A while ago, when Syria still had a state, I had the opportunity to correspond with a Kurdish nationalist on a social network. I was arguing (and I still hold this view today) that independence under the US umbrella actually meant nothing more than a neocolonial dependency relationship. He, however, had taken the traditional rhetoric of Kurdish nationalism (“it’s a tactic”) up a notch and believed (and probably still does) that the US possessed unique and invincible power, not just in a specific historical period, but throughout history—or at least throughout the history of imperialism. I’m adding the phrase “history of imperialism”; there was no place for imperialism in his words. So, the issue was no longer a matter of “tactics” at a certain stage (and in those circles, that word has always meant a lack of strategy), but had directly become a matter of siding with a superhero in the world order—that is, being on the side of the one who always wins and always will win.

Thus, our correspondence extended to other historical periods before that day, and eventually, we arrived at World War II. And then, an assertion I encountered for the first time genuinely stunned me: he acknowledged that the Soviet peoples had suffered great losses, but this, he claimed, did not mean at all that the Soviet Union had won the war. On the contrary; the US had won the war through its alliance politics, military tactics, and economic superiority, and moreover, had achieved this without suffering great losses, which pointed to an immense political talent, thereby reinforcing the power of the victory.

This is, in the most fundamental sense of the concept, a purely ideological stance, because historical truth has been completely turned on its head.

No one, neither during Soviet history nor today, presents the number of casualties as the measure of victory. That would be an idiotic assertion anyway, because throughout history, there are many victories where the victorious side suffered far greater losses than the defeated armies. That doesn’t mean the defeated actually won. Victory in a war is achieved when one of two conditions—which are actually two different expressions of the same thing—is met:

1. Enemy armies are physically destroyed;
2. The enemy’s will to fight is broken.

The number of casualties gives an idea about the intensity, brutality, savagery, and lawlessness of the war; it indicates its nature. But casualty rates are completely irrelevant to the outcome of the war.

1) Physical annihilation of the enemy

On June 22, 1941, the balance of forces on the western border of the Soviet Union was roughly as follows (I am quoting this based on relatively recent research; older sources show the fascist alliance as overwhelmingly superior in the balance of forces):

Ostensibly, the Red Army was far superior to the enemy in terms of tanks and combat aircraft; in reality, the situation was different. Within the entire tank inventory, the legendary T-34s were still very few (at most 1,200), as were the SU series self-propelled gun systems (at most 300), and moreover, not all of them were at the front line. In contrast, in the fascist alliance, if one doesn’t count the almost dysfunctional Panzer Is and the Czech-made Pz series, which the Germans did not much trust, the number of all tanks and Stug III type self-propelled gun systems was over 2,500. Of the total combat aircraft, only 1,540 were new planes capable of dealing with the enemy, and most of these were destroyed in the first week due to the rapid advance of enemy forces.

In short, the fascist German forces and their allies were far superior in terms of troop numbers, technology, equipment, and materiel.

Another aspect of the balance of forces is this: 3.3 million of the Wehrmacht’s total 4.12 million combat personnel (including the SS) were deployed to the Eastern Front. This constitutes 80 percent of the combat troops. Similarly, 84 percent of tanks and self-propelled artillery systems, 67 percent of artillery and mortars, and 80 percent of combat aircraft were on the Eastern Front.

Try to picture this: This war machine had occupied all of Europe; countries not occupied were fascist collaborators. British forces and their allies had been ignominiously chased out of Dunkirk. In Europe, there were only local resistance movements, mostly organized by communists. And the German army, with almost 80 percent of its entire strength, had attacked the Soviet Union.

In Germany alone, a total of nearly 18 million people were mobilized and fought in the ranks of the Wehrmacht. Approximately 5.5 million of them died on the battlefields and in prisoner-of-war camps. Nearly 80 percent of military deaths occurred on the Eastern Front.

In contrast, nearly 35 million people were mobilized in the Red Army throughout the war. Of these, 8.7 million died or went missing. More than 3 million of these were deaths in concentration camps.

Therefore:

While Germany’s civilian losses constituted about 25 percent of its total losses (7.4-8.5 million), the Soviet Union’s civilian losses constituted 60 percent of its total losses. In contrast, about 30 percent of the German army’s total combatants throughout the war were killed in clashes with the Red Army. About 15 percent of the Red Army’s total combatants throughout the war were killed in clashes with fascist armies.

In other words, the Red Army ended the war in a “positive” manner (in Clausewitz’s terms) by destroying 30 percent of the enemy.

2) Breaking the enemy’s will

Starting immediately after the Stalingrad debacle, from the spring of 1943 onwards, a series of secret peace talks were held in Switzerland between fascist German officials and Westerners, primarily Americans. I will not delve into conspiracy theories; presumably, at this stage, no faction in the US, even if inclined, could risk a separate peace. However, for fascist Germany, attempts to narrow the enemy front due to defeats on the Eastern Front were becoming increasingly necessary.

Even after Normandy in June 1944, the center of fascist resistance was the Eastern Front. This is evident from the numbers. Already at the Tehran Conference (November 28 – December 1, 1943), the Soviet Union’s insistence on its allies opening a second front in Europe had weakened because the self-confidence to destroy the enemy single-handedly, albeit at a heavier cost, had been reinforced by the victories gained.

Therefore, the common refrain in Western secondary school textbooks does not reflect reality: (At the Tehran Conference) “The Soviet Union agreed to launch a major offensive against Germany from the east.” (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Pub., Module 11, World War II.) Yet, by this time, the victory at Kursk had been won, Kyiv had been liberated; there was only one month left to break the Leningrad blockade, and only three months left to cross the USSR borders at every point on the Ukrainian front. In other words, the Red Army was already on the offensive in all directions. Moreover, according to much research, the Normandy landings had not paralyzed the fascist armies, nor did the Red Army’s advance gain extra momentum because of the Normandy landings.

Not even the suicide of their “beloved Führer” on April 30th, nor even the morning of May 8th, had completely broken fascist Germany’s will to resist. Perhaps the most concrete indicator of this is the story of Göring’s surrender to the Americans. It is generally assumed that Göring was immediately arrested; this is not true: he was arrested only the next day, with the definitive fall of Berlin, because the will of the fascist beast was completely broken only at that moment.

3) “History falsifiers”

While working on this article, I had the opportunity to look at 10th and 11th-grade history textbooks in the US and Britain, as well as another high school supplementary textbook in Britain (“Russia and its Rulers”). (This last one is surprisingly objective compared to the others.) There is no information in these about the countries’ losses in the war. The answers to the questions of who destroyed the enemy, who broke its will, and who paid the price for it are somewhat vague, and inevitably, within that vagueness, it is glaringly obvious that the US and Britain are cast in the role of saviors.

Still, when their history books are placed side-by-side with ours [Turkish textbooks], one must admit that their formulations are much more skillful. The creators of the US and British curricula, at least until now, have tried not to appear as captive to anticommunist hysteria as ours, whose every sentence, starting from these lines, is almost entirely wrong: “The USSR was no different from Germany in terms of human rights violations.” (From the 12th-grade “Contemporary Turkish and World History” textbook by the Ministry of National Education [MEB]).

But why this falsification of history?

A few days ago, I came across an interview with Daniel Simić, president of the Republika Srpska journalists’ association. Simić rightly lamented the erasure of history: “Americans are already like that; but for the average Western European reader too, D-Day is the sole and most important event of World War II. The heroism and sacrifices of the Russians and other peoples of the Soviet Union are disregarded… The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk are generally described in the West as ‘events on the Eastern Front’; but every bomb dropped by the Allies on Germany is presented as a heroic act leading to victory against Hitler.”

This is a pustule of mass ignorance. There is such a difference between writing history and making it. Then those lies create narcissistic buffoons, each more ignorant than the last, and one of them comes out and says something like: “We will never forget that Russia helped us win World War II by losing almost 60 million people.” (Trump wrote this on his blog on January 22nd.)

4) Qualitative leap

But there is a difference between the past and today.

A few months ago, they demolished the monument erected in Tallinn in memory of the Red Army and USSR Baltic Fleet soldiers. In the same days, the “reputation” of the Estonian legionnaires in the Waffen-SS 20th Division was being restored. For the aggressive “little instigators” [a Turkish idiom, “küçük enişteler,” referring to minor but troublesome actors, often with a sense of being meddlesome relatives or associates, ed.n.] of the Baltics, this kind of fascist vandalism has now become routine practice.

The Baltics are a miniature Europe.

In many European countries, including Moldova, there are discussions about banning or at least restricting May 9th Victory Day celebrations, associating them with “Kremlin propaganda.” Instead, celebrating May 8th is often proposed; there are also those who want that day to be declared a day of mourning for all “victims” who died between 1939-1945, including the dead of the Wehrmacht and its fascist allies, a “Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation.” Previously, distortions or denials mostly concerned singular events in the war; today, the emphasis is shifting towards completely denying the decisive role of the USSR in the liberation of Europe and the world, and in the defeat of fascist Germany.

This is a qualitative leap in history falsification. The primary reason underlying this was stated by Marshal Zhukov to Marshal Rokossovsky in Berlin in 1945, where the fascist beast was dismembered: “We saved them, and for that, they will never forgive us.” In other words, at least some of them are burning with the desire to take revenge for being saved.

But more important than this is the following: today, it’s as if a new dawn has broken for the flea market [a Turkish idiom, “bit pazarına nur yağıyor,” meaning what was once considered worthless is now being prized, ed.n.], and European leaders are, apparently, studying the experiences of the 1930s and 1940s more closely. Why shouldn’t war be the way out of the crisis? Isn’t suppressing general dissatisfaction through violence and directing aggression towards others a wonderful solution?

But perhaps, we should congratulate them for finally showing sincerity. Declaring Bandera—the leader of a gang of fascist murderers who killed not only Jews, socialists, communists, and Russians, but also citizens of the Polish state, one of the Kyiv regime’s staunchest allies—a hero and howling his slogans in front of his portrait is no small measure of sincerity, indeed.

Who won the war? The Red Army won, the Soviet peoples won, the leadership of the Bolshevik party won, Russian patriots won… But not only them. We won! Because the war against fascism was our war too, the victory was our victory too.

Two days ago (on May 5th), India announced it would conduct a national-level Civil Defense Drill on May 7th, and as May 7th commenced, it began military action. Was this perhaps a time Pakistan didn’t expect? Is an India-Pakistan war imminent?

As the clock struck May 7th in India, around 01:00, Indian missiles were launched in succession “from Indian airspace,” landing in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. In other words, the anticipated attack took place.

India named the operation “Sindoor.” Sindoor traditionally holds significant meanings in Hindu belief and Indian culture, but to touch on it briefly here: It is actually the name of the vermillion powder applied by married Hindu women at their hair parting, symbolizing marital commitment and the husband’s duty to protect his wife. Thus, by naming the operation “Sindoor,” India is conveying the message of protecting its citizens and national honor. Let me reiterate that the April 22nd Pahalgam terrorist attack occurred in a tourist area and targeted civilians.

The Indian Army announced that the operation lasted approximately half an hour, taking place between 01:05 and 01:30 Indian time. The Indian Army’s initial statements, such as “We have launched Operation Sindoor in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir,” were significant: Emphasis was placed on targeting terror infrastructure, that no Pakistani military facilities were targeted, that 9 areas – specifically the terror infrastructure in those 9 areas – were targeted, and that their actions were carried out in a focused, measured, and non-escalatory manner. As someone who followed statements from Indian sources all night, I can confidently say that “India’s statements indicate it does not want war.” So, this is very clear: India does not want war. Perhaps this should have been stated first: An India-Pakistan war has not yet begun. This is not yet war. The events that took place overnight were limited airstrikes, which were already expected by both Pakistan and the entire world. Meanwhile, Pakistan also delivered a limited response during the night. Currently, India is busy briefing the United Nations and foreign ambassadors. It is endeavoring to legitimize the missiles launched overnight and to validate its justifications. So, what will happen now? Will this situation turn into a war? Frankly, it’s hard to predict this yet. But the first thing to note is that both sides will strive to avoid war, as nuclear deterrence is a factor for both.

So, what other options are on the table?

India’s 2019 Balakot retaliatory strike against Pakistan was immediately met with a response, and Pakistan shot down an Indian plane and took its pilot hostage. Therefore, it was clear India did not want to act hastily in terms of timing. In terms of nature and scale, it was trying to plan while also calculating the potential response. But frankly, it launched an attack earlier than even I expected. The Indian army, which had experienced the Pahalgam terrorist attack on April 22nd, began its military action 14 days later, as the clock ticked over into the 15th day. As we said, this was expected; meaning that even if the timing was a bit earlier than anticipated, the military action was not a surprise. Now, mutual airstrikes have occurred, but more importantly, this time India truly wants to inflict a greater punishment on Pakistan, but it wants to do so without triggering a nuclear war, i.e., without waging war. In other words, it wants to continue a controlled escalation somewhat. I don’t believe this confrontation will de-escalate quickly. And this is where “Cold Start” comes into play. Of course, how Pakistan will respond now, and how the international community will approach India, are also very important. But there is another option on the planning table; time will tell its implementation, of course, but it’s important to mention it now:

Cold start: India’s new offensive strategy against Pakistan

Cold Start, first and foremost, marks a departure from the fundamentally defensive military doctrines India has used since its independence in 1947. In India, the idea of Cold Start was fueled by “Operation Parakram,” which India conducted following the 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament, believed to be backed by Pakistan. This operation revealed operational gaps in India’s offensive capabilities, especially the slowness of troop mobilization along the border. It took almost a month for Indian troops to reach the border, which gave Pakistan enough time to take countermeasures and for the United States to pressure the Indian government to back down.

Announced in 2004, this doctrine is a response to India’s perceived inability to use its conventional superiority to end Pakistan’s “proxy war” in Kashmir. It aims to enable the Indian Army to mobilize rapidly and conduct limited retaliatory strikes against its neighbor without crossing Pakistan’s nuclear threshold. We can call this a joint forces operation, operating in conjunction with the Indian Air Force. On this point, the Chief of the Indian Army Staff announced earlier this year that they were in the final stages of establishing Integrated Battle Groups. The doctrine also involves India’s conventional forces conducting pinning offensives (feint attacks) in a conflict situation to prevent a nuclear retaliation from Pakistan.

I can say that this doctrine is still in an experimental stage. At the same time, it’s possible to say that there is political pressure, and more importantly, intense public pressure, to use such a strategy in the current crisis. So, this time, India’s response could be more than just a surgical strike. Indian Prime Minister Modi’s statements about an “unimaginable punishment” also point to this. Let me also reiterate that Modi has given the Indian Armed Forces “full authority.” However, Cold Start, which aims to punish Pakistan with more than a pinpoint operation while keeping the conflict below the nuclear threshold, reveals India’s intention to avoid a full-scale “hot” war, both by its name and its nature.

This is an offensive strategy with surprise timing, rapid execution, limited scope, but a harsher scale. With this strategy, India is actually opening, or wants to open, an escape route for itself from the perceived inevitability of a nuclear conflict with Pakistan. However, the biggest challenge for Cold Start is considered to be the possibility of Pakistan using tactical nuclear weapons as a counter-strategy. Therefore, it carries the risk of provoking or escalating a crisis that could cross the nuclear threshold. Considering that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, the potential for the conflict to spiral out of control is high, the risk is great, and everything hangs by a thread. And how Pakistan will respond is very important. However, I still believe that both countries will do their utmost to avoid entering a hot war. The India-Pakistan war has not yet begun.

The Antalya Diplomacy Forum (ADF), a concrete expression of Türkiye’s contribution to global diplomacy and global peace, was held in Antalya from April 11-13, 2025. This year’s main theme was “Embracing Diplomacy in a Diverging World.”

Inaugurated by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his wife Emine Erdoğan, the forum was attended by 21 heads of state and government, 70 ministers, and approximately 450 high-level national and international bureaucrats. Additionally, numerous business people, academics, diplomats, and representatives of think tanks were present at the forum. Many bilateral meetings, sessions, and panels were organized as part of the forum. In total, over 6,000 guests from 155 countries were hosted. Nearly 1,000 journalists from almost 50 countries covered the 50 sessions held during the forum. Most government representatives came from Asia and Africa. The majority of general guests were from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. Africa was the continent with the highest number of attending government representatives. This, in a way, is a testament to Türkiye’s diplomatic success in Africa over the past 20 years.

Among the guests attending the forum were important figures from many countries, including BRICS member Indonesia, Georgia (subject to Western sanctions), Hungary (a dissenting voice in the EU), Syria (closely watched by the world), and both Russia and Ukraine, which are still at war. Indeed, actors of all kinds from all over the world convened in Antalya. This once again demonstrated that the Ankara-centered global diplomatic table is open to everyone.

This growing interest in the ADF with each passing year particularly reflects Türkiye’s increasing appeal. Ankara’s solution-oriented mediation and inspiring vision have transformed it into a sought-after stabilizing actor at every table, in every region, and for every issue. In a divided, fragmented, and diverging world, Turkish diplomacy presents a unifying, integrating, and cohesive framework. The ADF defines diplomacy as the greatest power against wars and conflicts. Therefore, we are talking about a mechanism that embraces diplomacy, opens diplomatic channels, and enhances diplomacy. Frankly, the new world order must possess new diplomatic mechanisms. The ADF is a product of this necessity.

Given the level of representation and diversity of countries, the non-participation or reluctance of our Western friends to attend the ADF is not considered a loss. Indeed, the ADF enables the non-Western world to listen to and understand one another. This is because many actors, who for years have been prejudiced, distant, and detached from one another, find an opportunity for dialogue here.

At the Antalya Diplomacy Forum 2025, held under the auspices of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and hosted by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, the preference for increased dialogue and diplomacy in response to escalating conflicts and issues within the multipolar international system was thoroughly discussed. Although the Antalya Diplomacy Forum was themed “Embracing Diplomacy in a Diverging World,” it also addressed multipolarity as a new era that is being experienced, acknowledged, and for which preparations must be made.

One of the most critical panels at the ADF was the leaders’ panel titled “The Quest for Partnership in the Age of Multipolarity.” President Erdoğan’s statement, “A fairer world is possible,” was complemented by his own words: “The world is bigger than five. Humanity is bigger than five.” [This is a well-known critique by President Erdoğan referring to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, ed. note.]

Hakan Fidan, the head of the Turkish foreign service [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] and host of the forum, delivered a speech acknowledging the international system as multipolar and presenting a governance philosophy for this new situation, stating, “Türkiye aspires to manage multipolarity not through competition, but through wisdom [Turkish: hikmet, ed. note].”

Speaking at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, Vice President Cevdet Yılmaz emphasized that we now live in a multipolar world and drew attention to the need to manage this process effectively by keeping communication channels constantly open for a more just multipolar world order.

Indeed, the ADF aims to mitigate the harsh competition and negative aspects that can arise from multipolarity, thereby facilitating its manageability. Therefore, the ADF offers a non-Western vision for global governance. Turkish wisdom [Turkish: hikmet] and sagacity possess the accumulated experience and capability to generate solutions for global and regional crises.

Among the most important features of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum are; offering opportunities for dialogue and cooperation, focusing on global issues, ensuring broad international participation, providing a vision for young diplomats, and promoting Turkish foreign policy.

Its annually increasing number and diversity of participants, its development of concrete solutions for global and regional problems, its fostering and deepening of cooperation among nations, its enhancement of civilizational and cultural communication, its establishment of strong ties with the Global South and developing countries, and its interaction with international media will elevate the ADF to the status of a global force. Indeed, in a short time, the ADF has already earned an effective and respected position in global diplomacy.

The concept of a Türkiye-centered diplomacy, as an alternative to Western-centric diplomacy, has been brought to life through the ADF. At the ADF, we observe that participants predominantly come from Asia, Africa, and Latin America—that is, from the non-Western world—rather than from the West. In our world, which is transforming into a multi-centric, multi-civilizational, democratic international system, the ADF not only reflects this but has also presented a diplomatic “snapshot” that accelerates this transformation.

The forum’s particular emphasis on a multipolar world order highlights the increased diversity and the role of numerous actors within the global system. Today, power balances in the international system are not confined to the West. We are in an era where the influence of rising powers from regions such as Asia, Latin America, and Africa is making itself felt. Therefore, the Antalya Diplomacy Forum is one of the platforms where rising powers and the Global South can make their voices heard.

Türkiye’s Antalya Diplomacy Forum is a non-Western platform, similar to China’s Boao Forum for Asia, India’s Raisina Dialogue, and Russia’s Valdai Discussion Club, initiated by other rising powers.

The ADF was not established as a forum where the same participants discuss the same topics year after year merely for show [Turkish idiom: “dostlar alışverişte görsün,” meaning “just for appearances”, ed. note]. Each year, the forum hosts expert guests from different parts of the world, specializing in diverse subjects. Therefore, the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, by giving a voice to new actors each year, possesses a dynamic and vibrant system. In this process, the ADF stands out as the most successful mechanism for building Türkiye’s soft power and public diplomacy.

In a multi-centric, multi-civilizational world, the ADF is an important step towards enabling dialogue among numerous regional and global actors, as well as different civilizations, cultures, and religions, all participating on an equal footing to ensure peace and stability. By bringing together participants from the Global South, North, East, and West, the forum strengthens mutual understanding and tolerance among different civilizations. The forum establishes an inclusive table where the views of not only major powers but also many medium-sized and small, rich and poor countries are considered. Therefore, as a global forum where states and nations from diverse continents and systems can make their voices heard, the ADF is a structure that strengthens democratic representation.

In an age of uncertainty and a global leadership deficit, the ADF is a multi-faceted solution mechanism where the ideas of numerous actors converge to address multiple crises. While the ADF serves as a global discussion forum, it is also a structure that brings countries together for bilateral talks. Türkiye’s proven success in mediation has been elevated to a global level through the ADF. With its broad and diverse participant profile, the ADF also fosters cultural interaction and communication. The flexible and sincere atmosphere fostered by the ADF serves as a meeting point for both formal and informal interactions. Therefore, the ADF is instrumental in charting an alternative global course beyond the Western-centric model.