Riad Derar: The strike is to reject the agreement Astana, Turkey will return to NATO’s lap

HOGIR NAJJAR-AZAD SAFO /NEWSDESK

Hawar news agency (ANHA) interviewed with the Co-chair of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), Riyad Derar about repercussions of the triple strike on Syria and its impact on the alliances held before the strike.

The text of the dialogue is as follows:

First, if we talk about the situation in Syria in general and the departure of the mercenary gangs that were operating under the Turkish occupation of the eastern Ghouta and the towns of the Syrian capital Damascus, how did this delivery and what was the purpose?

The events began to indicate that redeployment in the coordination of Turkish and Russian and an Iranian agreement are evolving aimed at transferring the fighters in Ghouta and al-Qalamoun to Adlib and Jarablus in exchange for concessions allowing Turkish expansion in these areas, which prevents the Iranian presence from advancing only within narrow limits. This is a sign of the complexities of the agreement between the guarantor states to reduce the escalation preventing their transformation into a new Eastern alliance aimed at confronting the United States in Syria.

Turkey's goal of establishing an Islamic canton with extremists still exists. It believes in its ability to manage their file through its factions’ agents, who control them and their movements, and through the political organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, who lead civil files and infiltrate the fighters with their diverse factions.

The multi-party accounts made the scenario of Aleppo renewed in Damascus’ Ghouta. Afrin was the award that Turkey won with the complicity of all Russia first and then the United States, which was silent. It was also a game from Russia aimed at laying a wedge in strained relations between Turkey and America. But that did not work perfectly Turkey supported the blow after the chemicals’ use and this makes the attraction continues between all parties where the losers are the Syrians alone.

What is the purpose of these strikes by the tripartite American-British-French alliance against the forces of the regime?

Many goals, notably the response to the insult posed by the challenge of bombing chemicals for all American alerts and also related to Russia, it accounted for the Syrian issue and threatened Western parties if they intervened and therefore the message that the solution cannot go as it sees it Moscow and its allies to impose it by force and change its course from Geneva to regional sites that demarcate regions and redistribute the population.

The strike is a sign of rejection of this solution in which power is shared by the parties of Astana. Moreover, the French president stated that one reason is that the strike led to the exclusion of Turkey from Russia. The French do not hide their resentment at the repercussions of the Russian-Turkish rapprochement; its peak in the military operation carried out by Turkey in Afrin was an understanding with Russia. Indeed, the strike caused a rift in the Turkish-Russian relationship when Turkey supported the strike.

The French president also called on the French president to talk about a French initiative to find a political solution, including the announcement of a new draft resolution in the Security Council to stop the fighting and start serious negotiations without conditions, this calls on Paris to host the Group of Five, the alliance that directs the alliance of Russia, Iran and Turkey to launch a new political dynamics for a solution in Syria, and this strike must have such repercussions before losing credibility and working to stop the Russian effort to unilaterally resolve.

The strike also revealed that America is capable when it wants. It still controls the strife of the conflict and can direct an appropriate response to those who try to insult it. This is done by a limited strike, which did not mean change in the Syrian regime, but rather a warning that it does not punish anyone if punitive measures are taken against those who violate the international law that wants to appear as a sponsor of it.

In light of the triple strike on Syria and in your opinion how will the repercussions of this strike be on the Syrian arena in the future and how will affect the alliances held between the forces that are looking for share of the Syrian cake at the expense of the blood of the Syrian people?

Between the agreements of Astana and Sochi, and the 5-point initiative that demarcate solution in Syria, a competition that reached the borders of direct confrontation and the threat of war if one is singled out on the Syrian arena; it is no more than understanding and not ignoring American and Israeli interests in any solution. Moreover, of course, the use of chemical weapons on Israel's borders is something that neither America nor Israel should be silent about. This demands a decisive position.

Israel is acting alone in the meantime, aware of the extent of its agreement with Russia in preventing the expansion of Iran and its militias ... The path of confrontation is to seek a new negotiating mechanism in which everyone participates and does not know the strength to impose a solution. Here, Iran will be the biggest loser because the West is required to distance Russia from Iran to continue to manage the Syrian file.

As for Turkey, it will return to the lap of "NATO "and will only accept the satisfaction of Russia because it will play with the US side on understandings that will ensure gains on its borders against any Kurdish expansion or threat as it sees it, starting with Manbij any understandings will be due to the negotiation process and the strength, movement and diplomacy of those concerned.

Before the strike on Syria, Russian-Turkish relations were going through a period that could be described as good because of the alliances that were held between them, but after the strike, Turkey sided with the strike. In your opinion what are the repercussions that will be left by this strike and Turkish statements that turned overnight between the relations between Turkey and Russia?

Erdogan is the most victorious in this Russian-American rivalry and he will resolve his position with the Americans in the end. He is talking about a roadmap to be implemented in Manbij and understanding with it to impose stability there, as he claims, and threatens in other locations in (Girê Sipî/Tel-Abyad) and Adlib. He will not abandon the game of interests he runs with the Russian and the Iranian, because he is able to serve them in the factions’ file and control and bet on them.

Therefore, the management of the conflict is not by wars alone, rather, it is necessary to resort to politics and diplomacy to counter the Turkish situation. There are interests and there are good alliances, and North Syria children must be aware of these dimensions, as states have no conscience or feelings.

(T/S)

ANHA