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.

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.

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?

International focus has been on the Middle East for decades and particularly on Iran, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Libya over the past several years. However, whatever is written about the Middle East, Russia is always part of the equation.

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.

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.

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.

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

Turkey's sole wish in Idlib is to maintain domestic and regional stability. This is what all involved actors must be aware of first.

The analysis provides an overview of the Greek security policy in the Eastern Mediterranean since the failure of the latest round of Cyprus peace talks in July 2017 and highlights the continuity in the strategies employed by Greece to head off the perceived Turkish threat in the region.

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.

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.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described last week's regime attack in Idlib that claimed eight Turkish lives, as a "turning point" in the Syrian civil war. In addition to giving Bashar Assad time to retreat beyond the Turkish military observation posts by the end of the month, Erdoğan pledged that Turkey would push the regime forces away on its own if necessary.

The recent escalation of tensions around Idlib which have developed in response to coordinated attacks by the Syrian regime and Russia have put the pledges of the Astana and Sochi peace processes under a heavy strain..

Despite supporting opposite sides, Turkey and Russia have maintained dialogue for the last several years in the Syrian crisis. Together with Iran, another Bashar Assad supporter, they initiated the Astana Process. They have taken several significant steps to lessen the level of violence in the country. However, the Assad regime has insistently violated the cease-fire and continued its attacks against the opposition and civilian targets.