ON THE THRESHOLD OF COVERT OPERATIONS: THE ENGINEERING OF PEACE AND ENERGY
SECURITY
Prepared on: 2 June 2025 – Istanbul
Prepared by: Berna Kanbay
Senior Advisor to the President, ASAD
I. Introduction: Türkiye’s Geostrategic Posture and the Emergence of a New Diplomatic Terrain
While reciprocal prisoner exchanges during the Russia–Ukraine conflict underscore that diplomacy remains a functioning mechanism, the volatile and fragile nature of ongoing dynamics in the region continues to raise profound concerns. Within this complex strategic landscape, Türkiye has pursued a multi-layered and impartial diplomatic engagement, grounded in political foresight and geopolitical responsibility.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s direct dialogues with multiple global leaders have reinforced intergovernmental trust channels, while Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan has epitomized shuttle diplomacy through critical engagements both in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin and in Kyiv with President Volodymyr Zelensky. These developments have not only solidified Türkiye’s role as a credible mediator but have also substantiated the architecture of its multidimensional foreign policy doctrine.
On Monday, 2 June 2025, at the opening of a pivotal summit in Istanbul, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan—formerly Head of National Intelligence—remarked, “The eyes of the world are upon us. What truly matters is the attainment of sustainable peace.” He further emphasized the strategic significance of the support extended by the Trump administration in the United States, highlighting the international weight behind this process.
Minister Hakan Fidan led the Turkish delegation observing and facilitating the high-level dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. The delegation included Director of National Intelligence İbrahim Kalın, Chief of the General Staff Gen. Metin Gürak, Naval Forces Commander Adm. Ercüment Tatlıoğlu and Ambassador Mehmet Samsar, head of the Ministry’s Russia–Ukraine–Caucasus desk. Russia was represented by Deputy Head of State Vladimir Medinsky, GRU Military Intelligence Chief Kostyukov, and several deputy defense ministers. Ukraine’s delegation, led by Deputy Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, included Deputy Foreign Minister Sergiy Kyslytsya, Deputy Head of the SBU (Domestic Intelligence) Oleksandr Poklad, and Deputy Chief of the SZRU (Foreign Intelligence) Oleh Luhovskyi.
According to Anadolu Agency, Ukraine held prior consultations with representatives from the UK, Germany and Italy, indicating Kyiv’s intent to align its diplomatic positioning with the European security architecture. President Zelensky’s meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte further reaffirmed Ukraine’s strategic trajectory toward transatlantic integration. This dialogue underscored Kyiv’s desire not merely for symbolic partnership but for concrete leverage in ensuring coordinated Western pressure on Moscow should the diplomatic pathway falter.
Following these engagements, on 1 June 2025, Ukraine launched the covert operation “Spider Web” reportedly orchestrated over an 18-month planning horizon. The complexity and scale of the operation reflect the extent of intelligence entanglements now unfolding in the region. Russian-aligned sources suggest that the Kremlin is preparing an “asymmetric and disruptive” response.
II. A Silent Sabotage or the Strategic ‘Endgame’?
As global diplomacy turned its gaze toward the prospective peace table in Istanbul, Ukraine’s FPV drone strikes on deep-strike Russian air bases on 1 June created seismic ripples akin to a modern Pearl Harbor moment.
These attacks, reportedly launched via mobile truck-based platforms after extensive operational planning, targeted Olenya, Belaya, Engels and Murmansk—each symbolic of Russia’s strategic air power.
Far beyond the tactical domain, this assault appears to have been a calculated disruption of Russia’s deterrence posture—a geopolitical gambit reminiscent of an “endgame card” in strategic theory. In the game of bridge, such cards are not played for surprise alone, but to fundamentally alter the rhythm of play. Similarly, the FPV drone assault may have aimed not to reverse battlefield fortunes, but to undermine the psychological architecture of the impending negotiation process.
The deliberate timing of the “Spider Web” operation—executed on the very eve of the planned Istanbul peace negotiations and as delegations arrived in Türkiye—raises critical questions. While tactically assertive, this maneuver may incur long-term strategic costs for Kyiv, including diminished credibility at the diplomatic table and potential erosion of trust among its Western allies.
III. Türkiye’s Role: Rational Resilience in Diplomatic Architecture
Since 2022, Türkiye’s balanced engagement with both Kyiv and Moscow has distinguished it as one of the rare actors capable of maintaining principled equilibrium under conditions of acute conflict.
As a NATO member committed to alliance solidarity, Ankara has nonetheless redefined its stance through a doctrine of “connected autonomy,” privileging national interests without succumbing to bloc-based determinism.
This strategic orientation has been shaped by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s multidimensional foreign policy vision and institutionalized further under the stewardship of Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Fidan’s integration of strategic depth, intelligence foresight, and technical sophistication into diplomacy has positioned Türkiye not only as a mediator, but also as a reliable builder of trust in regional crises.
The Istanbul negotiations represent a tangible projection of this doctrine, affirming Türkiye’s capacity to contribute not merely at the political level, but through a holistic infrastructure spanning energy security, defense architecture and logistical resilience. In this context, Türkiye stands among the few states with the structural potential to play a sustained and constructive role in post-conflict reconstruction processes.
IV. The Geopolitics of FPV Drone Warfare
The Ukraine operation’s use of FPV drones deployed via mobile truck-based systems signals a transformative leap in cyber-physical warfare. The fusion of civilian and military domains, enabled by low-cost, high-impact hybrid platforms, blurs conventional battlefield boundaries.
This shift heralds not only a new era of asymmetric military confrontation, but also a strategic threshold where non-state actors may eventually acquire similar capacities. The convergence of drone systems with open-source AI technologies poses profound threats to global security architectures, offering militant groups an unprecedented level of operational reach. The resultant threat landscape is not confined to the kinetic domain. It now includes cognitive warfare, algorithmic intelligence and digital infrastructure sabotage.
Within this context, entities such as TUSAŞ, ASELSAN, and private- sector leaders like BAYKAR and others must be reconceptualized—not merely as industrial actors, but as sovereign strategic platforms, central to the architecture of national security and technological sovereignty.
V. President Zelensky’s Geostrategic Maneuver: A Very Tactical Victory Shadowed by Strategic Risks
While Ukraine’s leadership appears intent on leveraging its recent offensive to gain a stronger negotiating position, the timing of this maneuver may provoke ethical inquiries across Western public discourse. Indeed, some analyses suggest that the attack could inadvertently undermine Kyiv’s diplomatic standing by derailing potential negotiations.
This evolving landscape has brought the concept of “crisis diplomacy engineering” to the forefront. The intricate balance between timing, symbolism and public sentiment necessitates not only political calculation but also refined psychological strategy. For strategic actors such as Türkiye, this underscores the urgent need to cultivate a form of diplomacy that is not merely reactive but strategically proactive.
Thus, although this initiative may yield short-term psychological gains, it also carries the potential to erode the pro-Ukrainian political consensus in Europe. Such erosion may, paradoxically, strengthen Türkiye’s positioning as a credible mediator. As the only NATO-aligned country maintaining constructive neutrality in this conflict matrix—where multiple non-NATO actors are at play—Türkiye’s leadership in advancing ethics-driven peace strategies could foster a renewed climate of public trust within the European arena.
VI. Russia’s Response and the Strategic Fragility of the Emerging Energy Architecture
Simultaneous disruptions at critical military and logistical hubs such as Belaya, Olenya, Severomorsk, and Kursk reveal not only the vulnerabilities in Russia’s tactical military capabilities but also a temporary paralysis in its strategic energy logistics infrastructure. Particularly concerning are the allegations of compromised nuclear assets in Severomorsk and uncertainties across the Arctic corridor signaling that conventional definitions of energy security are increasingly obsolete.
The current juncture demands a redefinition of energy security, not solely in terms of reserve availability or supply continuity, but across the axes of maintenance assurance, cyber control stability, multilayered logistical resilience and climate-induced fragility. This multifaceted vulnerability matrix can be strategically advantageous for a select group of actors capable of integrating technical competence with diplomatic mission.
In this context, Türkiye’s robust engineering capacity transcends conventional supply capabilities, providing a strategic form of intermediate intervention—capable of repair, repurposing, and monitoring energy infrastructures during crises. With advanced capabilities in turbomachinery, high-pressure gas regulation, and next-generation turbine systems, Türkiye offers not just NATO members but the entire energy transit corridor a reliable technical security umbrella.
Consequently, Türkiye’s role in the regional energy equation necessitates a new conceptual framing—defined at the intersection of diplomacy and engineering. A proposed “energy diplomacy engineering” architecture would reimagine energy corridors not merely as conduits of commerce, but as instruments for generating geopolitical
elasticity.
This perspective could establish a diplomatic platform rooted in sustainable operations during peace and decisive technical interventions during crises. In doing so, Türkiye would solidify its stature not only as a conduit for energy transfer but as a producer of regional stability and a codifier of systemic security. Indeed, the wartime damage inflicted upon energy infrastructure elevates modernization and rehabilitation to matters of economic recovery and long-term sustainability—extending far beyond mere reconstruction.
According to joint assessments by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, an estimated $1.2 billion USD is required to meet only the very most urgent repair needs of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. These include the restoration of power transmission systems, heating infrastructure, mobile heating units, and other critical assets.
The extensive destruction wrought by the war has left deep scars, particularly in the energy domain, transforming reconstruction efforts into high-tech, multi-dimensional endeavors that require seamless coordination. In this environment, countries like Türkiye—with both engineering depth and regional legitimacy—offer more than just physical repairs: they are key to achieving humanitarian sustainability, energy resilience, and regional equilibrium.
Accordingly, Türkiye is mobilizing its high-tech capacity within a visionary framework of “humanitarian engineering diplomacy”, prioritizing collective resilience in post-conflict reconstruction.
Integrated within multilateral cooperation mechanisms, such strategic contributions elevate Türkiye not just as a partner in crisis management, but as a constructive actor delivering technically rational solutions toward systemic trust-building in volatile regions.
VII. TİKA, AFAD and the Architecture of Next-Generation Humanitarian Diplomacy
Following the global retrenchment of USAID in the post-Trump era, a critical vacuum has emerged in the international humanitarian system. In numerous crisis-stricken geographies—from Syria, Gaza, and Afghanistan to Iraq, Lebanon, Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ukraine—AFAD (Türkiye’s Disaster and Emergency Management Authority) has demonstrated a capacity not only for emergency response but also for long-term infrastructure development and strategic recovery planning.
This institutional evolution has given rise to the & strategic geopolitics of aid; The AFAD model now encompasses technical permanence, spatial stability, and diplomatic imprint—functioning simultaneously across humanitarian, infrastructural, and geopolitical dimensions.
In this regard, broader international support for AFAD’s operations would be of significant strategic value in converting Türkiye’s humanitarian expertise into a regional vector of soft power. Such a model should be interpreted by the international community not merely as aid deployment, but as a mechanism of diplomatic prestige and technical presence.
Within this framework, a “humanitarian engineering map” that integrates technical aid with foreign policy architecture—particularly in geographies where Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TİKA) and AFAD operate in tandem—would serve as a strategic asset.
Conclusion: The Engineering of Peace
Peace platforms must be reimagined not only as spaces for dialogue but also as laboratories for technical problem-solving. Sustainable solutions can only be forged through the integration of diplomacy and engineering. In this respect, Türkiye distinguishes itself as the only regional actor capable of delivering solutions through a synthesis of diplomacy, engineering, energy expertise, and humanitarian commitment. This multidimensional capability forms the cornerstone of a prospective “Turkish Peace Engineering Doctrine.” It is through this hybrid architecture—blending diplomacy, technology, and humanitarianism—that Türkiye is poised to evolve from a regional stabilizer into a global solution provider.
The emerging security architecture of the post-2025 era now demands actors who are not merely interested in prosecuting wars, but in designing peace. Modern peacebuilding is no longer defined by the absence of conflict alone; rather, it requires an intricate, multi-tiered engineering of institutional resilience, diplomatic continuity, and civil-military balance. Accordingly, nations possessing the foresight, legitimacy, and structural reconstruction capacity to shape this peace architecture must act not only with military deterrence but with diplomatic intuition and technological agility.
Türkiye, in this new era, is not simply adapting to a changing global order—it is poised to embody a newly emergent role:
The Diplomatic Engineer of Peace.