The main focus of the politicians, academicians, researchers and intellectuals in the United States has been China for the last several decades as Americans believe China has the biggest potential to challenge the American hegemony. Publishing houses have been publishing books and academic journals have been covering research articles about China, a country that widely remains a mystery for most Americans; therefore, they closely follow developments about China to track not only political, military and economic developments but also its scientific and technological potential. In other words, there has been an increasing polarization between the U.S. and China, which has further accelerated during the coronavirus pandemic.

On April 4, 2019, the putschist Gen. Khalifa Haftar started his well-funded and well-supported campaign to take Libya's capital Tripoli and topple the internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) run by Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj. Haftar's forces were initially successful in taking over many cities in Western Libya and encircled Tripoli.

Despite the dominance of the coronavirus pandemic, the Libyan crisis is high on the agenda of international politics. The world has been watching the success of the Turkish-backed legitimate government against putschist Gen. Khalifa Haftar.

Putschist Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s western front in Libya collapsed last week as the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) captured the strategically important al-Watiya air base to the southwest of Tripoli. The liberation of Tarhunah, a town some 65 kilometers (40 miles) to the capital’s southeast, will completely break the siege of Tripoli.

The coronavirus pandemic has had many social, economic, political and strategic implications. Individuals, societies, states and international organizations will be dramatically influenced by the pandemic. Today, I want to briefly discuss the possible impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on the future of international institutions.

The presidential government system that was adopted by Turkey in June 2018 under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is providing significant advantages nowadays to the Ministry of Health’s fight against the coronavirus. It has been clearly seen by now how fast the system functions and allows for quick decision-making, and how effective a competent professional recruited from within the health sector can be during a critical period.

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

Global cases of the coronavirus surpassed 1 million last week. Hardly anyone will be surprised if 2 million people are infected in a week’s time. With the exception of China, the coronavirus outbreak has not reached its peak in any country. Although the high mortality rate in Italy and Spain remains a cause for serious concern, governments around the world are slowly getting over the initial panic. Instead of seizing each other’s medical supplies, they are looking to cooperate.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the coronavirus will radically alter our lives. Experts predict that radical changes will occur in a range of areas, including the questioning of alliances, the strengthening of the state and expedited digitalization.

What is the overall COVID-19 breakdown in Belgium? How has the Turkish community become a scapegoat in the COVID-19 pandemic? What were the reactions against making the Turkish community a scapegoat? How did right-wing populism try to take advantage of the situation? What has been the attitude of the Turkish community in Belgium during the COVID-19 crisis?

The novel coronavirus outbreak that began in December 2019 in the Chinese city of Wuhan has turned into a global threat. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined the threat as a pandemic and called on every nation to take necessary precautions. Though the pandemic has lost the momentum it had during initially in China, it keeps spreading across the globe. New cases and deaths are reported every day, especially in the U.S. and Europe. The situation spiraled out of control in Italy and Iran, while in Turkey, the first cases began to emerge. Turkey’s Health Minister Fahrettin Koca announced at a news conference on the night of March 17 that the number of cases was 98 and that one person had died.

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.

The March 5 agreement between Turkey and Russia put an end to the military confrontation in Idlib, Syria. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, shook hands on that deal to de-escalate what had become serious bilateral tensions. The 2018 Sochi agreement has thus been updated.

Turkey has been the main supporter of the Syrian opposition fighting the Bashar Assad regime. Ankara has also diligently protected innocent Syrian civilians living in the Idlib region. It has stood against the atrocities, the Assad regime attacks and the regime's main backers Russia and Iran. On one hand, Turkey has mobilized its deterrent military power in the region against the regime’s future attacks; on the other hand, Turkish officials and civil institutions initiated a campaign to provide food and shelter for civilians. Western countries have been reluctant to get involved in the humanitarian tragedy and security problem in the region.

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.

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 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.