APOGEE OF THE SYRIAN CONFLICT

Apparently, the conflict in Syria has reached its final stage. But it is not over yet. The north of the country, which is known for the complexity of events due to the large number of military groups fighting there and the official forces of foreign powers, is still an arena of bloody hostilities.

Deployment of forces

The northern border of Syria is a 900-kilometer strip separating the country from Turkey and stretching from the border with Iraq in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. This includes three Kurdish regions, as well as the districts of Manbij, Aleppo, Afrin, Idlib and Latakia. Part of the border zone, i.e. approximately 22-25% of the Syrian territory from Iraq to Jerablus is under the control of the Kurds.

In August 2016, as part of the Operation Euphrates Shield, Turkish army liberated from ISIS an area about one hundred kilometres west of Jerablus towards Afrin. Currently, this section is under the control of the allied opposition forces. In 2018, as part of the Operation Olive Branch, a joint military operation of the Turkish army and its allies from the Syrian opposition, the Turkish army also liberated Afrin from Kurdish militants.

Idlib region covers the territory from Afrin to Latakia in the west, remaining the only administrative unit controlled by opposition forces, except the areas under Kurdish control. The Al-Nusra Front, or Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a military organisation recognised as a terrorist organisation by the international community, and the associated radical armed groups control about 70% of the Idlib territory. One of them, the third powerful group, is the Islamic Party of Turkestan consisting of about 15 thousand people, mostly Uyghur Turks. The remaining 30% of Idlib’s territory, including the section between Afrin and Aziz-Jerablus, is controlled by the Free Syrian Army supported by Turkey and a number of armed opposition groups. In addition, ISIS units operate in northern Syria.

There are also armies of major world powers in northern Syria. The US deployed 25 military bases in the Kurdish regions of the country, and until Trump's decision to leave the country, there were 2,000 American troopers officially registered there. France has five military bases on the same territory. According to various estimates, in 2017 and 2018, the US Army conducted military training for 40 and 30 thousand members of the Popular Self-Defence Forces (YPG), respectively. It is estimated that currently there are about 35 thousand armed fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the Kurdish regions of Syria. In addition, last year, the American media reported on a training program for 30 thousand border troops to protect the Kurdish territories. Recently, the Turkish president said that the US handed over to Kurdish forces 50 thousand trucks full of ammunition and equipment.

The extent of the Turkish military presence in Syria remains unknown. According to Russian sources, during the operations, especially in Afrin, 8-12 thousand Turkish military personnel were present in Syria. In accordance with the Sochi Treaty of September 17, 2018, there are 12 Turkish army observation posts in Idlib to monitor the ceasefire in addition to Afrin and Aziz-Jerablus controlled by Turkey.

It is estimated that there are also around 1,000 Iranian troops in Syria, as well as seven Iranian observation posts to monitor the ceasefire around Idlib. Along with the Iranian army in northern Syria, there are Hezbollah armed brigades, as well as the military brigades of Fatimiyun and Abulfadl Abbas.

At the peak of the active period of military operations in Syria, there were officially 5,000 Russian troops, including various forces deployed at the Tartus navy base and the Khmeimim airbase in Latakia, as well as the military police.

Two years ago, rumours were circulating that a high-ranking Chinese military official arrived to Damascus to allegedly help deploy a group of Chinese military men to support the Syrian government in its fight against Uyghur militants in Idlib. But this information has not received official confirmation.

Goals and objectives of the parties

The situation in this area is rather complicated. Each state/party to the conflict has its own interests and plans, which they are trying to realise by manipulating the military forces and armed groups.

Kurdish policy of Washington

The US began supporting Kurds in the north of the country after they noticed a diminishing likelihood of the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in 2013. The Kurds helped American army as its ground forces in operations against ISIS. Therefore, Washington extensively supported the Kurds. In the military budget for 2019, the US government allocated $250 million to support the Syrian Kurds, namely the SDF. Just like in Iraq, the United States supports the system of Kurdish administration in the region, hence confirming its commitment to the idea of ​​creating a Kurdish autonomy in Syria.

The Kurds control about 25% of the Syrian territory and are very close to creating autonomy both politically and militarily. But this issue must be agreed internationally. If the autonomy project is approved in the Middle East, a second “Kurdish state” will be created after Iraqi Kurdistan. As Iraqi practice has shown, the creation of a second Kurdish autonomy in Syria may help the West as a means of military and political pressure both on Damascus and on Turkey in the future. Therefore, many Western countries openly or tacitly support the idea of ​​Kurdish autonomy.

Russia's goal

Obviously, with a 49-year military agreement with Bashar al-Assad and strengthening its position in Syria during the military conflict, Moscow’s first goal is to keep the current president in power. Russians also maintain smooth relations with the Kurds. But given that the Kurds are now completely controlled by Washington and the Kurdish project could turn into a means of pressure on Damascus, Moscow, at every opportunity, focuses on the territorial integrity of Syria. During a meeting with his Turkish counterpart Erdogan near Moscow on August 25, Russian President Putin once again emphasized the importance of the territorial integrity of Syria, which is now a priority for Turkey.

Three goals of Ankara

The Turkish government has current and strategic goals for northern Syria. The current goal is to stop the flow of refugees from Idlib and other regions to Turkey, especially after the start of a new military operation in Idlib. Currently, about 1 million Syrians have accumulated near the Turkish border, who are likely to try to enter Turkey as soon as the first shots are fired.

Turkey’s first strategic goal in Syria is to prevent the Kurds from gaining autonomy in the north of the country. Ankara considers the creation of Kurdish autonomy in Syria under the leadership of PYD, that is, the Syrian wing of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), and the YPG armed forces subordinate to it, as a direct threat to Turkey. If Ankara somehow managed to find a common language with the Kurds of Northern Iraq and personally with Barzani (although the 2017 referendum showed that sometimes this also becomes impossible), reaching an agreement with the leftist Kurds from PYD can be very difficult and even impossible. In other words, Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria is a direct threat to Turkey’s national security.

The second important goal of Ankara is to ensure the transfer of power to various opposition forces, which it supports in northern Syria, thanks to the territories freed from ISIS and YPG, as well as Idlib. Otherwise, after the “big deal” between Bashar al-Assad and Russia, they will try to destroy these forces, which will be an end of the military-political opposition built and supported by Turkey for many years. Therefore, Ankara is trying to get out of the situation with minimal benefit, namely by endowing the forces supported by it with certain authority.

But the problem is that the positions of Ankara, Tehran and Damascus match on the Kurdish problem but are different regarding Idlib. Conversely, there is no serious disagreement between Ankara and Washington on the issue of Idlib and the defence of the opposition forces, which is not true about the Kurdish issue because, as already noted, Washington supports the Kurdish autonomy while Ankara considers it as a direct threat to its sovereignty.

Oddly enough, but Iran and Syria are apparently the only two countries that can be the most natural and sincere allies of Ankara on the Kurdish issue. On the one hand, Iran is interested in protecting the territorial integrity of Syria and does not want Washington's presence in the region, and on the other, it understands well that it will be the next addressee of the supporters of the Kurdish autonomy. Damascus in no way wants to change its unitary structure by providing the Kurds with autonomy. But as long as there is a serious conflict situation around Idlib, it is too early for Damascus and Ankara to sit around the negotiating table. So far, Tehran and Moscow are talking on behalf of Bashar al-Assad with Ankara.

Since April 2019, the Syrian army has advanced in Idlib and at the end of last month took control of Khan Sheikhun and the surrounding areas in the south of Idlib. The operation was terminated only after Erdogan’s visit to Moscow on April 25, and a ceasefire was announced on August 31.

After a temporary ceasefire, Turkish authorities focused on the situation in the Kurdish region of Idlib. Despite numerous attempts since 2012 to create a secure border zone, Turkey has failed to secure the support of its allies. In subsequent years, Turkey entered Syria to conduct anti-terrorist operations. Now Ankara is trying to create a safe buffer zone along the Syrian-Turkish border between Jerablus and Iraq in order to keep the Kurds away from its borders.

Apparently, the two-year negotiations with the US produces preliminary results. Thanks to an agreement reached on August 5-7 between the US and Turkish military commands, the armies of both countries carried out joint air patrols of the Turkish-Syrian border. They did the same on September 9 with the participation of ground forces and six armoured vehicles on each side. According to a spokesman for the US military coalition, Colonel Myles Caggins, patrol groups monitor the trenches and combat positions destroyed in the zone of YPG's “voluntary retreat”.

However, it is clear that there are serious disagreements between the Americans and the Turks regarding the border security zone. First, the Americans were forced to agree to jointly patrol the border with the Turks after Turkey concentrated its forces on the border, thus hinting at a willingness to start the operation alone. But even after that, President Erdogan said that there were misunderstandings with the Americans. Quote: “We are negotiating with the US to create a safe buffer zone along the border. But what we see is our expectations on this issue do not match their plans. Our allies want to create a safe zone not for us at all, but for a terrorist organisation (PYD / YPG). We reject such an idea.”

In fact, Turkey is trying to create a buffer zone along the Syrian border on the territory between Iraq and Jerablus in Syria (currently controlled by the Kurds) and stretching 35-40 km inland. Thus, Ankara will be able to push the YPG far from its borders by cutting the PKK communication channel between Syria and Turkey, and strategically take away most of the Kurdish territory, effectively undermining the project of Kurdish autonomy.

However, Washington does not want the Turks deep (40 km) inside the country, while SDF agrees only on a width of the buffer zone not more than 5 km.

Recently, Kurdish news agencies reported that at a closed meeting of Turkish and NATO generals, Turkey and the US agreed on the length and width of the buffer zone (100 and 5 km, respectively). However, the Turkish news agency Demirören reported that no such agreement existed. According to the agency, Turkey wants to expand the coverage area to 35-40 km, while the Americans are interested in a width of no more than 17-20 km. According to President Erdogan, the parties have not reached a mutually beneficial agreement on the buffer zone yet. But it seems that the Americans began joint patrols to protect the Kurds from the Turkish attack.

It is likely that after long discussions, the Syrian constitutional commission will begin work this month. Otherwise, the presidential election scheduled for next year will be held in accordance with the current constitution. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that the commission will achieve any serious results by next spring, because the process of legalizing forces in the military and political arenas is not yet completed. Uncertainty about the Kurdish issue in and around Idlib continues. This means that it is too early to talk about achieving a "great peace" or a political transfer of power in the country. Whether we like it or not, but, apparently, the fate of the Syrian issue will be determined by weapons, as it has always been from the first day of the conflict.