread impact. Estonia’s intelligence service has also claimed that Russian special services are likely trying to develop deepfake technology in cyber warfare. In this context, according to Estonian officials, Russia remains the “primary threat” to the EU in cyberspace.

A US expert on propaganda videos used by terrorists suggested that advanced deepfake technology could disrupt the decision-making ability of enemy elements on the battlefield. In this context, it has been proposed that deepfake technology be closely examined and integrated into military operations in the future.

In April 2021, information made public revealed that politicians from the Netherlands, Latvia, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, and the UK had a video conference with an individual using deepfake technology to impersonate Leonid Volkov, the chief of staff for Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Based on these discussions with unidentified individuals, it can be said that deepfake poses a security vulnerability for states.

The application areas of deepfake technology are increasingly diversifying. Indeed, in April 2021, it was revealed that the University of Washington had developed software capable of creating deepfake satellite images and detecting fake images. The possibility of such a technology being available offers critical possibilities, such as concealing the current situation or misleading military assets towards wrong targets.

The US military announced that it has made progress in scientific studies aimed at detecting deepfake technology, which it emphasizes as a threat to US society and national security. Meanwhile, countries like China and the UK are also making efforts to counter deepfake threats through their official institutions.i açıklamıştır. Diğer yandan Çin ve İngiltere gibi ülkeler de resmi kurumları aracılığıyla deepfake tehditlerine karşı önlem alma çabası içerisindedir.

For a long time, disinformation campaigns used to gain advantages in areas such as diplomacy, trade, and military operations are likely to reach a new level with deepfake technology. This technology, which allows for the manipulation of decision-making mechanisms of both civilian and military elements, must be approached with caution.

The global military biometric market, which includes subfields such as iris recognition, facial recognition, and fingerprint recognition, is projected to grow from $5.65 billion in 2020 to over $10.62 billion by 2025.

The U.S. Department of Defense is not only a significant source of demand for biometric technologies but also one of the key elements in their development. For instance, the Department of Defense allocated over $6.5 million to the FERET program (Facial Recognition Technology Program) from 1993 to 1998.

The FERET program was created to develop automatic facial recognition capabilities to aid security, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel. Its three main objectives were:

1. To establish the technological foundation necessary for facial recognition systems, converting theoretical facial recognition into working laboratory algorithms.
2. To create a large database of facial images.
3. To evaluate and compare the capabilities of facial recognition algorithms using the FERET database.

One of the program’s significant outputs was the legitimacy it conferred to subsequent research.

September 11 Attacks: A Turning Point

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks further demonstrate that scientific and technological advancements are not merely the results of rational activities.

September 11, 2001, marked a turning point at both macro and micro levels, leading to a significant shift in the U.S. Administration’s approach to biometric technologies.

On November 14, 2001, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein asked: “How could a coordinated large terrorist group operate in the U.S. for over a year without being detected and board four different passenger planes in one morning without being stopped?” Feinstein’s answer was clear: “We could not detect them. We did not know they were here.” According to Feinstein, identifying terrorists planning to attack the U.S. was crucial to stopping them, and biometric technologies offered a “new” way to achieve this.

Before September 11, 2001, U.S. Department of Defense considered biometric technologies for secure access to military facilities and networks. After September 11, “counter-terrorism” became the Department’s focus, and biometric technologies became an integral part of this effort. Consequently, these technologies were used to protect U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and became an operational tool for the Department of Defense.

According to open sources, the U.S. military collected biometric data, including fingerprints, iris scans, and facial images, not only from detainees but also from civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As of 2021, it is reported that the U.S. Department of Defense aimed to collect biometric data from approximately 25 million people, or 80% of the Afghan population.

Biometric Data Not Shared with Iraqi Authorities

In 2010, it was revealed that the Pentagon, using its extensive wartime powers, had collected biometric data such as fingerprints, DNA, iris scans, and facial images from Iraqis. During this period, about 7% of the 27 million Iraqis were categorized as either “friend” or “enemy.” U.S. experts indicated that transferring this database to Iraqi authorities after the war could pose various threats to Iraqis who had worked with the U.S. and might turn the list into a “death list” in the “wrong hands.” In December 2011, it was reported that the U.S. military had collected biometric data on 3 million Iraqis, which was not transferred to Iraqi authorities after the war.

According to a GAO report, the Department of Defense utilized its biometric and forensic capabilities to capture or kill 1,700 individuals and deny access to 92,000 military facilities between 2008 and the report’s publication in 2017.

In 2017, U.S. Major General James Jarrard revealed that biometric data on individuals who were released despite aiding ISIS had been collected, along with data gathered with the Syrian Democratic Forces (which is associated with the YPG/PKK). A researcher from Human Rights Watch claimed that “Kurdish authorities” kept biometric records of suspects they captured, while Iraq did not widely use this method. In October 2020, the U.S. initiated a $400 million support program for the YPG/PKK, which included the provision of fingerprint tracking devices.

In summary, after September 11, the U.S. positioned biometric technologies as a “new way” in counter-terrorism, and today it provides biometric capabilities to the YPG/PKK terrorist organization.

Facial recognition is a technology based on machine learning, a component of artificial intelligence, which allows for the identification of individuals through photos, videos, or in real-time.

The global market for facial recognition technology, valued at $3.8 billion in 2020, is expected to grow to $8.5 billion by 2025. This growth is anticipated to be driven primarily by the government and defense sectors, although the technology is also utilized by civilian entities.

Are There Limits to the Technology?

According to Kairos, a U.S.-based facial recognition company that serves the civilian sector, simply recognizing faces is not enough. The next step is demographic and emotional analysis of the faces in the images. Kairos’ technology enables clients to access data such as a person’s age, gender, emotion, time spent in a store, and whether they have visited before.

In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) inquired whether companies like Disney, Wal-Mart Stores, and McDonald’s were using facial recognition technology on their customers. Out of 20 companies, only one confirmed it wasn’t using the technology, while another admitted to using it but not for identifying customers. The remaining 18 companies refused to respond, indicating that facial recognition technology cannot simply be reduced to a security mission; it is also used to enhance customer satisfaction and economic output.

The integration of facial recognition technology into smartphones, not just as a method to unlock screens but also as a feature in mobile applications, is one of the significant trends in this field.

Figure 1

Source: GAO, “Facial Recognition Technology: Privacy and Accuracy Issues Related to Commercial Uses,” https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/708045.pdf (Accessed: 05.02.2021), p.9. As indicated in Figure 1, the number of patents granted in the U.S. for facial recognition technologies has steadily increased from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 2

Source: eMarketer, “Consumers Warm Up to Facial Recognition to Keep Them Safe, but for Marketing and Advertising, No Thanks,” https://www.emarketer.com/content/consumers-warm-to-facial-recognition-to-keep-them-safe-but-for-marketing-and-advertising-no-thanks (Accessed: 04.02.2021).As seen in Figure 2, the differences in usage areas affect the perceived acceptability of facial recognition technology among Americans.

Although the survey results in Figure 2 suggest that the use of facial recognition technology for public safety is relatively acceptable to Americans, the U.S.’s long-standing issue with racism leads to concerns about all potential outcomes of the technology. In this context, the use and development of facial recognition technology in the U.S. are primarily debated from a racial standpoint. One of the major discussion points is how the capabilities of facial recognition technology differ based on gender and race.

Figure 3

Source: Alex Najibi, “Racial Discrimination in Face Recognition Technology,” http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/racial-discrimination-in-face-recognition-technology/ (Accessed: 04.02.2021). As shown in Figure 3, different companies’ facial recognition technologies have achieved a high level of accuracy in identifying fair-skinned males. However, these technologies have been inadequate in recognizing dark-skinned females.

Facial Recognition Technology as a Tool for Domestic Security

Although facial recognition technology is often associated with authoritarian countries like China, it has long been a component of ensuring domestic security in the U.S. For instance, the New York City Police Department has used facial recognition technology since 2011 to identify suspects captured on camera for various crimes.

The death of African American George Floyd in May 2020, while being detained by the police, sparked accusations of racism against the U.S. police and increased pressure to limit the high-tech tools available to law enforcement.

In June 2020, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna sent a letter to Congress, citing the tragic deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and others. He emphasized that while technology can help the police protect communities, it should not support discrimination and racial injustice. Consequently, IBM decided not to offer general-purpose facial recognition or analysis software. Krishna also stated that IBM would not tolerate the use of any technology, including facial recognition offered by other vendors, for mass surveillance, racial profiling, or violations of basic human rights and freedoms.

However, it has been reported that between 2012 and 2016, IBM obtained images of New Yorkers from the New York City Police Department to develop software that could identify individuals based on physical characteristics such as hair color, beards, and skin tones captured by security cameras.

Following IBM, Amazon decided to halt the sale of facial recognition technology to U.S. police for a year, and Microsoft chose not to offer it until legal regulations were established. In contrast, Clearview AI, a facial recognition start-up that can only be used by law enforcement personnel, continued its operations, drawing heavy criticism from Silicon Valley and Democrats.

A major concern among U.S. experts regarding facial recognition technology is the overrepresentation of non-whites in crime databases, which could lead to disproportionate arrests in a self-perpetuating cycle. This issue can be seen clearly in the New York City Police Department’s “gang database,” which includes information on individuals the police suspect of being or confirm as gang members. The criteria for inclusion in this database are unclear, and it is claimed that certain physical characteristics, such as specific tattoos, are sufficient for a person to be added to the database.

According to the New York City Police Department, as of 2019, nearly 500 of the 18,084 individuals in the database were minors. Furthermore, children as young as 13 were included. Beyond these official figures, Professor Babe Howell estimated that as of February 2018, 42,334 people were in the database. Additionally, between December 2013 and February 2018, approximately 66% of the new additions to the database were black, and 33% were Hispanic, while only 0.8% were white. However, 25% of the city’s population is black, and 27% is of Latin descent.

Unlike traditional facial recognition systems that rely on photos provided by the government, such as driver’s license and criminal records, Clearview AI’s database contains over 3 billion photos gathered from social media networks and other publicly accessible websites. According to its founder and CEO, Hoan Ton-That, Clearview AI is used by 2,400 law enforcement agencies in the U.S., including the FBI.

While IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft have taken a stand against the U.S. police, it can be argued that Clearview AI remains valuable for U.S. domestic security. Indeed, Hoan Ton-That stated that in January 2021, immediately after the storming of the Capitol, the use of Clearview AI increased by 26% compared to an average weekday.

What Happens Next?

In addition to the steps taken by individual companies, several states in the U.S. have made efforts to curb police use of facial recognition technology.

In 2020, Democrats proposed a bill to prevent federal agencies, including the FBI, from accessing facial recognition technology, but it failed to become law. Today, Democratic politicians say the bill will be reintroduced, but it is difficult to predict whether ethical values or the security mission will be prioritized under Democratic leadership.

Similarly, when those being surveilled are not Americans—when the technology is used by the military, for example—ethical values and concerns about facial recognition technology are often overlooked in discussions.

In the coming days, the choice between ethics and security, and between ethics and economic output, will likely influence various aspects of socio-economic life in the U.S.

It is well-known that telecommunications, beyond being a standalone sector, has profoundly transformed socio-economic life. In our telecommunications sector, significant efforts are being made to produce value in terms of hardware, software infrastructure, and services. While we are globally competitive in many areas, unfortunately, much of the effort is centered on catching up to foreign competitors to some extent. This is because we fell short in taking the necessary steps yesterday for today’s prosperity. In some cases, we even retraced our steps. The TELETAŞ experience is one such example.

In the 1960s, due to the urgent need for telecommunications infrastructure, PTT ARLA was established with great dedication. In the following years, PTT ARLA evolved into TELETAŞ; a small team striving to produce quality through reverse engineering transformed into a company of thousands capable of meeting the needs of both domestic and foreign markets with its original designs. In the 1980s and 1990s, when the transition from analog to digital systems became a necessity and the telecommunications sector began to take its current shape, this transformation held vital importance for Turkey.

“We Acquired TELETAŞ to Shut It Down.”

As Turkey was steered towards privatization due to the management issues of state economic enterprises, the need for resources, and global trends, unfortunately, the country began this process not with enterprises that were a burden on taxpayers, but with the “easily sellable, profitable” TELETAŞ. In 1987, 40% of PTT’s shares were transferred to the Mass Housing and Public Partnership Administration, and in 1988, 22% of the administration’s shares in TELETAŞ were offered to the public. It is noted that more than 761 million TL was spent solely on television advertisements to achieve this transaction, which promised no real output beyond “20-30 million dollars in revenue.”

In 1984, a licensing agreement for System 12 digital exchanges was signed, but this process ultimately resulted in the sale of 39% of the company’s shares to a foreign firm. Consequently, TELETAŞ was not a wholly state-owned entity in 1988 when the public offering of the 22% stake occurred.

Digital Exchange Development Efforts Were Kept Secret from the Foreign Partner

System 12’s distributed control limited the impact of any faults in one module on the entire system. New features could be easily added to System 12. However, System 12 was expensive for small subscriber needs.

The experience gained from System 12, the phase of contributing to software development, and the modifications made on the model exchange gave TELETAŞ management the confidence to develop a digital exchange. However, as former managers recounted, internal tensions with the foreign partner led to efforts to develop an original digital exchange being kept secret from the foreign partner. The development of a digital exchange family was envisaged, including a first-tier digital exchange for up to 250 subscribers, a second-tier exchange for up to 2,000/3,000 subscribers, and a third tier for which no initial planning was made. While the production and delivery of first-tier digital exchanges to PTT were completed, the development efforts for the other tiers were halted.

TELETAŞ was one of the key players in meeting Turkey’s communication network digitalization needs, with System 12 digital exchanges, small digital exchanges (“LEVENT”) resulting from R&D efforts, and fully self-designed PCM (digital multiplexers).

TELETAŞ was capable of producing valuable products such as digital exchanges, digital and analog multiplexing systems, digital and analog radio links, fiber optic transmission systems, rural subscriber radio link systems, TV transmitters, office communication equipment, and power supplies.

According to data published in 1991, 40% of digital exchanges, 87% of national network analog and digital multiplexing systems, 61% of analog and digital radio link systems, and 87% of payphone machines were produced by TELETAŞ and supplied to PTT. National systems were exported to several countries, including the Soviet Union. A licensing agreement was signed with Iran to transfer technology.

A report published by the World Bank in 1992 highlighted that six of Turkey’s top 150 industrial enterprises in 1990 (including Bekoteknik, Vestel, Profilo Electronic, NETAŞ, and ASELSAN) operated in the electronics sector. TELETAŞ, ranked 46th on the list, was critical to Turkey’s economy with its export capacity and capabilities. TELETAŞ and NETAŞ played a vital role in strengthening PTT’s local capacity in telecommunications equipment procurement. These players, who invested about 5% of their sales revenue in R&D, were regarded as the center of Turkey’s overall R&D efforts in the information sector.

The First Post-Acquisition Step: Closing the R&D Department

Turkey was visibly in a promising position in telecommunications. However, following the block sale in 1994, which increased the foreign partner’s share in TELETAŞ to 65%, TELETAŞ, with all its capabilities, was completely dissolved. In a very short time, the R&D department was shut down, valuable knowledge was wasted, and the company was turned into a sales-support office.

On August 1, 1996, ANAP Deputy Adil Aşırım, a former TELETAŞ R&D employee, stated: “I was the first engineer to complete the Network Termination; we finished it in 1989. Belgium came and said, ‘we already do this.’ In 1993, when I went to Germany, my friend from Belgium told me, ‘we are just now doing your NT1.'”

A statement reportedly made by a foreign partner’s representative—”We acquired TELETAŞ to shut it down. It was stepping on our toes too much in the Asian market”—is a one-sentence summary of this painful experience.

So What Should We Focus on Now?

Foreign investments, with their potential positive outcomes, such as overcoming financial constraints, bringing new technologies to the country, and creating new employment opportunities, are seen as an important source of growth and development for national economies. The TELETAŞ experience, rather than refuting this widely accepted economic argument, proves that the potential threats of foreign investments should not be overlooked. The increasing importance of strategic technologies in determining global power balances, and the use of “investments” by various actors, particularly China, to assert their national interests, further underscore the necessity of this requirement. So much so that many states, including China, accused of monopolizing European innovations, are expanding their control over foreign investments in strategic areas.

Had we been able to protect TELETAŞ, it is highly likely that today our country would have had a world-class telecommunications infrastructure supplier. To prevent the recurrence of such losses, which we cannot express with mere “if onlys,” we must evaluate all possible consequences that foreign investments in critical areas like defense, energy, information technology, artificial intelligence, advanced robotics, and quantum technologies may have on our national security and economic independence. We must be aware of so-called investments that aim to incorporate our domestic capabilities to become unrivaled in the global market. We must not compromise on our R&D discipline.

On November 19, Australia, through a report announced by Chief of Defense General Angus Campbell, admitted that some of its special forces soldiers had killed 39 innocent people in Afghanistan. By November 30, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian shared an image on Twitter with the caption “Don’t be afraid, we’re here to bring peace,” and added, “The killing of Afghan civilians by Australian soldiers is shocking. We strongly condemn such actions and call for accountability.”

Although Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison demanded an apology from China for what he described as an “extremely offensive” post, this demand was rejected by Chinese officials. Furthermore, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying clearly defended her colleague Lijian with the words, “Why? Do they think it’s justified to ruthlessly kill Afghan civilians but not to condemn such brutal savagery? Afghan lives matter.”

The lives of the Afghans who were killed are undoubtedly important. However, it raises the question: Does Chunying, who referenced the “Black Lives Matter” protests in the U.S. with the phrase “Afghan lives matter,” also believe that the lives of Uyghur Turks are valuable for China?

On November 18, 2020, the Chinese Embassy in Australia released a document to the press, outlining 14 issues in China-Australia relations, including:

• The banning of Huawei and ZTE from Australia’s 5G network,
• The rejection of more than 10 Chinese investment projects in areas like infrastructure, agriculture, and livestock, citing “vague and unfounded” national security concerns,
• Accusations of covert cyber-attacks against China without any evidence,
• Calls for an independent investigation into COVID-19,
• Funding provided to anti-China think tanks for spreading “false” reports,
• And Australia’s “constant and malicious” interference in issues related to Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

While China clearly expressed its dissatisfaction with the atrocities committed against Afghans by Australian forces, it is equally clear that it is uncomfortable with any mention of the oppression it has created in its own territories.

Morrison, in response to the 14 issues outlined by the Chinese Embassy, stated that this “informal document” from the Chinese Embassy would not stop Australia from determining its own rules and laws in line with its national interests. Therefore, even though Australia has taken a stance supporting the Uyghur Turks, its primary focus remains on maintaining its ability to make decisions in line with its national interests.

It is evident that neither of these two states, which aim to protect the interests of their citizens or certain segments of society and secure a better position in the escalating power competition, is a global human rights defender. Unfortunately, the human rights violations faced by both Uyghur Turks and Afghans are not the primary source of the tension. China and Australia are using each other’s transgressions as propaganda tools in an already strained bilateral relationship.

The most prominent and primary source of tension between China and Australia: 5G

In 2012, when the 40th anniversary of China-Australia relations was being celebrated and official institutions in both countries were emphasizing strong partnerships in trade and the service sector (tourism and education), experts were already noting that intense economic relations were not being supported by political trust. One of the most fundamental indicators of this was the announcement by then U.S. President Barack Obama in November 2011 that 2,500 marines would be stationed in Australia. In his speech to the Australian Parliament, Obama said he made a “deliberate” and “planned” decision, and China openly expressed its dissatisfaction with this decision. While Obama used “goodwill” language towards China in his speech, it was clear to everyone that the decision was taken against China. Therefore, even in 2012, when there was a desire to further develop intense economic relations, Australia stood with its ally, the United States, when it came to foreign relations and security.

A state’s desire to protect its borders cannot be separated from its desire to protect its data. After all, it is impossible to truly protect borders in an environment where data cannot be safeguarded. When evaluated from this perspective, it becomes understandable that Australia, despite the technical competence and cost advantages of Chinese telecommunications companies and its strong economic ties with China, prevented Huawei from participating in the NBN project aimed at increasing the country’s broadband internet capacity in 2012.

Following a report prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee in October 2012, which stated that Huawei and ZTE’s network equipment posed a threat to national security, the notion of this threat became increasingly evident for both the U.S. and Australia. In August 2018, Australia banned the use of Huawei and ZTE equipment in its 5G network.

This decision in 2018 caused a significant rupture in bilateral relations, which were already based more on economic interests than political trust. Both countries’ approaches to this decision have remained unchanged. According to Australian authorities, the exclusion of Chinese companies from the 5G network is a necessity for protecting Australia’s national interests and national security. However, according to Chinese authorities and the companies subject to the ban, it is a “politically motivated” decision that does not serve the interests of Australian companies and consumers.

Although both countries have made reciprocal moves against each other by using different issues as tools, especially after 2018, the ban on using Huawei and ZTE equipment in the 5G network has remained a relevant decision. This decision has meanings beyond economic losses for China. From China’s perspective, the decision is one of the obstacles preventing it from gaining strategic advantages in the new global order, which is clearly going to increasingly rely on internet technologies.

Current situation

The tension between China and Australia became even more pronounced after May 2020 with the expanding trade restrictions imposed by China. These restrictions are trying to push the Australian economy, which is dependent on the Chinese market for export revenues, into a crisis. However, as even Australian experts acknowledge, Australia does not have such leverage over China.

Articles published in the Global Times, known to have direct ties to the Chinese government, generally contain the following assessments regarding the issue:

• Australia’s exports are dependent on the Chinese market,
• Huawei’s 5G equipment is highly qualified,
• Australia was the first country to ban Huawei’s 5G equipment,
• Australia is following policies dependent on the U.S.

One statement in the Global Times clearly reveals China’s approach to Australia: “The Australian Government should have strived to maintain a friendly relationship with China, the source of about a third of its exports and its largest trading partner.”

The most prominent and primary source of tension between China and Australia, despite its various manifestations such as trade and human rights issues, is Australia’s ban on the use of Huawei and ZTE equipment in its 5G network. Therefore, any change in these manifestations depends on whether there is a meaningful shift in Australia’s desire to protect its data or in China’s ambition to achieve economic and strategic gains.

To contribute to a better understanding of some of the ongoing international discussions, I would like to evaluate cybersecurity in terms of its impact on national policies.

In addition to their military capacities and economic power, countries’ ability to access necessary information is highly valuable in determining their place in the international system. This capability, which can be most simply defined as information superiority, can be measured by the ability to access others’ data as well as to protect one’s own data.

Considering that access to information is provided through information technologies and communication infrastructures, it is easy to understand why countries’ interest in cybersecurity has increased. This is why the need to localize information technologies and communication products is rapidly growing. We are witnessing that many countries willing to stay in the game are investing in these areas, and the pursuit of localization is rising globally.

So, what is the situation in our country?

There are significant efforts and incentives, but we are not using our time efficiently. The gap between us and certain countries is widening to our disadvantage. While I do not claim that it is impossible to close this gap later, it is clear that it will become much more difficult. Even if we cannot be a global leader, we must at least aim to catch the last wagon of the last train.

In the past, cybersecurity was associated only with concepts like hardware, software, infrastructure, and technical vulnerabilities. Today, however, it is also linked to terms like trade wars, defense industry, embargo, retaliation, and foreign policy. The recent Huawei ban in the United States, for example, is shaped by these very concepts. The technical aspect can sometimes be a cause and sometimes an excuse. From our perspective, the lesson to be learned here is this: No powerful country would want to leave its own information or that of its citizens at the mercy of foreign-made products, nor would it allow a technology firm from another country to infiltrate its network solely based on a price advantage. This is why localization in communication products is no longer an option but a necessity.

From a data security standpoint, I believe that the products we invest millions of dollars in as a country should also be scrutinized for cybersecurity. At the very least, they should be questioned. Indeed, some products that we use specifically to protect us might actually be extracting our information. In other words, we might be handing over both our money and data to the big thief to protect us from the small thief. Wouldn’t it be naive to assume this possibility is completely out of the question? We have seen that this reasoning was also cited in the ban imposed by the United States.

There are significant gaps in our approach to cybersecurity in our country. The general perception, unfortunately, remains narrowly focused on web security. The essence of the matter, however, is data security—the security of any hardware and software that produces, distributes, or processes data. From this perspective, every electronic system and the software that runs on them is part of cybersecurity.

Is there such a thing as a secure system?

Absolute security does not exist, but there are ways to identify, measure, and minimize all types of risks. How secure you are also depends on your potential adversaries. In other words, who are the entities that might target you? Developing a proportionate security approach based on this consideration is the smart thing to do. The detrimental approach, on the other hand, is to adopt a defeatist attitude like “they are already taking everything from us,” or to resort to radical measures like “unplug everything and stop working.” Neither of these extreme approaches is meaningful or beneficial. In the new generation of cybersecurity approaches, the countries that will win are those that can support “data-accessing technology companies” first within their own country and then internationally, while also creating mechanisms that prevent their own companies from becoming complacent.

In the period leading up to 2025 and 2050, data will determine whether countries “stay in the league.” Unfortunately, countries that fall out of the league will not be able to return. There is a growing awareness of cybersecurity and data security at the decision-making level in our country. However, this awareness alone is not sufficient in the 21st century, where states themselves have become sources of cyber threats and where control over data is the key element of power and continuity. The behavior that aligns with our ideal of independence should be to move beyond the rhetorical “cybersecurity and data security are important” trap and to address these needs with local capabilities. Under the current circumstances, we need to focus on the needs of tomorrow. Otherwise, we will continue to lag behind, and in this area, there is no significant difference between falling behind and not arriving at all.

What Is Swarm Intelligence?

Swarm intelligence is an artificial intelligence discipline based on the behavior models of natural swarms like birds, bees, ants, and fish.

With millions of years of evolution, natural swarms have developed invaluable expertise in solving complex problems such as resource acquisition and survival. Swarm intelligence, which has attracted the interest of scientists from various fields, aims to harness this expertise for the benefit of humanity.

Swarm intelligence is not just a theoretical field but also a subject of commercial activities. By 2028, the global swarm intelligence market is expected to reach a level of $348.2 million.

Designing a single robot for complex tasks requires sophisticated structures and control modules, resulting in higher design, construction, and maintenance costs. Additionally, if complex tasks rely on a single robot, even minor damage to that robot could compromise the entire system. Instead, teams of robots working together—known as swarm robots—can solve specific problems more efficiently while offering robustness and flexibility.

Swarm drones are expected to be a significant driving force in the anticipated growth of the global swarm intelligence market. At this point, it’s essential to note the difference between autonomous swarm drones, developed using algorithms inspired by natural swarms, and drones controlled centrally. In the case of swarm intelligence, even if the swarm makes mistakes, it is expected to react and improve.

For drones to be scalable, they need to possess autonomous navigation capabilities. One of the fundamental challenges in this area is for drones within the swarm to detect each other. Relative positioning of drones allows for various capabilities, from collision prevention to high-level coordination. Moreover, the choice of design for relative positioning sensors affects the behaviors that the swarm can perform. For example, vision-based systems require drones to fly within the field of view of their cameras.

Swarm drones, which are expected to be robust, flexible, and scalable, offer various exploration and observation opportunities, such as tracking goods in warehouses, monitoring the growth of fruits and vegetables in greenhouses, and searching for foreign elements in territorial waters. For instance, the European Union has provided funding of €164,203.80 to develop swarm intelligence algorithms and data processing techniques for unmanned aerial vehicles to perform precise monitoring and detection in indoor and outdoor environments, focusing on civilian needs such as mining activities and human rescue.

Military Swarm Drones

In a 2005 report on unmanned aerial vehicles by the U.S. Department of Defense, it was predicted that the level of autonomous control in these vehicles would evolve from being remotely guided to fully autonomous swarms. The China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC), known for its activities in swarm drones, has described “swarm intelligence” as central to the artificial intelligence of unmanned systems and the future of intelligent unmanned systems.

According to Indian sources, in 2021, a swarm of 75 drones from the Indian Army autonomously identified targets and neutralized them with kamikaze attacks. However, due to the technology still being in the development stage, sufficient information about the autonomy level of these 75 drones has not been shared with the public, as observed in the efforts of other countries.

In addition to the lack of information in current projects, there are also evaluations suggesting the existence of secret projects. For instance, based on satellite images that surfaced in December 2019, it is claimed that China has at least two small drone swarm groups whose details have not previously been disclosed.

What Will Military Swarm Drones Enable?

While it may initially be challenging to destroy armored vehicles with low-cost swarm drones, it will become possible to infiltrate the enemy’s support lines and target high-value points simultaneously. Equipping swarm drones with capabilities such as chemical, biological, and nuclear detectors, facial recognition technology, and anti-drone weapons will allow for combating a wide range of threats. It is also stated that swarm drones could undertake tasks such as identifying and destroying surface-to-air missiles and other air defense systems and could be used as a missile defense system.

The broad capabilities anticipated from swarm drones are perceived as a threat to rival forces’ efforts in the area. Indeed, U.S. experts view China’s efforts in this field as asymmetric warfare aimed at neutralizing the U.S.’s superiority regarding aircraft carriers.

According to data from the Centre for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, in 2010, only 60 countries had military UAVs in their inventory, but by 2019, 95 countries had such UAVs. While open-source records indicate that 21,000 military UAVs are in service for governments, it is estimated that this number likely exceeds 30,000. Teal Group predicts that the global annual value of military UAV production will rise from $5.6 billion in 2020 to $14 billion by 2029, with the total value over the decade reaching $95.5 billion.

The intense demand for unmanned aerial vehicles, which offer the possibility of conducting effective operations at low costs, and the challenges these vehicles pose for rival forces, will become even more pronounced with swarm drones as a new asymmetric power element.

The potential power of swarm drones raises ethical debates around the technology. Some civil society organizations call for a complete ban on autonomous weapons, arguing that they allow targets to be selected and engaged without human intervention. Some experts, however, perceive small, inexpensive autonomous drones as a greater threat than conventional military devices being made autonomous.

At this point, several questions arise:

• Can autonomous weapons distinguish between military personnel and civilians under combat conditions and neutralize target elements without harming civilians?
• Could a “rogue” state or terrorist group use drones as weapons of mass destruction by targeting specific segments of society, such as whites, blacks, or Asians?
• What level of autonomy could swarm drones achieve in the limitless possible conditions of military operations?

A Conclusion on Military Swarm Drones

Today, we are witnessing a transition period where systems are left to themselves to a certain extent and are becoming autonomous. Indeed, swarm drones are a combination of the strengths of humans, natural swarms, and machines.

The purpose that military swarm drones will serve is a result of the intentions of those who design them. Therefore, categorically considering military swarm drones as a threat to humanity is incorrect.

Since the era of agricultural societies, operations have been carried out with the understanding that everything is permissible for victory, but they have also been conducted without compromising war ethics, even at the expense of facing various difficulties. In this respect, military swarm drones could be designed as a means of massacre by certain elements. However, if the human factor assesses the issue with reason and conscience, and control mechanisms are established to address potential problems, military swarm drones will become a system that does not necessitate concern.

With the moral values inherited from its predecessors, our armed forces have made protecting the lives and property of civilians the top priority in all operations. Military swarm drones, designed and put into service by Turkish engineers and experts, will also be a result of this moral foundation.

The ongoing tensions in the region encompass numerous painful experiences that are unworthy of human decency. From May 10 to May 21, 2021, during the period of conflict before the ceasefire agreement, Israel caused the deaths of over 60 children and more than 200 Palestinians in its attacks. In contrast, Israel suffered 12 casualties, including two children. The significant disparity in losses can be attributed to the low-tech rockets of Hamas’s military wing, the Kassam Brigades, trying to overcome Israel’s multi-million-dollar air defense system. However, despite all measures and high costs, Israel’s casualties might be seen as a failure.

The “Iron Dome” air defense system, developed by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries with financial and technical support from the US, is a key factor that has determined whether Israel’s response is deemed “successful” or “unsuccessful.”

Iron Dome, a component of Israel’s multi-layered air defense system, is effective against rockets, mortars, artillery shells, as well as aircraft, helicopters, and UAVs. Since threats to Israel primarily come from rockets, the system is renowned for its effectiveness against these threats.

The Necessity of the Iron Dome Air Defense System

The Second Lebanon War, which began in July 2006, highlighted the significant threat posed by short-range rockets to Israel and was a major factor leading to the creation of the Iron Dome defense system. During this conflict, from July 12 to August 14, 2006, according to Israeli official sources, 3,970 rockets struck Israel. The short flight time and range of Katyusha rockets made it technically and financially infeasible to intercept them with the Patriot air defense system.

In the Second Lebanon War, Israel lost 43 civilians and 117 soldiers, while Lebanese casualties were significantly higher. Publicly available information indicates that more than 7,000 airstrikes and 2,500 naval bombardments by Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,183 Lebanese, including one-third of whom were children.

Following the Second Lebanon War, significant official steps were taken, including the signing of the first contract for Iron Dome, but the threat of short-range rockets continued until the system became operational in 2011.

In December 2008, Israel began bombing Gaza, citing rocket and missile attacks from Hamas. Due to the deep technological gap between Hamas and Israel, Gaza was subjected to a blockade by sea, land, and air. Between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009, these attacks led to the deaths of approximately 1,440 Palestinians, many of whom were civilians.

US Support

In May 2010, the White House announced that President Barack Obama recognized the threat posed by rockets and missiles from Hamas and Hezbollah and decided to seek Congressional funding to support Israel’s Iron Dome system. Initially, the US provided $205 million in funding for Iron Dome in the 2011 fiscal year and has continued its support. By 2018, the US had transferred over $6 billion to Israel for Iron Dome and similar systems.

Iron Dome, which became operational with US support, has reportedly intercepted more than 2,500 rockets over ten years, with a success rate of 90%.

Israel’s “Optimum Solution” Approach

According to Israeli writer Yagil Levy’s article in the Washington Post on May 14, 2021, international criticism following the attacks from December 27, 2008, to January 18, 2009, made Israel more “careful.” The Iron Dome air defense system provided Israel with an “optimum solution” by balancing protection for Israelis and limiting potential harm to Gazan civilians. Many Western experts view Iron Dome as reducing threats to Israel and preventing potential ground attacks. Levy reiterates that, in addition to protecting Israelis, Iron Dome also “protects” Gazan civilians from alternative ground attacks.

However, on May 14, 2021, reports indicated that during the recent conflict starting May 10, more than 120 Palestinians had been killed, and over 900 injured. This demonstrates that Israel’s “optimum solution” approach does not fully safeguard Palestinian lives and property, despite former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim of an “exceptional success” in Gaza.

Why Iron Dome Could Not Fully Protect Israeli Borders and People

Each Iron Dome battery consists of a radar system, a battle management system, and 3 or 4 missile launch units, each containing 20 Tamir missiles. Therefore, batteries have only 60 to 80 missiles. Israel attempts to intercept rockets worth $1,000 with Tamir missiles estimated to cost between $20,000 and $100,000. Due to the cost disparity, Tamir missiles are only launched when threats target populated areas or significant facilities.

Experts note that the Iron Dome’s effectiveness is hard to evaluate because it is not designed to intercept every threat. If a Hamas rocket lands in Israel, it may be because Iron Dome failed to intercept it or deemed the rocket not a significant threat. The limited damage from rockets hitting rural areas highlights the misconception that Iron Dome is a comprehensive shield for all of Israel.

According to Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a partner of Rafael in the US, each battery covers approximately 60 square miles. Experts estimate that 13 Iron Dome batteries are needed to protect all of Israel, but Israel has only 10 batteries.

With 60 to 80 Tamir missiles per battery, Israel can deploy 600 to 800 missiles if all batteries are fully stocked. Despite a reported 90% success rate, two Tamir missiles are sometimes fired at rockets expected to hit densely populated areas.

The Iron Dome’s capacity to intercept rockets is limited. This disadvantage, noted by experts since the system’s early years, forms the basis for Hamas’s rocket salvos.

Hamas’s “Surprising” Rocket Salvos

The critical importance of Hamas targeting Tel Aviv on May 10 and the resulting casualties and damage in this key city cannot be understated. Although Tel Aviv has been targeted by Hamas before, the intensity of the recent attacks was unexpected for Israelis.

According to Israeli sources, during the 2014 conflict, Hamas launched nearly 4,000 rockets at Israel over 50 days. Previously, Hamas would fire dozens of rockets daily, spreading the attacks over time. However, in the recent conflict, Hamas managed to launch more than 100 rockets within minutes.

Western media reports that the scale of the rocket salvos shocked Israelis. It also highlights the surprise of the Israeli military, described as the “most equipped and advanced military force in the Middle East,” at Hamas’s willingness to initiate such a process and risk the consequences.

And Now

According to information released in May 2021, Israeli intelligence assessed that Hamas had a limited number of rockets capable of reaching Tel Aviv. Although mutual attacks ceased following the ceasefire, ongoing high tensions and the “fragile” nature of the ceasefire make Hamas’s rocket capacity crucial for both parties.

At this point, Iron Dome helps Israel by limiting its losses in its expansionist policies but also shows that even with limited capability, it is possible for Israel to suffer casualties and damage.

As It Has Been for Millennia: The Everlasting Human Drive for Power just as in the past, humanity today is driven by an insatiable desire to achieve greater capabilities and gains. The characteristics of military elements continue to be a fundamental determinant in securing economic, political, diplomatic, and cultural achievements. What sets today apart from the past is that, due to the cumulative nature of technology, we have reached capabilities that were previously unimaginable. Naturally, these capabilities have not been acquired by all states, nor is such a situation desired by all.

Nations are competing to ensure that their soldiers have access to the most advanced technologies and to inflict the greatest damage on rival assets at the lowest possible cost.

Dr. Alper Özbilen

The UK’s decision to expand its defense budget in November 2020 reflects its desire to secure a “better position” in this race.

What Happened?

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that if his government continued to limit the defense budget as previous British governments had done, the security of the British people would be at risk. He revealed that the defense budget would receive an additional £16.5 billion over the next four years. This decision raised the UK’s military spending to its highest level in 30 years. The defense budget previously set for the 2020-2021 fiscal year was approximately £41.5 billion.

What Led the British Government to Make This Decision?

According to a report prepared by the UK Ministry of Defence in 2017, the government, as the customer of the defense industry, has a responsibility to ensure that the armed forces have access to the right capabilities and that the goods and services purchased provide value for taxpayers’ money. The report also states that the strategic capacity of British industry and universities, strengthened by the defense ministry’s spending, makes the UK a significant industrial partner and helps sustain British “freedom of action,” international influence, and prosperity. Therefore, the UK does not evaluate the defense sector solely in terms of its contributions to the economy; the defense sector is also an element that defines the country’s international status.

As Johnson put it, the current international environment is more “dangerous” and “competitive” than it has been since the Cold War. Although Johnson did not specifically name any country, it is not difficult to guess which nations are seen as “threats” to the UK or are perceived by the UK as sources of “threats”: the immediate threat is Russia, and the relatively distant threat is China.

According to Ken McCallum, the head of the UK’s domestic intelligence service MI5, the country that currently poses the most “troubling” intelligence threat to the UK is Russia. The country that will present significant “opportunities” and “challenges” for the UK over the next decade is China. Thus, in addition to its traditional rival Russia, the UK will also have to contend with threats from China in the coming years.

As shown in Table 1, as of 2019, China’s military spending reached $261 billion, while Russia’s military spending reached $65 billion. These countries, which are considered a threat to the UK, have substantial military spending and modernization processes, causing concern in the UK.

As these “threat” elements grow stronger, the UK has also had to contend with uncertainties stemming from Brexit. It is believed that potential price increases and delays resulting from the post-Brexit process could negatively impact British defense sector contracts with EU countries. In this context, Paul Everitt, the president of ADS (an organization with more than 1,100 British companies operating in the defense, aerospace, and space sectors), also stated that they had to lower their targets and that their business would be subject to additional costs and complexities in the future. According to Everitt, this situation will have long-term effects on the competitiveness of firms in the sector.

Although the post-Brexit process has directed the British defense industry toward non-EU markets, the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing uncertainties.

The Covid-19 pandemic can be evaluated from many different angles. While various sectors have experienced different outcomes, the pandemic is currently damaging national economies through supply and demand disruptions caused by breakdowns in the global supply chain and changes in consumption habits. According to official data, in just the third quarter of 2020, 314,000 people were laid off in the UK.

This global crisis is highlighting the role of states in the economy. The sectors that receive state support during the rebuilding process are crucial for understanding future projections.

By increasing its defense budget, the UK government is not only supporting the defense sector, its workforce, and ultimately the British economy. In a traditional economic approach that assigns a limited role to the state, the government is using this opportunity created by the crisis to strengthen the UK’s international position.

Within the framework of Johnson’s statement, it can be inferred that the UK has two options: (1) It can ignore the threat of terrorism and the ambitions of enemy states until a “catastrophe” occurs, or (2) It can protect the UK’s “lifeline.” In other words, the increase in defense spending is directly necessary for the UK to continue its existence. The continuity of existence is a matter that is both local and international. Indeed, according to some experts, this decision is a sign that the UK has not separated from Europe’s defense even if it has left the EU. According to the US Department of Defense, this increase reflects the UK’s commitment to NATO and shared security. Additionally, this decision shows that more can and should be done in the face of evolving threats to “common freedoms and security.”

What will be achieved? Some key developments:

With the additional defense budget, the primary goal is to advance the construction of eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates. According to previously released information, Type 26 frigates will be used in anti-submarine warfare (ASW), air defense, and general-purpose operations, while Type 31 frigates will be used in general-purpose operations. Additionally, the new defense budget includes the development of next-generation warships, including multi-purpose research vessels and Type 32 frigates. Type 32 frigates, mentioned for the first time in Johnson’s statement, are expected to be a platform for autonomous systems.

It has been announced that the National Cyber Force has been established to conduct cyber operations to disrupt the UK’s “enemies” and keep the UK safe. The National Cyber Force brings together experts from GCHQ, the Ministry of Defense, MI6, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL).

Cyber operations can range from preventing the UK’s military aircraft from being targeted by enemy weapon systems to preventing cyber fraud. According to British authorities, the establishment of the National Cyber Force is a significant milestone, as cyberspace is expected to be the most contested domain where “allies” and “enemies” will converge over the next decade and beyond.

It has also been decided to establish an institution dedicated to artificial intelligence. Furthermore, the establishment of the Royal Air Force Space Command has been decided, with the launch of British satellites and rockets scheduled for 2022.

In conclusion, the UK has made an extraordinary increase in its defense budget to strengthen its position in its relationships with both “enemies” and “allies” in the current international environment, which it compares to the Cold War period.

Dr. Alper Özbilen

In a race fueled by the efforts of various countries, competition is intensifying to include domains such as space and cyberspace. This intensity repeatedly brings the following reality to our attention: We must strive to capture tomorrow, not just today. If we fail to worry about tomorrow in this race, we will lose both today and tomorrow. And the past will remain nothing more than a beautiful memory.

The ability of companies in the Turkish defense sector to design and produce products and services not only nationally but also internationally will undoubtedly contribute to our country’s development. Achieving this requires, above all, that companies have the patience for R&D and allocate resources not only for seeking skilled personnel but also for training them. However, it is unacceptable for domestic companies in the defense and aerospace sector to misuse public support to develop an easy-going attitude, distancing themselves from competition in foreign markets and turning the domestic market into a comfort zone. Moreover, under current conditions, relying on the purchase and sale of foreign-origin technology is insufficient for our country to strengthen its historical role and position and achieve its development goals.

In the defense and aerospace ecosystem, which consists of public institutions, public economic enterprises, and private companies, it is fundamental for both the public and private sectors to fulfill their roles appropriately to safeguard our economic and national security.

Within the framework of global division of labor, it is neither possible nor reasonable to meet all our needs from local sources. However, the initial months of the pandemic, particularly with the virtual collapse of the global supply chain, have made it an undeniable reality that local design and production are crucial. This necessity is not unique to the defense and aerospace sector. It has also been evident in many critical sectors, including communications and health.

When faced with mass problems, even seemingly robust organizations ignored each other’s issues. For example, the European Union, as a large organization, and many large foreign companies that have been moving towards monopolization internationally can be considered in this context.

Before the pandemic, we assessed local production in the defense, aerospace, and communications sectors in terms of becoming resilient to open and covert embargoes and ensuring data security. COVID-19 confirmed our concerns, but our risk assessment remains incomplete. During the pandemic, our domestic producers faced the “opportunistic” behaviors of large international suppliers. International large suppliers, who frequently claimed to be “global” rather than “local” before the pandemic, prioritized the needs of their home countries after COVID-19 impacted national and global economies, forcing us to accept their products at exorbitant prices and with various delays.

As the pandemic has reaffirmed, we must urgently acquire the capacity to be as self-sufficient as possible in strategic technologies to protect the defense and aerospace sector, and ultimately, our economic and national security.

According to data from the Centre for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, while only 60 countries had military UAVs in their inventories in 2010, this number had increased to 95 countries by 2019. Furthermore, although open source data shows that 21,000 military UAVs serve various states, this number is estimated to be over 30,000.

Global expectations indicate that the military UAV market will continue to expand. According to Teal Group’s forecast, from 2020 to 2029, the global annual value of military unmanned aerial vehicle production is expected to rise from $5.6 billion to $14 billion, with a total value over the decade reaching $95.5 billion.

Turkey’s UAV Journey

Although not yet part of the inventory, Turkey’s first domestic UAV, UAV-X1, saw the production of two prototypes by TAI in 1992. Following the UAV-X1 project, many projects from different institutions received support. Turkey has progressed from joint production concepts to fully domestic manufacturing, from projects gaining R&D experience to UAVs entering the inventory, and from UAVs meeting training needs to those used in operations.

In line with the sector’s development, TAI, the developer of Turkey’s first domestic UAV, delivered the ANKA-I UAV, which enables aerial signal intelligence collection, to the relevant security units in 2018, in collaboration with ASELSAN.

According to data from the Centre for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, by 2019, 63 of the 95 countries with military UAVs in their inventories had UAVs that were mostly or entirely imported, 20 had a mix of both produced and imported UAVs, and 12 had inventories consisting primarily of domestically produced UAVs.

Turkey, which has recently strived to integrate domestically developed UAVs into its inventory, is now a country capable of meeting not only its own UAV and SİHA needs but also those of friendly nations.

The effectiveness of Turkish SİHAs (armed UAVs) has caught the attention of various international officials. For example, British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace highlighted that Turkish UAVs had effectively targeted and destroyed multiple command and control points and two transport aircraft at the Cufra Airfield controlled by the “Libyan National Army” led by the coup leader Hafter. He clearly stated that the effective use of UAVs in Libya and Syria was “game-changing.”

One source of this success is BAYKAR Defence’s tactical UAV system, developed for Turkey in the early 2010s. During this period, Turkey faced delays and technical deficiencies with the Herons it had agreed to purchase for $180 million, which hampered their effective use.

Supporting military strategic technologies, maintaining R&D discipline despite urgent needs, and adopting new technologies by military units are fundamental conditions for the success of the defense and aerospace sector. However, as seen in the UAV experience, even when these requirements are met, access to strategic technology can be delayed for various reasons. The success of Turkish SİHAs demonstrates the significance of such delays.

Turkish SİHAs in Karabakh

The success of Turkish SİHAs in Syria and Libya led to them being perceived as a “threat” with an uncertain depth by Armenia at the beginning of the Second Karabakh War. Neither Armenia nor other countries initially understood the potential impact of UAVs. During the Second Karabakh War, Azerbaijan effectively used UAVs, possibly with “advisory support” from Turkey, demonstrating that the nature of battlefields had fundamentally changed.

Armenia’s UAV capabilities were quite limited. Although specific information is not available, experts believe that Armenia had local UAVs such as Baze, Krunk 25-1, and Krunk 25-2, and the Russian Ptero-5E. However, these small UAVs with intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance features could not be compared with Bayraktar TB2 SİHAs.

Turkish F-16s acted as a deterrent alongside Azerbaijan. Armenia, on the other hand, was unable to use the Su-30 fighter jets purchased from Russia without missiles against Azerbaijan, as later admitted by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

Pashinyan also admitted that the “Repellent” electronic warfare system purchased from Russia in 2017 for $42 million failed to protect the “airspace” as intended. The failure of electronic warfare systems played a crucial role in the success of UAVs and SİHAs during the war.

Old Soviet systems like 2K11 Krug, 9K33 Osa, 2K12 Kub, and 9K35 Strela-10, which were significant parts of Armenia’s air defense, could detect small aircraft but could not stop Turkish SİHAs. The S-300 missile systems, considered a key element in border protection before the war, had sensors designed for detecting, identifying, and tracking moving targets. However, these sensors overlooked small and slow UAVs.

UAVs that were not stopped by air defense systems contributed to the downfall of these very systems. Specifically, Azerbaijan destroyed 7 S-300 air defense systems belonging to Armenia and rendered 1 S-300 radar and 2 S-300 detection stations unusable.

Despite early evaluations in 2018 suggesting that the Pantsir S1 air defense system could not detect low-speed and small-sized targets, Russia tried to maintain the reputation of this crucial system for arms exports.

Reports in 2018 suggested that various systems, including Heron (Israel), RQ-21A Blackjack (USA), and a Turkish UAV, were destroyed by Pantsir systems in Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that S-400 and Pantsir air defense systems, supported by fighter jets, guaranteed Russia’s air superiority in Syria.

An article in Russia Beyond in January 2018 mentioned that out of 13 UAVs attacking the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria, 3 were shot down by the Pantsir S1 system. The article suggested that it was hard to imagine what this system could do to UAVs, given its ability to easily destroy a fighter jet.

According to NATO Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC) assessments of Turkey’s Idlib operation, Pantsir S1 systems were serious threats to UAVs and needed to be struck immediately. However, JAPCC noted that the “Pantsir S-1’s active system could not detect small, smart munitions fired from the Bayraktar TB2 SİHA due to intense electronic warfare measures, despite being within radar range.”

Publicly available images and assessments indicate that Turkish UAVs successfully destroyed Pantsir S1 air defense systems in various regions. During the Second Karabakh War, Pantsir S1 systems were also destroyed by SİHAs under Azerbaijani control. Thus, even though Pantsir S1 systems were effective against certain targets, they were rendered ineffective by relatively low-cost UAVs. In summary, hunters have become prey.

According to Russia Beyond, Pantsir S1 systems, which have a firing rate of 5,000 rounds per minute, require barrel changes every 8,000 shots. Therefore, the addition of this system to the inventory involves various costs.

Turkish SİHAs have reportedly destroyed dozens of air defense systems and components in Syria, Libya, and Karabakh. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated that Turkish SİHAs had destroyed Armenian munitions worth over $1 billion during the Second Karabakh War. The total value of weapons destroyed and captured by Armenia during the 44-day war is estimated to be $4.8 billion.

By minimizing risks to valuable human resources and protecting ground troops from air attacks and potential ground-based military strikes, effective cost operations rendered enemy forces partially “incapable” of combat.

The repeated success of UAVs and SİHAs in destroying various air defense systems has led to questioning the effectiveness of air defense systems against modern threats. The fact that air defense systems, valued at millions of dollars and developed over a long period, are rendered ineffective by low-cost, expendable systems highlights the importance of this scrutiny.

The long-predicted impact of unmanned systems on military paradigms on land, sea, and air has been demonstrated in the Second Karabakh War, which can be considered the first clear example of the anticipated paradigm shift. In this regard, it is also historically significant from a military perspective.

The Second Karabakh War, likely to be assessed in literature as a case of disruption to conventional military systems and operational concepts, holds particular moral significance for the Azerbaijani Turks and the Turkish World.

The Nagorno-Karabakh region, where Azerbaijani Turks were subjected to various atrocities, forced to flee their homes, and had 20% of their territory under Armenian occupation, was one of the deepest wounds in the heart of the Turkish World for years. The unlawful occupation was halted in the Second Karabakh War that began on September 27, 2020.

With the game-changing power of advanced technologies, including Turkish SİHAs, Azerbaijan reclaimed its lands after nearly 30 years. Armenia, despite spending millions of dollars, remained out of the game with its ineffective military equipment and systems.

Azerbaijan hoisted its flag over Karabakh… Yesterday’s cruel hunters have become prey today, and Karabakh, the land of the Turks, is now free…

The Ruthless Hunters of Yesterday Have Become the Prey Today:Karabakh, the Land of the Turks, is Now Free…

We are living in days when our advanced technologies are being transformed into historical achievements. With UAVs, armed drones, and other strategic technologies, Turkey has cleared itself of terrorist attacks, prevented being declared a “neighbor” of a terrorist organization, didn’t allow Libya to be ruled by a war criminal through force, and made valuable contributions to Azerbaijan’s liberation of Karabakh from occupation.

The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and Turkish Armed Drones

The success of Turkish armed drones in Syria and Libya was seen as a “threat” that couldn’t be fully assessed by Armenia at the beginning of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Neither Armenia nor other countries initially understood the game-changing capacity of UAVs. During the war, Azerbaijan, with possible advisory support from Turkey, effectively used UAVs. The impact created here showed the whole world that battlefields would no longer be the same.

Armenia’s UAV capabilities were quite limited. While it’s difficult to access precise information, experts believe that Armenia possessed indigenous drones like the Baze, Krunk 25-1, and Krunk 25-2, as well as the Russian-made Ptero-5E. However, these small UAVs with intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance features cannot be compared to Bayraktar TB2 armed drones.

Turkish F-16s acted as a deterrent alongside Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Armenia, as later admitted by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, didn’t even attempt to use the Su-30 fighter jets it purchased from Russia without missiles against Azerbaijan.

Pashinyan also confessed that the “Repellent” electronic warfare system, which Armenia bought from Russia in 2017 for $42 million, failed to protect the airspace, contrary to its intended purpose. The failure of Armenia’s electronic warfare capability, which is a significant factor in the success of UAVs and armed drones, was crucial for the course of the war.

Old Soviet systems like the 2K11 Krug, 9K33 Osa, 2K12 Kub, and 9K35 Strela-10, which formed an important part of Armenia’s air defense, could detect relatively small aircraft but couldn’t stop Turkish armed drones. Before the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the S-300 missile systems, which were considered by Armenians as one of the main elements protecting their borders, had sensors developed to detect, identify, and track fast-moving targets. These moving-target indicators tended to overlook small and slow UAVs.

UAVs, which couldn’t be stopped by air defense systems, directly led to the downfall of these systems. Even when examining the situation specifically regarding the S-300s, it represented a significant disaster for Armenia. According to open-source information, the Azerbaijani army destroyed 7 S-300 air defense systems belonging to Armenia and rendered 1 S-300 radar and 2 S-300 detection stations inoperable.

As early as November 2018, there were public evaluations that the Pantsir S1 air defense system couldn’t detect low-speed and small-sized targets. However, Russia tried to preserve the reputation of these systems, which are of great importance for its arms exports.

According to information reflected in 2018, at a Russian arms fair, a poster claimed that various elements, including Heron (Israel), RQ-21A Blackjack (USA), and a Turkish-made UAV, were destroyed by Pantsirs in Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that S-400 and Pantsir air defense systems, supported by fighter jets, guaranteed the superiority of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syrian airspace.

An article published by Russia Beyond in January 2018 noted that the Pantsir S1 air defense system shot down 3 of the 13 UAVs that attacked the Hmeimim Air Base in Syria and asked the public to “imagine” what this system, which could easily dismantle a fighter jet, could do to UAVs.

NATO’s Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC), assessing Turkey’s operation in Idlib, considered the Pantsir S1 air defense systems as serious threats to UAVs and targets that should be immediately neutralized. However, according to JAPCC, “due to intensive electronic warfare measures, the active system of Pantsir S-1 couldn’t detect the small and smart munitions fired by the Bayraktar TB2 UAV, even though they were within radar range.”

Based on publicly available footage and assessments, Turkish UAVs managed to destroy Pantsir S1 air defense systems in different regions. In the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, Pantsir S1 air defense systems were also destroyed by drones controlled by Azerbaijan. Therefore, the Pantsir S1 air defense system, which was considered effective against UAVs and could easily dismantle a fighter jet, was neutralized by relatively low-cost UAVs that it couldn’t detect. In short, the hunters became the hunted.

According to an article in Russia Beyond, the barrels of Pantsir S1, with a firing rate of 5,000 rounds per minute, must be replaced after every 8,000 rounds. Therefore, in addition to being included in the inventory, the operation of this system also entails various costs.

It has been widely reported that Turkish armed drones destroyed dozens of air defense systems and components in Syria, Libya, and Karabakh. According to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, over $1 billion worth of Armenian munitions were destroyed by Turkish armed drones during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. The total value of destroyed and captured weapons during the 44-day war is estimated to be $4.8 billion.

While the risks to valuable human resources were minimized, ground forces were protected from air attacks and potential attacks on military targets on the ground. Enemy elements were rendered “unable to fight” in certain areas through cost-effective operations.

The repeated success of UAVs and armed drones in destroying different air defense systems has led to questioning the effectiveness of air defense systems against modern threats. The fact that millions of dollars worth of air defense systems, which were obtained after a long process and considered a source of economic and diplomatic power by their producing countries, were neutralized by low-cost, expendable systems has heightened the importance of this questioning.

For a long time, it was predicted that unmanned systems would change military paradigms on land, sea, and air. The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, in which existing military paradigms were indisputably shaken through UAVs and armed drones, can be considered the first clear example of the expected paradigm shift. In this respect, it is historically significant from a military perspective.

Likely to be evaluated in the literature in the context of shaking conventional military systems and operational concepts, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War holds a special spiritual significance for the Azerbaijani Turks and the Turkish world.

The Nagorno-Karabakh region, where Azerbaijani Turks were massacred with various tortures, regardless of age, and forced to leave their homes, remained one of the deepest wounds in the heart of the Turkish world for years. Twenty percent of Azerbaijan’s territory was under Armenian occupation. This illegal occupation was stopped during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, which began on September 27, 2020.

Thanks to the game-changing power of advanced technologies, especially Turkish armed drones, Azerbaijan regained its lands after nearly 30 years of longing. Despite spending millions of dollars, Armenia was left out of the game with its ineffective military equipment and systems.

Azerbaijan raised its flag in Karabakh… The ruthless hunters of yesterday have become the prey today; Karabakh, the land of the Turks, is now free.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYIt6HMKjps