By Yıldıran Acar, Political Scientist
The most dangerous aspect of modern warfare is sometimes not what is happening, but the fact that we do not know for certain what is happening. Today, it can take days just to determine who fired a missile. Whether a drone actually came from which side, whether its course was electronically altered, or what its target was, often remains unclear in the first few hours. Yet despite this, the media landscape no longer waits for events to be verified. Because in new-generation wars, the primary goal is not to reveal the truth, but to be the first to shape public perception.
The news reports about a drone that crashed near the Romanian border and were quickly headlined as “Russian drone” are a prime example of this new era. Many experts who study the psychological dimension of war believe that hasty reporting in such incidents cannot be explained solely by journalistic reflexes. Because in the fundamental logic of hybrid warfare, the media is no longer merely a tool for relaying events; it has become an active element of the conflict.
Especially when it comes to unmanned aerial vehicles, the gray area expands even further. Altering a drone’s course in mid-air, causing it to lose control through electronic warfare systems, diverting it to different coordinates, or subjecting it to technical sabotage are no longer theoretical issues. With the war in Ukraine, electronic warfare capabilities have taken center stage on modern battlefields. For this reason, definitive accusations made before expert analysis is complete serve more to establish political positions than to provide military analysis.
What is truly striking, however, is the way the incident was reported. Some Western media outlets reported the incident within the first few hours under the direct headlines “Russian threat” and “Russian drone.” Yet anyone who studies wars knows: Initial information is often the most incomplete. Because during wartime, information—just like the front lines—is shrouded in fog.
Today, the war in Ukraine is not being waged solely on traditional land battlefields or in the air-sea theater. It is also being waged on screens, in headlines, and in social media feeds. Which images are highlighted, which headlines are chosen, and which events are kept constantly in the spotlight now hold strategic value.
For this reason, hybrid warfare is not merely a combination of tanks and missiles. It also involves directing the flow of information, managing societal fears, and psychologically pushing public opinion toward a specific line.
Another notable aspect in the Romanian case was the NATO psychology. Because every object that lands along the border now carries not only a military but also a diplomatic meaning. A drone might sometimes be a technical malfunction; sometimes incorrect coordinates, sometimes electronic interference, and sometimes it carries the possibility of a deliberate provocation. However, the “atmosphere of attack” created before the incident is fully clarified is amplifying the perception of threat in the European public sphere.
It is precisely at this point that the new nature of war emerges. What matters now is not merely striking a target; it is keeping societies in a constant state of crisis. Because fear has become one of the most effective weapons of modern geopolitics.
The consensus among Russian experts is as follows: Western media often operates in the Ukraine war not so much out of classic journalistic reflexes as out of a logic of strategic communication. The language of global broadcasters like the BBC, CNN, and others is viewed in Russia not merely as news language, but as an extension of hybrid warfare.
Whether you agree with this perspective or not, the reality on the ground remains unchanged: Today, information is no longer a neutral space. Drone warfare, in particular, represents the most ambiguous aspect of this new era. Because it is clearly visible when a tank crosses a border. But the route, control, and purpose of a small unmanned aerial vehicle often cannot be explained with clear-cut lines.
That is why any definitive judgment made before expert analysis is complete may be constructing a narrative rather than revealing the truth. And perhaps the most dangerous aspect of modern warfare begins precisely here. Because in some conflicts, headlines fall before the rubble. The truth, however, often arrives later than the scene of the event.