Libya's government is supported by Turkey, the only country providing the nation with weapons to fight putschist Gen. Khalifa Haftar, who is backed by many regional and global powers – such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Greece, Russia and France. Although European Union countries officially support the legitimate government of Fayez al-Sarraj, a number strongly support its illegitimate rival, Haftar, on the ground.

Scholars, analysts and experts of international relations and international political economy all agree that the coronavirus pandemic has pushed the world into one of its most significant and complicated crises since World War II.

Tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean may have de-escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Libyan crisis continues to deepen. ExxonMobil, Total and ENI stopped drilling in blocks 6 and 10 due to dropping oil prices. That decision could contribute to the Turkish solution as Ankara offered to dispatch its navy and three drilling vessels to the Eastern Mediterranean for a fair distribution of local hydrocarbon reserves.

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.

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated some global phenomena such as global rivalry, economic protectionism and (ultra-)nationalism. The liberal world order that was established by the United States and liberal Western European countries is increasingly under heavy pressure since the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis.

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.

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?

The analysis provides an overview of the two central security challenges Greece faces today, namely the energy rivalry with Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean/Libya, and the mass influx of refugees at the Greek-Turkish border, and discusses the prospects for a renewed Greek-Turkish détente.

The pictures of the empty streets in New York City taken during the coronavirus crisis gave a strange feeling to everybody. For those who saw or experienced the traffic jams on the main avenues of the city and the crowdedness of Times Square, the photos were unfamiliar. An odd and bizarre sense of emptiness, a peculiar atmosphere of desolation and at the same time a perplexing and puzzling beauty made millions view these pictures again and again.

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.

This critically important book includes chapters both contextualizing and discussing the U.S. administration’s Jerusalem declaration in great detail. Various sections authored by American, Latin American, European, and Turkish authors examine the international responses to the U.S. President Trump’s declaration.

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.

Turkey’s Health Minister Fahrettin Koca has become the embodiment of the country’s fight against the coronavirus. He urged everyone last week to “declare their own state of emergency” – possibly suggesting that the Turkish government was not prepared to impose an official curfew yet.

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.

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.

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.