We Saw It in 1999

It Reappeared in 2025.**

What we saw in 1999 was not an event.
It was a structural weakness.

A combination of:

• Risk assumed to be temporary

• Conditions treated as exceptional

• And decisions made for speed, not durability

At the time, the impact was limited.
The system absorbed it.

That absorption created a false sense of resolution.

What Was Observed in 1999

In 1999, the pattern was clear:

• Exposure increased faster than protection

• Assumptions replaced verification

• The same vulnerabilities appeared across different files

Nothing dramatic happened immediately.
That was precisely the problem.

The absence of a crisis was mistaken for the absence of risk.

Why It Did Not Disappear

The underlying issue was never corrected.
It was postponed.

• Temporary measures became permanent

• Exceptions turned into habits

• Short-term fixes replaced structural decisions

Time passed.
The conditions matured.

What Returned in 2025

In 2025, the same weakness resurfaced.
Not louder.
Just heavier.

What had been manageable in 1999 became consequential.

Not because the risk changed,
but because its weight had accumulated.

The Role of Time

Time did not create the risk.
It amplified it.

When structural issues are left intact, time does not erase them.
It tests how long they can be ignored.

In this case, the answer was twenty-six years.

Why Memory Matters

This is the difference between reaction and recognition.

Those who remembered 1999 did not ask:

• “How did this happen?”

They asked:

• “Why was this allowed to continue?”

That question leads to different decisions.
Much earlier ones.

A Quiet Statement

This is not hindsight.
It is continuity.

What appeared in 2025 was not new.
It was unfinished business from 1999.

CAN Sigorta