There is a debate going on in Ankara in a very wide and dispersed area.
Is Turkey’s Syria policy changing?
Although I find the question incomplete and faulty, it is possible to carry out the discussion under this title.
I have expressed my criticisms of our Syria policy, especially for the period of 2012-2015, at various times. Without forgetting, the fact that the promises made to Turkey were not kept played an important role in the picture that emerged, unlike those who are sick of paying every bill to their country. First of all, the USA, of course.
Let’s not forget the contributions (!) of the separatist Kurdish movement in Turkey and the FETO that accompanies them.
NEW GROUND FOR SYRIA
The summary of what happened as of 2016 was to make up for the mistakes made at that time, on the one hand, and to negotiate on a certain basis with two regional actors, namely Russia and Iran, on the other.
The period when this process was highly decisive in the relations between Turkey and these two countries gained a completely different dimension with the occupation of Ukraine.
Ankara did not hesitate to expand its diplomatic corridors with Russia, while providing arms support to Ukraine.
Ultimately, he built grounds that were carefully followed and even appreciated by all sides of the war, from the diplomatic ground in Antalya to the grain corridor.
We know that those who see this situation as Turkey’s dependence and obligation on Russia do not want to read the equation backwards.
But the Russians are more aware than anyone else that Ankara is a strategic window to the world.
OPPOSITES AND TURKEY
At the last Tehran Summit, Russia took a different approach than Iran’s reaction to the military operation against Syria.
This situation was felt more clearly at the next Sochi Summit. However, with President Erdogan’s statements on his return, we read that Putin wanted to direct Ankara to sit at the table with Damascus. Erdogan responded to this situation with the message that terrorist activities continue despite ongoing talks between intelligence units.
Currently, the possibility of meeting President Erdogan with Bashar Assad is being brought up.
When and in what balance will a military operation take place under these conditions?
Turkey has acted in cross-border operations, of course carefully weighing the reactions it will receive, but ultimately putting its own interests at the center.
There is no reason why the future should be any different.
It is significant that after the Ankara-Damascus theme was strongly commemorated, the ugly protests that were staged in the areas under Turkey’s control were wanted to be transformed into the message “You see, the opposition you supported betrayed you right away”.
Turkey has to both pay attention to these loots and keep the opponents it has supported from the very beginning. If it were possible to go back to the beginning in the construction of this policy, I might make a different assessment. However, this is now very difficult in the current table.
CHALLENGES ON THE FIELD
The threat posed by the USA against Turkey through the Kurds in the region is not a political process that will change with steps such as “withdrawal”. This should be noted first.
Secondly, the joint plans of Moscow and Tehran, which hold the strings of Damascus to a large extent, on the Kurds of the region are not planned to please Ankara. This should be noted again and again.
Of course, Russia sees in its favor the possibility that Turkey’s direct negotiation with Damascus could cause problems between the opposition and Ankara. Is this the policy he proposes to Ankara and which he will support?
“Reconsider your relations with the opposition. Let your operations be within the knowledge of Damascus. The weakening of the US presence in the region is in our favor.”
All of this is being talked about. However, things on the field do not end with talking alone.
Let’s not forget that not only the United States, but also Russia, who did not keep their promises to Turkey in the region, did the same.
To think that Iran will easily hand over its 42-year-old influence building in Syria to the table means not knowing the geography we live in at all.
Who knows how many times I’ll write the weirdest.
Is it really that hard to understand that the most straightforward solution to this problem is to develop a permanent horizon with the Kurds outside our political borders?