Skip to main content

Co-adaptation in Context with Iranian, Russian and Turkish Policies on Syrian Complexity: The Emergence of the Astana Process

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Complexity ((SPCOM))

Abstract

This research is based on explaining the dynamics that led the Iran, Russia and Turkey to initiate Astana Process within the framework of the Syrian Civil War’s changing dynamics. The article intends to combine power politics with the “complexity” paradigm. Linear ontology is problematic in explaining the changing dynamics. On the other hand, the complexity paradigm explains non-linear processes derived from its ontological foundation. Especially the variety and diversity of actors, their interconnection, interdependence, and co-adaptation to the situation can be a solution against the reductionism of this phenomenon. Actors in the Syrian crisis are very diverse, and it can be observed that actors like ISIS can profoundly affect the policies in this process, and the Syrian issue can affect varied actors’ security and foreign policies that are also based on power competition. Complexity paradigm assumes system as complex, more dynamic and living that many actors (which are not exogenous as closed units) interact with many feedback loops; thus the outcome of the events may not be predicted. IR is also impacted by many various parameters and variables which are interconnected and interdependent, indeed, also the main actors in the system cannot be limited by only states which are socializing and affected by the structure in their interactions considering the critical impact of the substate factors, transnational terrorist groups, and many other variable causes as well as their interactions in the international changing and co-evolutionary dynamics. Russia, Turkey, and Iran (the guarantors of the Astana Process) have followed different policies and demonstrated divergent outlooks regarding the crisis. Indeed the priorities and set agendas differed from one another as well as objectives to pursue in the disorder occurred by fragmented and diversified dynamics in Syria. However “unpredictable” events of changing dynamics resulted in diversification of states’ agendas. The prolongation of the civil war led to the introduction of new actors along with it, and especially the states sharing the border with Syria were also exposed to new threats. It can be seen that with the emergence of ISIS and Russian activism in the Syrian complexity, especially her intervention in Syria as well as other actors’ policies on this complexity, the regional and global powers have also co-adapted their policies on the changing dynamics. This co-adaptation also derives from the intertwined causalities in the complexity which is between the order and disorder. The Astana process is also an expression of this co-adaptation in Iranian, Russian and Turkish policies in Syrian Complexity. The complexity paradigm offers an alternative framework in order to understand the process-oriented interconnected power struggle in disorder. The characteristics of the “processes” in the Syrian disorder symbolizes the fracturing component in the power struggle that brings non-linear orientation. The power struggle shaped by the non-linear dynamics by the time and processes in the changing dynamics brings about flexibility in the behaviors of the actors in order to maintain their initial priorities in their foreign policies or their main objectives in the changing dynamics. That results in the co-evolutionary dynamics in the interactions between the relative power distributed actors restrained or allowed activism in structure, and between the actors and structure that co-shaped each other in the area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This research is based on and derived from: Çoban, M.İ. (2020). Astana Process in Context with Iranian, Russian and Turkish Foreign Policies on Syrian Complexity. Master of Science Thesis. Middle East Technical University. Available at: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12625609/index.pdf/ (Accessed: 15 October 2020).

References

  1. Açıkalın, Ş. N., Artun, E. C. (2019). The concept of self-organized criticality: The case study of the arab uprising. In: Ş. Erçetin, & N. Potas (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2017. ICCLS 2017. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89875-9_7.

  2. Açıkalın, Ş. N., Bölücek, C. A. (2014). Understanding of arab spring with chaos theory—uprising or revolution. In: S. Banerjee, Ş. Erçetin, & A. Tekin (Eds.), Chaos Theory in politics. Understanding complex systems. Dordrecht: Springer. http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-94-017-8691-1_3.

  3. Akbarzadeh, S. (2015). Iran and Daesh: The case of a reluctant shia power. Middle East Policy, 22(3), 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Akpınar, P. (2015). Mediation as a foreign policy tool in the arab spring: Turkey, Qatar and Iran. Journal of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies, 17(3), 252–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aktürk, Ş. (2019). Relations between Russia and Turkey before, during, and after the failed coup of 2016. Insight Turkey, 21(4), 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Al Jazeera. (2017). Russian and Turkish jets ‘bomb ISIL’ in Syria’s Al Bab [online]. Al Jazeera. [Viewed 14 April 2020]. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/russian-turkish-jets-bomb-isil-syria-al-bab-170118130233894.html.

  7. Al Jazeera English. (2016). Why is Russia courting Syrian Kurds? [online]. Al Jazeera. [Viewed 15 April 2020]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2m86rPNSPQ&list=WL&index=41.

  8. Allison, R. (2013). Russia and Syria: Explaining alignment with a regime in crisis. International Affairs, 89(4), 795–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Altunışık, M. B. (2020). The New Turn in Turkey’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Regional and Domestic Insecurities [online]. Istituto Affari Internazionali. [Viewed 01 August 2020]. https://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iaip2017.pdf.

  10. Ansari, A., & Tabrizi, A. B. (2016). The view from tehran. In A. B. Tabrizi & R. Pantucci (Eds.), Understanding Iran’s role in the Syrian conflict (pp. 3–10). London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Aras, B. (2014). Davutoğlu Era in Turkish foreign policy revisited. Journal of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies, 16(4), 404–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aslanlı, A. (2018). Rusya’nın Suriye Politikası [online]. ORSAM. [Viewed 14 February 2020]. https://orsam.org.tr/d_hbanaliz/75tr.pdf.

  13. Associated Press. (2015). Putin Visits Iran for Talks on Syria’s Future [online]. Time.Com. [Viewed 18 April 2020]. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.metu.edu.tr/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=111173069&site=ehost-live.

  14. Azizi, H. (2019). Why the Ankara Summit Is Important [online]. Valdai. [Viewed 02 May 2020]. https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/why-the-ankara-summit-is-important/.

  15. Baczynska, G. (2015). Moscow-hosted Syria talks end, sides agree only to meet again [online]. Reuters. [Viewed 23 August 2020]. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-moscow-talks/moscow-hosted-syria-talks-end-sides-agree-only-to-meet-again-idUSKBN0L21VV20150129.

  16. Baczko, A., Dorronsoro, G., & Quesnay, A. (2018). Suriye: Bir İç Savaşın Anatomisi. İstanbul: İletişim.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bağcı, H. (2009). Reaction to: Baran, Z., & Lesser, I. O. (2009). Turkey’s identity and strategy: A game of three-dimensional chess. In: M. Schiffer, & D. Shorr (Eds.), Powers and principles: International leadership in a shrinking world (pp. 197–224). Plymouth: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bağcı, H. (2015). Strategic Depth in Syria: From the Beginning to the Russian Intervention [online]. Valdai Discussion Club. [Viewed 5 September 2019]. https://valdaiclub.com/a/valdai-papers/valdai-paper-37-strategic-depth-in-syria-from-the-beginning-to-russian-intervention/.

  19. Bağcı, H. (2013). Suriye’de doğrular yanlışlar… [online]. Star. [Viewed 27 March 2020]. https://www.star.com.tr/acik-gorus/suriyede-dogrular-yanlislar–haber-759105/.

  20. Bağcı, H., & Açıkalın, Ş. N. (2015). From chaos to cosmos: Strategic depth and Turkish foreign policy in Syria. In: Ş. Ş. Erçetin, & S. Banerjee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 11–26). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bağcı, H., & Erdurmaz, S. (2017). Turkey-Russia relations in the Era of the justice and development party (AK Party): From honeymoon to separation and reconciliation again. In W. Zellner (Ed.), Security Narratives in Europe (pp. 131–146). Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Barkey, H. J. (2014). Turkey’s Syria predicament. Survival, 56(6), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. BBC News. (2016). Syria conflict: Ceasefire agreed, backed by Russia and Turkey [online]. BBC News. [Viewed 20 August 2020]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38460127.

  24. BBC News Türkçe. (2018). İran Cumhurbaşkanı Ruhani: Türkiye’nin Afrin’deki operasyonu nafile [online]. BBC News. [Viewed 16 April 2020]. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-42959710.

  25. Behravesh, M. (2017). Iran’s Syria policy post-IS: Staying for the long haul [online]. Middle East Eye. [Viewed 14 April 2020]. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/irans-syria-policy-post-staying-long-haul.

  26. Borshchevskaya, A. (2018). Moscow’s middle east resurgence: Russia’s goals go beyond damascus. Middle East Quarterly, 25(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction (pp. 1–6). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Carmichael, T., & Hadžikadić, M. (2019). The fundamentals of complex adaptive systems. In T. Carmichael, A. J. Collins, & M. Hadžikadić (Eds.), Complex adaptive systems views from the physical, natural, and social sciences (pp. 1–16). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Charap, S. (2013). Russia, Syria and the doctrine of ıntervention. Survival, 55(1), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cîndea, I. (2006). Complex systems—new conceptual tools for ınternational relations. Perspectives: Central European Review of International Affairs, 26(Summer), 46–68.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Clemens, W. C. (2014). Complexity science and world affairs. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Çoban, M. İ. (2020). Astana Process in Context with Iranian, Russian and Turkish Foreign Policies on Syrian Complexity. Master of Science Thesis. Middle East Technical University.Retrived from October 15, 2020, from http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12625609/index.pdf/.

  33. Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2015). Complexifying ınternational relations for a posthumanist world. In E. Kavalski (Ed.), World politics at the edge of chaos: Reflections on complexity and global life (pp. 169–188). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Davutoğlu, A. (2016). Stratejik Derinlik, Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu (108th ed.). İstanbul: Küre.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Del Sarto, R. A. (2017). Contentious borders in the Middle East and North Africa: Context and concepts. International Affairs, 93(4), 767–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Deutsche Welle. (2017). New Russia-Syria accord allows up to 11 warships in Tartus port simultaneously [online]. Deutsche Welle. [Viewed 7 March 2020]. https://www.dw.com/en/new-russia-syria-accord-allows-up-to-11-warships-in-tartus-port-simultaneously/a-37212976.

  37. Einstein, A. (1993). Relativity: The special and the general theory. Translated from German into English by Robert W. Lawson. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Esfandiari, G. (2017). IS Propaganda Increasingly Targeting Iran And Its Sunnis [online]. Radio Free Europe. [Viewed 14 April 2020]. https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-islamic-state-propaganda-targets-sunnis/28531534.html.

  39. Esfandiary, D., & Tabatabai, A. (2015). Iran’s ISIS policy. International Affairs, 91(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Freire, M. R., & Heller, R. (2018). Russia’s power politics in Ukraine and Syria: Status-seeking between ıdentity, opportunity and costs. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(8), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1521914.

  41. Geyer, R., & Rihani, S. (2010). Complexity and public policy: A new approach to 21st century politics, policy, and society. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  42. GlobalSecurity.org. (2020). Operation Euphrates Shield [online]. Global Security. [Viewed 16 April 2020]. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/syria-euphrates-shield.htm.

  43. Goodarzi, J. M. (2020). Iran and the Syrian civil war. In R. Hinnebusch & A. Saouli (Eds.), The war for Syria: Regional and ınternational dimensions of The Syrian uprising (pp. 138–155). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Harrison, N. E. (2006). Complex systems and the practice of world politics. In N. E. Harrison (Ed.), Complexity in world politics: Concepts and methods of a new paradigm (pp. 183–196). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Harrison, N. E. (2006). Thinking about the world we make. In N. E. Harrison (Ed.), Complexity in world politics: Concepts and methods of a new paradigm (pp. 1–24). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hashem, A. (2017a). In Syria, Iran sees necessary war [online]. Al-Monitor. [Viewed 12 April 2020]. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/03/iran-syria-intervention-hamedani-quds-force-memoir.html.

  47. Hashem, A. (2017b). Iran’s post-ISIS regional strategy. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 105–112.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hurriyet Daily News. (2017). Turkey, Russia sign memorandum to coordinate strikes in Syria [online]. Hürriyet Daily News. [Viewed 16 April 2020]. www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-russia-sign-memorandum-to-coordinate-strikes-in-syria-108469.

  49. Jervis, R. (1997). System effects: Complexity ın political and social life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kavalski, E. (2015). Complexifying IR: Disturbing the “Deep Newtonian Slumber” of the mainstream. In E. Kavalski (Ed.), World politics at the edge of chaos: Reflections on complexity and global life (pp. 253–272). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kavalski, E. (2007). The fifth debate and the emergence of complex ınternational relations theory: Notes on the application of complexity theory to the study of ınternational life. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20(3), 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kissane, D. (2011). Beyond anarchy: The complex and chaotic dynamics of ınternational politics. Stuttgart: ibidem.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kissane, D. (2015). Cleopatra’s nose and complex ınternational politics. In: Ş. Ş. Erçetin, & S. Banerjee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 57–72). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lehmann, K. E. (2012). Unfinished transformation: The three phases of complexity’s emergence into ınternational relations and foreign policy. Cooperation & Conflict, 47(3), 404–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lohrmann, R. (2000). Migrants, refugees and ınsecurity. Current threats to peace?. International Migration, 38(4), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Maloney, S. (2017). ISIS attacks Iran and accusations fly [online]. Brookings. [Viewed 13 April 2020]. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/06/09/isis-attacks-iran-and-accusations-fly/.

  57. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The great delusion, liberal dreams and ınternational realities. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Naumkin, V. (2017). What Awaits Syria? [online]. Russia in Global Affairs. [Viewed 23 February 2020]. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/what-awaits-syria/.

  59. Notte, H. (2016). Russia in Chechnya and Syria: Pursuit of strategic goals. Middle East Policy, 23(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Oktav, Ö. Z. (2020). Turkish-Iranian relations in Syria. In R. Hinnebusch & A. Saouli (Eds.), The war for Syria: Regional and ınternational dimensions of the Syrian uprising (pp. 176–188). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Onjanov, N. B. (2018). Ara Bulucu; Suriye Düğümü. Translated from Kazakh into Turkish by Aşur Özdemir. Ankara: Panama.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Oztig, L. I. (2019). Syria and Turkey: Border-security priorities. Middle East Policy, 26(1), 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Papadopoulos, M. (2018). Russia-Turkey Relations and the Kremlin’s “Kurdish Card” [online]. Global Research. [Viewed 13 April 2020]. https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-turkey-relations-and-the-kremlins-kurdish-card/5661007.

  64. Parker, J. W. (2020). Qassem Soleimani: Moscow’s Syria Decision—Myth and Reality [online]. Institute for National Strategic Studies. [Viewed 28 April 2020]. https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2074132/qassem-soleimani-moscows-syria-decision-myth-and-reality/.

  65. Root, H. L. (2014). Dynamics among nations: The evolution of legitimacy and development in modern states. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rubin, J. Z. (1992). Conclusion: International mediation in context. In J. Bercovitch & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Mediation in ınternational relations; multiple approaches to conflict management (pp. 249–272). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rumer, E. (2019). Russia in the Middle East: Jack of All Trades, Master of None [online]. Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. [Viewed 12 March 2020]. https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/31/russia-in-middle-east-jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none-pub-80233.

  68. Sağlam, M. (2013). İnadın Ötesinde: Rusya’nın Suriye Politikası. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 68(4), 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sandole, D. J. D. (2006). Complexity and conflict resolution. In N. E. Harrison (Ed.), Complexity in world politics: Concepts and methods of a new paradigm (pp. 43–72). New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Shaheen, K. (2016). Aleppo: Russia-Turkey ceasefire deal offers hope of survival for residents [online]. The Guardian. [Viewed 24 August 2020]. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/deal-reached-to-evacuate-rebels-and-civilians-from-aleppo.

  71. Sinkaya, B. (2015). İran-Pyd İli̇şki̇leri̇: Takti̇k Ortaklik. Middle Eastern Analysis/Ortadogu Analiz, 7(70), 50–52.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sinkaya, B. (2011). İran-Suriye İlişkileri ve Suriye’de Halk İsyanı. Middle Eastern Analysis/Ortadogu Analiz, 3(33), 38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sinkaya, B. (2017). İran’ın Suriye Stratejisi. Akademik Ortadoğu, 11(2), 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Smith, L. (2014). Kaos. Translated into Turkish by Hakan Gür. Ankara: Dost.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Soltaninejad, M. (2019). Coalition-building in Iran’s foreign policy: Understanding the “Axis of Resistance”. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 21(6), 716–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Souleimanov, E. A., & Dzutsati, V. (2018). Russia’s Syria war: A strategic trap? Middle East Policy, 25(2), 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Stein, A. (2018). What Turkey’s Afrin Operation Says about Options for the United States [online]. Atlantic Council. [Viewed 17 April 2020]. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/what-turkey-s-afrin-operation-says-about-options-for-the-united-states-2/.

  78. Stent, A. E. (2019). Putin’s world: Russia against the west and with the rest. New York: Hachette Book Group.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Suchkov, M. A. (2017a). Moscow’s Leverage in Syrıa is Strong, But Limited [online]. Russia in Global Affairs. [Viewed 28 February 2020]. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/moscows-leverage-in-syria-is-strong-but-limited/.

  80. Suchkov, M. A., (2017b). Russia’s “Post-West World Order”: Why Turkey Matters. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Sullivan, C. J. (2018). Sidestepping a quagmire: Russia, Syria, and the lessons of the soviet-afghan war. Asian Affairs, 49(1), 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. The Health Foundation. (2010). Evidence scan: Complex adaptive systems [online]. The Health Foundation. [Viewed 15 May 2020]. https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/ComplexAdaptiveSystems.pdf.

  83. Tomé, L. (2016). Complex systems theories and eclectic approach in analysing and theorising the contemporary ınternational security complex. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin & H. Bağcı (Eds.), Handbook of research on chaos and complexity theory in the social sciences (pp. 19–32). IGI Global: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  84. Tomé, L., & Açıkalın, Ş. N. (2019). Complexity theory as a new lens in IR: System and change. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin & N. Potas (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2017: Explorations of chaos and complexity theory (pp. 1–16). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Trenin, D. (2010). Russia’s policy in the middle east: Prospects for consensus and conflict. Carniege Endownment, New York: The Century Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Tür, Ö. (2019). Turkey’s role in middle east and gulf security. Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 13(4), 592–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı. (2016). No: 333, 29 Aralık 2016, Suriye’de Çatışan Taraflar Arasında Ülke Genelinde Ateşkes İlanı Hk. [Online]. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [Viewed 30 April 2020]. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-333_-29-aralik-2016_-suriye_de-catisan-taraflar-arasinda-ulke-genelinde-ateskes-ilani-hk_.tr.mfa.

  88. UNHCR. (2020). Syria Regional Refugee Response [online]. UNHCR. [Viewed 02 May 2020]. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria.

  89. Unnikrishnan, N., & Purushothaman, U. (2017). Russia in middle east: Playing the long game? India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 73(2), 251–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Vakil, S. (2018). Understanding Tehran’s long game in the levant. Uluslararasi Iliskiler, 15(60), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Wilhelmsen, J. (2019). Putin’s Power Revisited: How Identity Positions and Great Power Interaction Condition Strategic Cooperation on Syria. Europe-Asia Studies[online], 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2019.1602594.

  93. Wilson, J. L. (2010). The legacy of the color revolutions for Russian politics and foreign policy. Problems of Post-Communism, 57(2), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Yeşilyurt, N. (2013). Orta Doğu’yla ilişkiler. In: B. Oran (Ed.), Türk Dış Politikası, Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar (Vols. III (2001–2012), pp. 401–62). İstanbul: İletişim.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Yükselen, H. (2017). Kompleksite Kuramı ve Diyalektik. In F. Yalvaç (Ed.), Tarihsel Materyalizm ve Uluslararası İlişkiler (pp. 309–332). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları: Ankara.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Yükselen, H. (2020). Russia and Turkey in Syria: Testing the extremes. İstanbul: SETA.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Xoпёpcкaя, Л. Л. (2018). «Иcлaмcкoe Гocyдapcтвo. 2.0»: Hoвыe Bызoвы в Цeнтpaльнoaзиaтcкoм Peгиoнe. Бoльшaя Eвpaзия: Paзвитиe, бeзoпacнocть, coтpyдничecтвo. 1(2), 212–217.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Бифoлки, Д. (2018). Гeoпoлитикa и тeppopизм нa Ceвepнoм Кaвкaзe: пocлeдcтвия кoнфpoнтaции/coтpyдничecтвa EC и Poccии и пpoпaгaндa джиxaдиcтoв. Гocyдapcтвeннoe yпpaвлeниe. Элeктpoнный вecтник, 68, 7–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. İlbey Çoban .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Çoban, M.İ. (2021). Co-adaptation in Context with Iranian, Russian and Turkish Policies on Syrian Complexity: The Emergence of the Astana Process. In: Erçetin, Ş.Ş., Açıkalın, Ş.N., Vajzović, E. (eds) Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2020. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74057-3_22

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics