The world looks down a road of mounting insecurity living on borrowed time.

(Jeffrey Levett)

The flagship Earth runs the risk of a shipwreck of titanic proportions that will deep-six humanity to full-fathom fifty.

(Jeffrey Levett)

For more than four months, the world has been facing a crisis without precedent. While many have tried to find a lasting and peaceful solution to the conflict there, reality n the field rejects all efforts. Implementation of The Minsk agreements is nothing but a dream. As Levett points out in his article, an "invasion" is not an "invasion" and occupied areas are not occupied.

On the one hand, "the occupied areas have become a territory of fear and terror”, as stated by Vadym Prystaiko, former Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs. On the other hand, Vassily A Nebenzia from the Russian Federation said that in Ukraine, there are no temporarily occupied territories.

There are many like the French Nicolas de Rivière associating himself with the European Union, who said that it is time to try something new in international policy. The introduction of new ideas is possibly the answer. A marriage between the field of International Relations (IR) and the global politics of medicine from a public health point of view might be the alternative.

Many support that significant geopolitical options may be solved by incorporating health and life sciences into international policy. The argument that health issues have recently played a major new role may be related to the fact that medicine and war have been used together in international strategies. We mention the fact that social security and international security are analytically often divisible in global problems that obliquely highlight the need for leading-edge solutions in the joint fields of war, health, and medicine.

What is necessary is to advance our understanding of the laws that govern world policy in a new environment. Not only is health a natural ‘good', but it also promotes an alternative view of human and international relationships and obligations. Global Health approaches to security in International Relations are the most prominent guide through which the applied framework can be effectively analyzed.

It is not a simple thing to talk about Crimea without mentioning the contribution of warfare and modern medicine achievements. In this part of the world, both killing and curing may run together. Modern warfare and modern medicine in their last steps of growth are advancing together. But in Crimea, both come to define jointly a strategic logic in the defense of the affected population.

To suggest something new for Crimea, we must first understand how modern warfare, including the counter-insurgency strategy, has relied on emergency medicine psychiatry and, more recently, genetic science. At the same time understand how intelligence gathering, propaganda, interrogation and detention have all been connected someway to medical practice. The addition of medical practices can overcome existing communication barriers.

An empirical recording of the international problems as applied to the Crimean case and the associated health problems might help. We will recognize that warfare and medicine have a shared history in a symbiotic way. That means that warfare has invited medicine and medicine has invited warfare in a historical framework. Analyzing the uses of triage, psychological resilience, and genetics the after 9/11 war is now easier, but again what about Crimea? Drawing some of the correct paths in which modern warfare and medicine have been coevolved at present may represent new modes of strategy. Both warfare and medicine to the population historically in the context of IR present unique opportunities for the analysis of these symbiotic developments.

It also illustrates the potential impact of a global medical policy on the areas of conflict in Ukraine today. Medicine at the same time, with doctors and other health professionals involved in troubling acts, or some calling them abnormal, limits our hope of international involvement. Methodologically, we must move from the more general to the more particular. For this reason, additional qualifications are not necessary because of the impact on public health, hygiene and social medicine. As a result, the relationship between war and medicine, both national and international, will make sense.

Developments in modern medicine have a genetic mark. Biomedical technologies have opened the door to a new context of cooperation.

Medical techniques are used in cases aimed at capturing, prosecuting or killing the target of the analysis. Under this framework, DNA testing "is widely used to support forensic evidence of a person or incident, but can now be linked to a family's medical history.

The use of a much wider system within the framework of war also makes use of the population's biological data. More precisely, the link between genetics and intelligence, or between medicine and war, is central to this system. At the heart of the framework is epidemiology as strategic surveillance linked to national security affecting securitisation and based on global medical policy. What is quite striking is that medicine and war seek to deal with problems in major conflicts.

Empirical research is necessary as part of a comprehensive approach to medical policy, taking into account the securitisation issues of the relevant area. The field of the Global Policy of Medicine' may be especially necessary during conflicts.

The Ukrainian question is directly linked to the situation in Crimea.

We hear very often lately stories from Crimea on the genetic family history but don’t know too much about it. All we know is that family history is a record of someone's medical information and their relationship with their biological family.

On the other hand, information on human genetic data finds its way into daily applications promising a bright medical future. Specifically, this information is increasingly being used in the identification of individuals at increased risk of developing family-expressed genetic disorders.

When we hear about our family's health history, we often think about past illnesses, but it's not just that. It means collecting all kinds of medical information, including those that no longer live. Proper treatment of this kind of information might help in predicting the risks to individual health and perhaps even warn about our off-spring's entire health problems.

Electronic medical records together with genomics networks are used by medical researchers and institutions. Networks bring together a variety of researchers with expertise not only in genomics but also in statistics, ethics, informatics and clinical medicine. Networks contribute to genomic research and clinical implementation as well as clarify their public role.

Medical record systems, as in Crimean hospitals, can be a resource for studies of complex genomic associations of medical history on diseases responsible for pathological patterns. They are looking for the incorporation of genetic variants into clinical care to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of patients.

A wide range of hospitals in both Ukraine and Crimea need collaboration with such networks but how to do it under these circumstances.

We must reaffirm our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We conclude that the implementation of international health procedures and, more specifically, genetics and medical history could be a good starting point.