How the content of this agreement should be evaluated and questions about what may happen in Syria will continue to be discussed. First of all, it is useful to express this. No one should present this treaty as a great victory and make mind-boggling interpretations that will already put the next steps into vain. At the same time, no one also should not try ignoring the evaluation and some of the important points in this agreement such as the deals like “we're burned,we’re done, we're ruined”. To find answers for the questions such as “What is the full side of the glass, what are the risks in the remaining gaps?” would be the most important method. First of all, we need to know that for the first time in our history, we have faced such insulting statements by a US President. This is dishonorable and unlikely to be answered as it should be. It is not enough to note the language used, it must be done. As such, we could not solve the purpose of using expressions like “they are not our interlocutors,we will not meet with Vice President Pence who came to our country for the operation of the Spring Peace”, and then rewarding him with a seating plan. Diplomatic reciprocity was disregarded at this meeting. Both Trump's statements and the sitting order in the meeting are not the things that can be passed by saying such things.
When it comes to the details of the agreement, Turkey, 30 km depth and with the agreement of the attempt to create a safe zone along the 450 km border line we see can not be completed as it is targeted. However, the decision to control a line of at least 120 km and to remove YPG people from this region is important. Now, with a period of 5 days, how this withdrawal will take place should be monitored very well. The statement made by the Ministry of Defense yesterday that the YPG people who were told to withdraw will continue their attacks and harassment is a point that should be followed carefully.
Besides, as it is known, there are actually two distinct legal grounds that remain in the name of the solution of the Syrian issue. The first is the Adana Consensus and the other is the Astana Process. Along with this agreement, reference to Geneva in some of the statements may prove that the United States has designed these processes as an attempt to undermine. On the other hand, is the YPG-US-Turkey relationship officially recognized? And if so what impact will the next time in this case the emphasis on the question of Syria's territorial integrity is the most important question to be answered.
It is also interesting that UN Security Council Resolution referred to the decision 2254 in 2015. There is an expression of "reaching a political solution with the ceasefire". Is this agreement meant by the ceasefire? If so, doesn't that mean that the YPG is a legitimate army? Although it is said in this article that the United States is committed to the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria, how much will it be possible to believe in this commitment when the targets of the YPG, which is said to descend to the south under US protection? What will the YPG descend to the south do and how will it act? In addition to the American umbrella, will the YPG also indirectly fall under the protection of the Damascus administration as claimed? Or is the YPG intended to be transformed into an organization that cannot be shared? In addition, the United States probably wants to make Syria an Afghanistan. This should not be allowed. Because it is clear what they want in the name of regional balances in Afghanistan, where the US has implemented a “controlled chaos” strategy. Nevertheless, the goal of being there is clear. Likewise, there is no need to become an expert in Syria to see if you may want to implement this roadmap. The cycle is a cycle of thought. The period is the period of acting without making foreign policy a part of domestic politics. If you made a Syrian Afghanistan, Turkey will be affected by it before everyone else. This is the most important danger after this time.
(Mustafa Kaya - Milli Gazete)