The statements about the talks with Syria began to become more frequent. According to the UK-based Reuters news agency, there was even a news report that Syrian President Bashar Assad refused President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's request for a meeting. In this news, statements were also used that Assad pointed to the post-Turkish elections.
If such a meeting atmosphere had emerged 5-6 years ago, it would have been more hopeful to talk about overcoming the problem than today. At this point, let me state at the beginning what I will say at the end; Negotiations should definitely be made with Syria and negotiations should be started as soon as possible to eliminate the problems. However, meeting with Syria today does not mean only meeting with Syria. It is also useful to know this.
While Russia and Iran can say "yes" at the same time in accordance with their own expectations, the regional goals of the United States, which conflict with Turkey, then Russia and Iran, must be met to the maximum extent possible. How possible this is, I leave it to your discretion.
The goal of the USA is not to ensure stability in Syria. The USA is acting according to a roadmap for the continuation of the chaos in the country. It is making plans for the energy of regional actors to be spent in Syria. It aims to keep the country as an important laboratory for the Greater Middle East Project (BOP).
Continuing activity in Iran, confusion in Russia's Ukraine war have brought about some changes in the US's view of Syria. In the course of time, everyone's relationship with local elements has become more permanent. While Russia maintains its alliance with the Syrian administration, it also continues its talks with the SDF (PYD/YPG), which the US defines as a local partner.
He even advises them to move away from the USA. Because he thinks the SDF is the most organized structure in Syria. Russia is of the opinion that other organizations and terrorist organizations are a part of the cyclical process. While Turkey is trying to ensure border security, it has focused on how the elements in Syria, which are opposed to these talks, will react as a result of possible negotiations with Assad. In addition, it was clearly understood that for the solution of the refugee issue, it was necessary to negotiate with Syria in the first place.
There is now a definite opinion that the "Readmission Agreement" signed with the European Union cannot cure the problems.
In other words, since Assad does not have a say in the whole country in Syria, a process to be carried out with him can only bring solutions to a certain part of the problem. There is also Idlib, where nearly 4 million people live and hundreds of terrorist organizations are mentioned; How it will be discussed is another mystery.
Well, despite all this, why am I still at the point of negotiating with Syria? Moreover, this thought does not belong only to today. We have always tried to emphasize that communication channels should be kept open. Because such a meeting will clarify some uncertainties, help the similarities and differences in the views on the problem to be revealed more clearly, prepare the ground for other elements in the country to review their positions, and force those who are in regional accounts over Syria to make material and moral cost analysis.
Obviously, this requires a strong will. It is very difficult for this government, which has contradictory attitudes, actions and discourses, to normalize the process in Syria. There is a need for a new power in foreign policy and new faces in diplomacy. Otherwise, it will not be possible to take the necessary steps to overcome the problems with neither Egypt nor Syria.
The fact that this government used foreign policy as a material for domestic policy made the management of the crises with these countries very difficult. Now is the time to build the institutional mind in foreign policy, which has gone through so many fragile stages.