Reviewing Turskish media reaction to the Ankara - Damascus Normalization

Once the Syrians remember the facts of eleven years of Turkish behavior towards their country, the attempts to overthrow the regime and the state and support the armed opposition, leading to the occupation of parts of northern Syria, the importance of the first Moscow meeting can be realized at the level of the defense ministers of Turkey, Syria and Russia. And while awaiting the crystallization of a clearer picture with the possible meeting to be held soon between the three countries at the level of foreign ministers, Turkey was preoccupied with the details of the new phase of the reconciliation process, noting that the view of the writers supporting the “Justice and Development” party was shy in approaching the developments, while enthusiasm appeared, The “schadenfreude” is evident in the position of those who have been calling, for years, for direct communication with Damascus, amid almost unanimous agreement that the biggest winner of what is happening is the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad.

About this, Muhammed Ali Guler writes, in the opposition newspaper “Cumhuriyet”, in an article entitled “Al-Assad won and NATO lost,” that “(Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s external needs, and (Turkish President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan’s internal needs, intersected to produce pressure. Russia is in the direction of holding a meeting of the Turkish and Syrian defense ministers in Moscow, thus opening the door to normalization between Syria and Turkey. According to Guler, “a lot of speculation arose in Turkey and Syria about the issues discussed by the two ministers, but it can be said that from the point of view of Turkish foreign policy, Ankara has accepted the fact that regional policies will proceed from now on on the basis of a “solution with Assad” or “the Assad solution.” ». Guler stresses that the most important of all these assessments is “to see the extent of the reflection of the normalization process from the point of view of Turkish foreign policy, on Ankara’s behavior in regional and international issues, which assumes that the “Assad solution” will be reflected in Turkey’s foreign policies. This requires necessary steps in the field that reflect the new approach.

The first of these measures, the writer says, is the dismantling of the structures that Ankara established in order to overthrow Assad. It includes all armed groups, Syrian, Islamic and radical, to which Turkey opened borders and formed a parliament and government for them as well. In Guler's opinion, the aforementioned constitutes "the most important issue now," as it is by "dissolving these structures" that what the writer describes as a "flexible solution" to the presence of the Turkish army in Syria can be reached. And he adds, “Of course, the dissolution of these groups is not as easy as expected, as it has a political and social cost. Some of them will not give up their arms, but may even move against Turkey. Here, cooperation between the Turkish and Syrian armies will be of great importance, as it will facilitate the liquidation of armed Islamic groups and will reduce the cost to Turkey. Secondly, it will help program a gradual withdrawal of the Turkish army and a corresponding control of the Syrian army over its territory. And he wonders, in this context, whether the Turkish authorities will accept the advanced scenario, or will they adapt their vision to the impact of the presidential elections and put forward the condition of “achieving political stability” first?

In the same newspaper, Barish Doster writes, saying that the Moscow meeting, despite its delay, is important for the two countries, as it allowed Turkey to correct its wrong policies towards Syria, and at the same time showed more than one thing: the first of which is “the limits of the Turkish state’s ability”; The second is “the mistake of practicing foreign policy on a sectarian, ethnic, ideological, personal or emotional basis and using it as a tool in domestic politics.” The new Turkish policy towards Syria also showed, according to Doster, “the mistake of relying on and trusting the United States and believing that it will win under any circumstances; It is also a mistake to underestimate Assad and look at countries and societies in the Middle East with a sectarian eye. According to the writer, “if the talks between the two countries produce results, they can cooperate, with the help of Russia and Iran, against terrorism, eliminate the American presence in Syria and the armed Kurdish elements that support it, and thus achieve peace and stability,” as well as prepare for “the return of Syrian refugees.” to their country.” He believes that "Syria is Turkey's gateway to the Middle East with a border of 911 km, the second begins to win, not only from the political, diplomatic, strategic and security aspects, but also from the economic point of view."

In the loyal newspaper "Miliyet", Tonga Bengen says, "The United States wants a Syria fragmented as a state and institutions, because this is its way to consolidate its influence in this country. Therefore, Washington is not satisfied with Turkey's efforts to reconcile with Syria. And he goes on to say that “Washington will use all kinds of conspiracies and provocations to trap a solution between Ankara and Damascus, such as pressure through the militants in Idlib, and through other issues in the eastern Mediterranean and within the Turkish army by officers who do not agree with Erdogan in his new policies.” Hence, the most important thing, according to Bengin, is that “Syria, Russia and Turkey be honest, sincere and firm in order to achieve lasting peace and confront the potential games of the United States and the mines that it will plant.”

As for Mustafa Kara Ali Oglu, in the opposition newspaper “Qarar”, which is close to Ahmed Davutoglu, he believes that “Turkey is not in an enviable position. We were against Bashar al-Assad and we want to depose him. Now this goal is no longer possible, and Assad has gained enough strength to sit at the table across from us. And Russia skillfully managed the Astana process to the extent that it forced Turkey to recognize the Assad regime and sit with it. This is a significant success for both Moscow and Damascus. But he also says that Turkey “should not trust Russia with regard to the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, as Moscow and Washington provide protection for it,” asking: “Can it be said to the refugees who fled Assad that the problem has been solved, and they can return? Is this applicable? According to the writer, the Turkish forces cannot leave Syria without resolving the problem of the Kurdish forces, because they are “the only negotiating force we have with regard to Damascus,” concluding that “the process is completely unknown and unreliable, and negotiations over it will take years or even decades before reaching agreements.” Issues that cannot be resolved in the field will not be easy to solve at the table.

For his part, Fahim Tashkin, in the opposition newspaper "Gazete Dwar", considers that "the Syrians today must use accurate measures in order to confront what they expect from the normalization process with Turkey. Things may progress surprisingly, and Erdogan's dream of praying at the Umayyad Mosque may come true, but alongside Assad. The writer describes the Moscow meeting as “a birth on the page of Turkey’s defeat,” noting that “it is not clear what the two sides agreed upon, but Damascus and Moscow see it as an agreement to strike the armed groups in Idlib, while Ankara suffices to mention the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, while the problem will be the jihadist groups.” In Idlib and the warlords, it is one of the most difficult challenges that Ankara will face. Tashkin wondered: “Will Turkey say to Syria: Deal with the Kurds and leave me the matter of finishing off the jihadists?” To answer: “Erdogan wants to convince Damascus that the Kurds are the common enemy, and that they are the price of normalization between the two countries.” And if Erdogan and Assad meet before the elections, he adds, “We can talk about a bloody electoral investment. The next meeting of foreign ministers will make the goals clearer. The result: Assad wins.