Skip to main content

Attitudinal Analysis of Russia-Turkey Conflict with Chinese Role as a Third-Party Intervention

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World (GDN 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 315))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The presented attitude-based conflict analysis models the Russia-Turkey conflict with the third-party intervention of China. Third-party intervention model considers the attitudes of three decision makers (DMs) to understand the behaviors of the DMs in decision making in the situation of a strategic conflict. Three sets of attitudes of DMs are considered for attitudinal conflict analysis. The study traces out how the inappropriate (negative) attitudes of Russia and Turkey, regardless of third-party’s attitude, would lead to unfavorable consequences. Even though the third-party, China, changes her attitude from neutral to positive, it would not affect the outcome. The attitudinal analysis reveals that the attitude of the focal decision maker, Russia, is important as the change in it influences the outcome of the conflict. The appropriate (positive) attitude of DMs would help resolve the conflict.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Stubbs, J., Solovyov, D.: Kremlin says Turkey apologized for shooting down Russian jet. Reuters, 27 June 2016. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-turkey-jet/kremlin-says-turkey-apologized-for-shooting-down-russian-jet-idUSKCN0ZD1PR. Accessed 01 Nov 2018

  2. Melvin, D., Marinez, M., Bilginsoy, Z.: Putin calls jet’s downing ‘stab in the back’; Turkey says warning ignored. CNN, 24 November 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/middleeast/warplane-crashes-near-syria-turkey-border/index.html. Accessed 11 Jan 2018

  3. Melvin, D., Mullen, J., Bilginsoy, Z.: Tensions rise as Russia says it’s deploying anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. CNN, 25 November 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/middleeast/syria-turkey-russia-warplane-shot-down/index.html. Accessed 11 Jan 2018

  4. Naylor, H., Roth, A.: NATO faces new Mideast crisis after downing of Russian jet by Turkey. The Washington Post, 24 November 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/turkey-downs-russian-military-aircraft-near-syrias-border/2015/11/24/9e8e0c42-9288-11e5-8aa0-5d0946560a97_story.html?utm_term=.7251c00b23d3. Accessed 05 Jan 2018

  5. BBC: Turkey’s downing of Russian warplane - what we know. BBC News, 01 December 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34912581. Accessed 02 Jan 2018

  6. Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M.: Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. Wiley, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Xu, P., Xu, H., He, S.: Evolutional analysis for the South China sea dispute based on the two-stage attitude of Philippines. In: Schoop, M., Kilgour, D.M. (eds.) GDN 2017. LNBIP, vol. 293, pp. 73–85. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63546-0_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Ali, S., Haiyan, X., Peng, X., Zhao, S.: The analysis of environmental conflict in Changzhou foreign language school using a hybrid game. Open Cybern. Syst. J. 11, 94–106 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Neumann, V., Morgenstern, J.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Howard, N.: Paradoxes of Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W., Fang, L.: The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1), 41–55 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Inohara, T., Hipel, K.W., Walker, S.: Conflict analysis approach for investigating attitude and misperceptions in the war of 1812. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 16(2), 181–201 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Xu, H., Xu, P., Ali, S.: Attitude analysis in process conflict for C919 aircraft manufacturing. Trans. Nanjing Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut. 34(2), 1–10 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Xu, H., Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W.: Matrix representation of solution concepts in graph models for multiple decision makers graphs. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Humans 39(1), 96–108 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Xu, H., Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W., Kemkes, G.: Using matrices to link conflict evolution and resolution in a graph model. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207, 318–329 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Xu, H., Li, K.W., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M.: A matrix approach to status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Appl. Math. Comput. 212(2), 470–480 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Walker, S.B., Hipel, K.W., Xu, H.: A matrix representation of attitudes in conflicts. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 43(6), 1328–1342 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Peng, X.: A decision support system for interactive decision making - part I: model formulation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. C Appl. Rev. 33(1), 42–55 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Peng, X.: A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 2: model formulation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. C 33(1), 56–66 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kirisci, K.: Turkey and its post-Soviet neighborhood, vol. 112(756), p. 271 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kirişci, K.: Order from chaos: The implications of a Turkish-Russian rapprochment, 08 October 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/08/10/the-implications-of-a-turkish-russian-rapprochement/. Accessed 05 Jan 2018

  22. Özel, S.: The crisis in Turkish-Russian Relations. Center for American Progress 10 May 2016. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2016/05/10/137131/the-crisis-in-turkish-russian-relations/. Accessed 05 Jan 2018

  23. Skinner, A.: Grudge between Ankara and Moscow deepens in struggle for regional influence. CNBC 14 Mar 2016. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/14/turkey-v-russia-grudge-between-ankara-and-moscow-deepens-in-struggle-for-regional-influence.html. Accessed 02 Jan 2018

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haiyan Xu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ali, S., Xu, H., Xu, P., Theodora, M. (2018). Attitudinal Analysis of Russia-Turkey Conflict with Chinese Role as a Third-Party Intervention. In: Chen, Y., Kersten, G., Vetschera, R., Xu, H. (eds) Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World. GDN 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 315. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92873-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92874-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics