|
ANALYSIS
“Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hailed the truce as an ‘historic opportunity,’ but experts say it had problems from the start. Most notably, the Syrian army said that ‘terrorist’ organisations would be exempt, a caveat which implied Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, an al-Qaeda affiliate and an influential component of what remains of Syria’s armed opposition, would continue to be targeted. The deal’s shaky progress also underscores the fact that no single player can fully deliver the government or the rebel side,” Louisa Loveluck writes for the Washington Post.
“Turkey is beginning to turn away from support for the rebels. And that is partially because of Trump’s election, in which he said he would work with the Russians, and he turned his nose up at the rebels, saying, we don’t know who they are, and suggesting they’re worse than Assad. And so this is an about-face. The fact that the United States is not at the table is very important, because it has allowed these talks to go forward without the U.S. And, in a sense, the U.S. has signaled to the rebels it’s not got their back, it’s not going to continue to shuttle and help arms get through to the rebels. So this is a new day for the rebels, who have to think hard about what their future strategy is,” Joshua Landis said in an interview with PBS.
“Assuming the regime, or Russia and Iran, do not go for total victory in the coming months, it will still be difficult, if not impossible, for them to convince the opposition and the Syrian people that they are interested in peace and a lasting settlement. Not when their victories have come at great humanitarian cost to the Syrian population—and when tens of thousands of rebels still have the resolve and resources to continue their rebellion in one form or another,” Ranj Alaaldin writes for the Guardian.
|