Diplomacy the only modus operandi in Levant crises

The shooting down of the Russian Su-24 jet by Turkish F-16s brought the world's attention to the global panorama. The aircraft was flying in Syrian territory when it entered and violated Turkish airspace, qualifying itself to be hit by air-to-air missiles. The Russian president referred to the incident as a "stab in the back" committed by "accomplices of terrorists," while the Turks justified their action by emphasizing the claim that the plane was engaged in communication and had ignored several warnings before it was shot down.

Earlier, when strikes were initiated by Russia to consolidate Assad's regime and root out rebels, there were several intrusions into Turkish airspace. Ankara not only channelized the NATO council but also summoned the Russian ambassador to Ankara for these violations. The council condemned the intrusions and pointed out that such mistakes could ignite a regional war as the effects of these actions spill into neighboring countries. Additionally, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gave Moscow an ultimatum, stating that if Russia prefers hostility and an adverse relationship with Ankara, the Kremlin would suffer a great loss, adding that any further violations in the future could result in engagement with NATO.

Back in September, after failing to reach a consensus in the annual session of the United Nations, Russia unilaterally decided to attack, hunt down and dismantle the network of DAESH terrorist groups and rebels fighting Assad's regime. The move generated a debate in the West: The United States has failed to keep the promises and pledges which were made in its capacity as a global power. The USS Theodore Roosevelt evacuated the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of academicians and hawks in reaction to the withering hegemony of the U.S. echoed widely. Indeed, it was normal for the allies of the U.S. to be alarmed by the huge military presence of its historical rival - Russia.

At first, Russia had succeeded in garnering public opinion to its favor as a liberator and peace guarantor in the Middle East. Furthermore, the social media and Russian Today (RT), printed and published videos and pictures of Syrian people with banners expressing gratitude to Russia. Secondly, the conflict in Syria made the crisis in Ukraine out of the global spotlight and changed the course of action across the Middle East and Syria, in particular. The millions of refugees from Ukraine are given little or perhaps no attention because the Syrian refugees have become one of the biggest global issues of contemporary times. The West seems to have adopted a neo-appeasement policy and this choice leads them to ignore the Russian territorial expansion and the annexing of the Crimean peninsula which have fallen by the wayside.

The situation was primarily seen as either a scuffle between Assad's regime and groups involved in the Syrian territory or between the U.S. and Russia. While Turkey and France, having historically larger stakes and a greater impact in the region, were ignored. The Levant - the geographical landmass of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel, Palestine and northwest Iraq - remained under Ottomans suzerainty prior to World War I, followed by French control as mandate systems in the post-war settlement. To reiterate, it was Tsar Nicholas I of Russia who referred to the Ottoman Empire as "the sick man of Europe" in 1853 and sought territorial expansion at the cost of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, opening another front in Syria has ignited tensions and fed apprehensions in Ankara, which felt marginalized.

Considering Turkey's position in the immediate vicinity and Syria's as well, the physical positioning of Russian ground and air presence is open to observation. This shifted the balance against Turkey; additionally, the mayhem in Paris allowed the French to jump in. Although France and Turkey are both members of NATO, the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century have born witness to powerful politics influencing the territories of the Levant. The actors in that game were none other than Russia, France and Turkey, yet with a different form of statehood - imperial Tsarist, French and Ottoman.

France is striking DAESH in the aftermath of the Paris carnage and bombed the Syrian city of Raqqa two days after the attack on French soil. Reportedly, this was France's most aggressive strike against DAESH. There were possibilities to initiate collaboration amongst the air forces of France, Russia and the United States to dismantle and destroy bases held by DAESH and other rebels. Such possibilities could have been ignored in case the President Hollande of France wouldn't have declared "universal war" against an "army of terrorists." Alternatively, having identical enemy in Turkish neighborhood, Russia and France more likely to cooperate, Ankara felt apprehended and shelved.

On such a landscape, Turkey rightly responded firmly and shot down a military aircraft. Otherwise, it was inevitable that a deeper incursion in Turkish airspace would be made under the excuse of hot-pursuit against rebels and DAESH groups. Sustaining little pressure and the engagement of NATO would most likely normalize the situation. However, the newly announced installment of S-400 missiles at Khmeimim airbase in Latakia, Syria, could cause more unrest and panic in Ankara. Yet, the U.S. Air Force Central Command states its firm and determined position to continue air strikes regardless of the changing scenario. By mid-December, the Persian Gulf will host the carrier USS Truman and four of its escort ships, thus repositioning with a larger fleet and putting an end to criticism of the US.'s withering hegemony.

In any case, an extended war in the region would be lethal, and escalations could flare up in the Near East. Nevertheless, the chances of such an escalation and ignition of a larger war in the region are fairly low. Diplomacy and engagement are the best modus operandi to end with a stable and lasting solution. Multi-actors and their respective interests have to be analyzed and legitimate concerns must not be ignored either by Russia or the coalition forces of the West. The disintegration of Yugoslavia produced a matrix that was uncontrollable and had devastating effects by mushrooming conflicts within conflicts. The same is the case in the territories of the Levant; multi-actors are involved with multi-dimensional links (ethnic, racial and religious). Careful assessment of the conflict is required; otherwise, the DAESH quagmire can encircle the larger region in violence and conflict.

* Ph.D. (International Relations) research fellow, the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Jilin University, China and research fellow at the Institute of Peace and Diplomatic Studies, Islamabad.