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

  • Sharafat Ali
  • Haiyan XuEmail author
  • Peng Xu
  • Michelle Theodora
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 315)


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.


Strategic conflicts Attitudinal analysis Third-party intervention Russia Turkey China 


  1. 1.
    Stubbs, J., Solovyov, D.: Kremlin says Turkey apologized for shooting down Russian jet. Reuters, 27 June 2016. Accessed 01 Nov 2018
  2. 2.
    Melvin, D., Marinez, M., Bilginsoy, Z.: Putin calls jet’s downing ‘stab in the back’; Turkey says warning ignored. CNN, 24 November 2015. Accessed 11 Jan 2018
  3. 3.
    Melvin, D., Mullen, J., Bilginsoy, Z.: Tensions rise as Russia says it’s deploying anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. CNN, 25 November 2015. Accessed 11 Jan 2018
  4. 4.
    Naylor, H., Roth, A.: NATO faces new Mideast crisis after downing of Russian jet by Turkey. The Washington Post, 24 November 2015. Accessed 05 Jan 2018
  5. 5.
    BBC: Turkey’s downing of Russian warplane - what we know. BBC News, 01 December 2015. Accessed 02 Jan 2018
  6. 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. 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). Scholar
  8. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neumann, V., Morgenstern, J.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howard, N.: Paradoxes of Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge (1971)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W., Fang, L.: The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1), 41–55 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Kirisci, K.: Turkey and its post-Soviet neighborhood, vol. 112(756), p. 271 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kirişci, K.: Order from chaos: The implications of a Turkish-Russian rapprochment, 08 October 2016. Accessed 05 Jan 2018
  22. 22.
    Özel, S.: The crisis in Turkish-Russian Relations. Center for American Progress 10 May 2016. Accessed 05 Jan 2018
  23. 23.
    Skinner, A.: Grudge between Ankara and Moscow deepens in struggle for regional influence. CNBC 14 Mar 2016. Accessed 02 Jan 2018

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharafat Ali
    • 1
  • Haiyan Xu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peng Xu
    • 1
  • Michelle Theodora
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Economics and ManagementNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations