After years of drifting from one crisis to another, from civil wars to terrorist attacks as if in a horror movie, perhaps the best news came from a summit in Sochi between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin. That meeting resulted in a perilous process that is likely to be the end of an enormous humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. There is an urgent need today for such examples that result in success through a combination of diplomacy and conciliation. We hope that the agreement on Idlib will not falter and remind mankind that peace and understanding is the best course.

In my previous column, I wrote in detail how the whole world watched live as President Erdoğan put out a sincere effort to protect civilians at the recent Tehran summit. Erdoğan was trying to have a cease-fire decision accepted at the summit, which he thought was not open to the public. Of course, Erdoğan also had in mind his country's interests but it was evident that human life was the ultimate priority. Erdoğan put it before all other issues and struggled for it.

Before that summit, the world public opinion had already accepted the inevitable – i.e. war – in Idlib. Russia was determined to enter the area. It had its own security concerns and Erdoğan recognized them while insisting that war is not the remedy. Yes, there are radical terrorist groups in the area. But putting the lives of 3.5 million people at risk and forcing millions to migrate for fighting these groups is not viable. The situation necessitated a well-planned cooperation that is complex yet unhurried and more elaborate.

Besides genuinely considering Russia's concerns before taking any sort of action, Turkey also emphasized it would never tolerate war as a method. And that, in turn, prevented the collapse of the Astana process and disruption of the cooperation among Russia, Turkey and Iran.

Erdoğan and Turkey have continued to issue determined statements after the summit as well, trying not to hurt their partners. Putin has also behaved responsibly with correct evaluations about Turkey's power and value.

The headlines of the Sochi meetingFollowing the summit in Sochi on Sept. 17, Turkey and Russia signed what was titled the "Memorandum of Understanding on Stabilization of the Situation in Idlib's De-escalation Zone."

Erdoğan summed up what the memorandum entails as follows:

"We have agreed on the establishment of a weapons-free zone between the opposition and the [Assad] regime-controlled areas. The opposition will continue to remain in the areas where they currently are. In return, we will ensure that the radical groups, which we will designate with Russia, will not operate in the area under discussion. Russia will surely take necessary precautions to ensure the Idlib de-escalation zone is not attacked. Together we will ensure the detection and the prevention of provocations by third parties and violations of the agreement. Russia and Turkey will conduct patrols in coordination on both sides of the demilitarized zone to be established. Turkey will also fortify its observation posts that are in Idlib's de-escalation zone. I believe that with this agreement, we have prevented a great humanitarian crisis in Idlib. Turkey will continue to do its part regarding the Idlib issue."

For his part, Putin said:

"In the course of today's talks, we certainly devoted a fair amount of attention to reaching a settlement in Syria. We managed to arrive at significant solutions. We reviewed in detail Russia's concerns about the threat posed by the militants concentrated in Idlib. We have decided to establish by Oct. 15 a demilitarized zone some 15 to 20 kilometers deep along the contact line between the armed opposition and government troops."

The result of the peace talks

Actually, the two countries and their leaders deserve praise for this success. Indeed, the deal has reverberated around the world. European countries especially breathed a deep sigh of relief as the danger of a refugee influx was averted. If only they could do more than that. The EU's political incompetence is really a cause for concern. It's shameful that the EU evaluates the issue of the Middle East and Syria only with regard to the refugee crisis.

To tell the truth, no other country except Turkey would achieve such a diplomatic feat. First of all, no other country except Turkey approached the issue of Syria from a human-centered perspective, giving priority to their own interests instead. Second, even if they have a perspective similar to that of Turkey, they lack Turkey's capacity to change, shape and manage events. Third, Ankara can have diplomatic talks with all the influential powers simultaneously. And finally, it enjoys huge prestige in the eyes of oppressed peoples. So much so that, these peoples do not trust even their own governments as much as they do Turkey.

If the Idlib deal is implemented successfully, it will provide significant leverage for the conclusion of the Syrian civil war. Indeed, the two leaders emphasized this. A positive final result to be obtained through cooperation in such a complicated issue like Syria would also serve as an example for other troubled regions of the world. And most importantly, it would restore the lost credibility of diplomacy and peace initiatives.

Of course, we should not be too optimistic. Truths are still there. The bad news is that the Syrian civil war will not come to an end until great powers get what they want. The desires of great powers, however, intersect and conflict with one another. Hence, continuation of the war seems to be the most likely scenario.

Knowing this fact very well, President Erdoğan made an offer ahead of the Sochi summit; "Let's bring peace to Syria and withdraw our forces from there at the same time." If the goal is the elimination of terrorist groups and war in Syria, which is what Turkey obviously wants, describing this offer as naïve or implausible is a contradiction. We understand from it that, the reason why those keeping armed forces in Syria avoid ending the conflict is their realpolitik preferences. Unfortunately, the plight of civilians is not a priority among these preferences.

So, what prevents the foresight regarding the issue of Idlib from being shown to the conclusion of the Syrian conflict, too? Will not this war end if the U.S. and the coalition forces display strong will for this purpose and if the Astana process is not perceived as a threat but aligned with the Geneva process?

The future of Syria

That's where things get complicated. There are serious divergences on Syria's territorial integrity. Turkey and ostensibly Russia want Syria to stay undivided. But it is known that the U.S. and doubtlessly Israel want to see the country split into three parts. But who will benefit from the split of Syria into three parts? The people of Syria, peace, or regional stability?

Without doubt, such a preference would cause the war to go on. That preference would bring along a decades-long ethnic or sectarian conflict, too. No one can claim it is the most plausible and rational choice imposed by history. It is related with controlling the energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Apparently, Israel's security and the Iran factor are also at the heart of this choice due to misguided logic.

Partnering with terrorist groups is not only a wrong method but also a sure way of losing credibility. That it is an issue of domestic security and survival for Turkey is either misunderstood or dismissed, or perceived as easy to overcome. For Turkey, it would be similar to Daesh establishing a statelet along the U.S.-Mexico border. Turkey's reaction is correct and legitimate. Besides, it voices this reaction without discriminating among people while caring for the lives of all civilians. Idlib is the latest proof of this.

Seeing and preventing the threat

Hence, Turkey not allowing a fait accompli in Syria, where it sees existential threats, should not anger anyone. In fact, Turkey has left this point behind. Turkey has experienced and witnessed so many things in recent years that its "friends" must do a lot to regain its trust.

In short, the world needs diplomacy and sincere alliances. No one rejects the importance of realpolitik or national interests. But there must be ways to reconcile them with peace and security. Threats, hard power, proxy wars and terrorist groups are not inevitable. What makes a nation great is not its army or economy but its pioneering contributions to peace, democracy and stability. The reason why the U.S. had become a world power with World War II was not its defeat of fascism but its leading role in the reconstruction of Europe. A great part of responsibility definitely falls on major powers and if it is not fulfilled, they will be replaced.

History should have taught us at least that.