Social scientists, think tank experts and policymakers are trying to grasp how the coronavirus pandemic and the transformations that may occur in its aftermath will influence life all around the world. Medical experts and scientists in various disciplines of natural sciences are trying to find a remedy for the novel coronavirus. In particular, the medical staff who are struggling ceaselessly to save people’s lives in overcrowded hospitals are the new heroes of our time. They are currently at the front lines of the struggle against COVID-19; however, once the virus' spread is brought under control, the focus will shift to the more complicated consequences of the pandemic. There will be a whole new research agenda for social scientists and policy researchers.
More
In the midterm and long term, states will be forced to generate policies to adapt to new security and economic balances in post-COVID-19 period
More
Neo-isolationism is among the expectations for U.S. rhetoric in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic and this can melt its frozen ties with Turkey
The recent COVID-19 pandemic started as a global health crisis, but it immediately spread to and started to influence the other domains of life all over the world. The crisis directly affected economies across the globe. Some analysts argue that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy may be deeper and more widespread than the impact of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Like all global economic crises, the COVID-19 crisis will also have a significant impact on the global power configuration. A new international system may emerge, or the existing system may be revised entirely because of the direct and indirect consequences of the recent crisis.
Since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, there has been a major debate among the scholars and observers of international politics about the potential impact of this pandemic on the international system. The debate focuses on the outbreak and precautions that nations took to stop the spread of it.
The coronavirus crisis has caused a global lockdown, as extraordinary precautions have been taken by many countries across the world to prevent its spread. Since then many observers have started highlighting the similarities of the current situation with the plot of movies on epidemics. In the last several weeks, some of these movies, such as "Outbreak" and "Contagion" have become popular again.
The coronavirus is turning a new page for both world politics and the economy, but, it seems we are not yet prepared to face the challenges
More
Since the spread of the coronavirus worldwide, many have argued that the response will influence various dimensions of the international system.
More
Since the emergence of the coronavirus epidemic in different parts of the world, many have argued that the response of this epidemic will influence various dimensions of the international system. There were debates about international actors and organizations and their potential role during this epidemic. In this column, for instance, the potential impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) will be discussed.
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.
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
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.
It is distressing to witness the lack of European concern about the humanitarian disaster in Idlib and how Turkey has been abandoned in its fight for civilian safety
It has been more than eight years since the Syrian regime began one of the most brutal assaults against its own citizens, using every violent instrument at its disposal. The international community in these eight years stood idly by while the number of casualties and displaced people increased every day. The international bodies who should have been monitoring the situation stopped counting the number of people who died as a result of these atrocious attacks after half a million.
Russia's eagerness to have a presence in the Mediterranean is an old, well-known and deep-rooted policy. Syria, the country that could offer Russia the best chance of reaching the Mediterranean, presented an incredible opportunity for the country to implement its policy of reaching warmer seas when Bashar Assad called for help from Moscow in 2015. Russia has already developed good relations with countries such as Iran and Syria to contain NATO countries and U.S. allies in this region.
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.
Andrej Kreutz raised a poignant question in his book from 2007, "Russia in the Middle East: Friend or Foe," well before the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011. Even though Russia has been an important player in the Middle East since the Cold War era, its influence in the region has burgeoned since Syrian President Bashar Assad invited Moscow into the Syrian civil war in 2015.
The Syrian crisis is one of the best examples of this approach. The Bashar Assad regime has killed more than half a million innocent civilians by using prohibited weapons of mass destruction, including barrel bombs and chemical weapons..
Turkey's objectives amid the recent tensions in Idlib are clear and the scope of a possible military operation would be limited..
It is true President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin have had an amenable relationship. Turkey and Russia are also both regional actors that share partnerships on many issues. The recent cooperation between the two countries is not as black and white as foreign affairs and alliances between countries were during the Cold War. To call this period of cooperation a "honeymoon," however, would be incorrect.