Through a clever mix of planning, coordination, negotiation and determination, Turkey and Russia succeeded, in a few weeks, in achieving all of their strategic objectives in Syria, to the detriment of the West, who nevertheless been the most active and effective in the fight against Daesh since its emergence.
On the Turkish side, President Erdogan obtained the evacuation by the Kurds of the Syrian democratic forces of a 30 km strip along his border with Syria, to be able to move there the some 3,6 million Syrian refugees who are on his territory. Furthermore, Turkish forces managed to bring about the decision without excessive losses, which will most certainly be exploited politically by the president and his party, for what is, indisputably, a strategic victory.
On the Russian side, President Putin managed to impose on the Syrian Democratic Forces the acceptance of a unified Syria under the control of the power of Bashar al Assad, without having to quarrel with Turkey. On the contrary, announcements have continued to flow in since the meeting between Vladimir Putin and RT Erdogan in Sochi on October 22, on the sidelines of the Russia-Africa forum. Russia appears to be the guarantor of compliance with the agreements with Turkey for the withdrawal of Kurdish forces, through the establishment of joint patrols between Turkish and Russian forces, while only a few weeks ago, these joint patrols were carried out with the United States. Furthermore, Turkey still appears ready to acquire Russian weapon systems, including new S400 batteries, and most likely combat aircraft.
Even the Bashar al Assad regime emerged from this episode strengthened, appearing to be the guarantor of the country's unity by having intervened to “protect” the Kurdish retreat, and prevent further penetration by Turkish forces. Here again, the symbol will not fail to be used by the regime's communications, to regain popular legitimacy, and try to put an end to the Syrian episode of the Arab Spring.
The Kurds of the YPG are obviously the big losers of these agreements, after having led the bulk of the fight against the Islamic State, they were abandoned by the United States, and therefore by the Western coalition. Without the intervention of Syrian forces, the Kurds could even have been routed by the Turkish advance, despite heroic but disproportionate resistance in the face of a modern and coordinated army.
The United States emerges damaged and weakened from this episode. Not only were they unable to keep their Turkish ally under control, but they showed a great inability to find a solution to end the conflict, in a manner quite similar to the existing situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Trump's lack of strategy, or simply geopolitical understanding, led to contradictory decisions that created chaos that ultimately destroyed the credibility and legitimacy of American forces on the ground. The confidence of Washington's allies has also been damaged, whether for the Gulf countries or for the Europeans.
As for the latter, they could, once again, only note their inconsistency on the international scene, having had neither their say in the American decision, nor the means to be able to do without American military power. . Even united, the Europeans today represent no more than a supporting force for the American armies, and the pantomime in which the European leaders indulged, combining official condemnations and sanctions on armaments, had no consequences. on Russian, Turkish and American decisions in this matter.
Today, we can only hope that Europeans, individually as a country, or together as a Union, will draw the right lessons from the Syrian crisis and its calamitous conclusion, particularly concerning the role played, henceforth, effective military power in international relations.