In the last couple of weeks, significant developments have been happening in the Libyan civil war. The Government of National Accord (GNA) and militia forces loyal to the GNA made remarkable military progress in their offensive in the western part of the nation's capital, Tripoli. Armed drones provided by Turkey conducted effective attacks against Haftar forces. Those drone attacks played critical roles in the GNA's military advances in those areas of the country. The GNA also increased its attacks to take back the Watiya Air Base from Haftar's militia.

Libyan warlord Gen. Khalifa Haftar is taking a new moves after suffering a series of military defeats in recent weeks. On Monday evening, he announced the formation of a new government, claiming to have a “popular mandate.” Haftar leads the so-called Libyan National Army (LNA), which on paper, serves the House of Representatives and the High Council of State in Tobruk, a port city on Libya’s Mediterranean coast.

That mankind will draw lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic is just wishful thinking. The virus outbreak cannot seem to end violence or the struggle for power. The situation in Libya supports this claim.

Coming to terms with the coronavirus as a common, long-term threat, fresh questions rush to one’s head: Could the global pandemic reduce violence in the international arena? Could it promote solidarity rather than a great power competition? Although nations formulated their initial response at the national level, won’t they turn to global cooperation against future pandemics? Could this "global consciousness," which emerged amid the ongoing outbreak, lead the world toward solidarity rather than inequality?

After a six-hour meeting between leaders and technical committees, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Russian counterpart announced a cease-fire for Syria's Idlib. During the meeting at the Kremlin, the presidents gave short speeches. The whole world followed the process as the decisions could trigger an escalation in violence while intensifying the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Syria. Turkey and Russia both wanted to end the civil war but were unwilling to concede their positions. For both Turkey and Russia, bilateral relations were at stake as well.

Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Turkey has faced the gravest problems in the region regarding security, economics and refugees. That picture has not changed. At every turn, a new wave of issues knocks on Turkey’s door. That Europe and the U.S. have not taken initiatives required for a political transition in Syria is a major factor in this. Another leading cause is Russia’s desire to solve the crisis through military force. From the outset, Russia has deployed a course of destruction called the 'Grozny model." It is a policy consisting of three stages: besiege, destroy and rule. Russia has implemented this formula in many areas, particularly in Aleppo, which has wreaked extensive destruction and killed thousands of civilians.

Last week’s agreement between Turkey and Russia established a new deconfliction plan and demonstrated that the two countries were united in their commitment to the Astana and Sochi processes. Even more important was their ability to stop the clashes in Idlib and preserve the framework of their bilateral relations.

The deal signed between Turkey and Russia eased the tension in Idlib by declaring a cease-fire once again. Yet, despite the positive intentions of both parties, the unreliable nature of the Syrian regime raises cautiousness while increasing the responsibility on the shoulders of the Turkish and Russian sides as guarantor states

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan visited Moscow this week to hold talks on the Idlib crisis. The world closely followed his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. All experts were sure that this would be the tensest meeting between the two leaders since the 2015 jet incident.

The Idlib crisis reached another turning point after the signing of the Turkish-Russian agreement last week during President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Moscow. Reports indicated that the challenging process of negotiations carried on for more than six hours. The end result of the negotiations generated a lot of debates regarding its provisions and the potential roadblocks in its implementation.

The deadline for Bashar Assad’s retreat from Idlib has passed. Turkey remains committed to the Sochi agreement..

To solve the crisis in Idlib, the international community is hoping for the success of a four-nation summit and fresh diplomatic talks. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and France's President Emmanuel Macron, scheduled to take place on March 5, keeps alive the hope of ending what the U.N. called “the worst humanitarian crisis of the 21st century” diplomatically.

The recent escalation of violence between Turkey and the Assad regime in violation of the Sochi deal marks a significantly tense moment that may risk a deterioration of relations between Ankara and Moscow. Turkey has given an ultimatum to the Assad regime to withdraw its troops outside of the zone encircled by Turkey's military observation points until the end of February. So far, the Assad regime has resisted the idea of withdrawal and continued to expand further into the territory. However, Turkey expects its Russian counterparts to either convince or force the Assad regime to comply with the conditions laid out as part of the Sochi deal that was signed in September 2018.

Turkey faces growing pressure to retreat from three locations: Idlib, where Turkish forces are trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe; Libya, with which the Turks concluded a defense pact; and the Eastern Mediterranean, where Turkey is defending its rights under international law.

By the end of February, Turkey expects Bashar Assad to withdraw to the agreed-upon cease-fire line stipulated in the Sochi agreement. Yet, nothing has come out of diplomatic negotiations between Ankara and Moscow.

The Syria civil war has been a test for the international community since it began almost nine years ago. The world has failed to respond and stop the bloodshed as the worst humanitarian tragedy since World War II unfolded under its watchful eyes.

The Syrian civil war has always had great potential to worsen any day. Since May 2019, the Bashar Assad regime has been pummeling the Syrian opposition's last holdout in the northwestern province of Idlib.