Still, many dynamics that hindered Erdoğan’s offensive last year still exist, particularly regarding the Russian and US presence in the northwest and northeast of Syria, respectively. Given geopolitical interests and their patronage of stakeholders in these areas, neither state appears keen on ceding ground to Ankara.
Indeed, Washington rejects any assault given its support for the Kurd-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). US forces stationed east of the Euphrates River to fight the Islamic State also block an offensive, which explains Erdoğan’s focus on Manbij and Tel Rifaat.
However, Moscow is disinclined to support an offensive or land-swap deal that previously undergirded Turkish offensives west of the Euphrates. Former US Special Representative for Syria Engagement Jim Jeffrey has indicated this on numerous occasions based on previous diplomatic efforts.
This position probably hardened given Turkey’s stance against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not limited to Erdoğan’s decision to invoke the Montreux Convention – closing the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits – and close its skies to Russian-Syria flights. That said, Russia could be interested in Ankara’s continued blocking of Finland and Sweden’s NATO accession in exchange for some land.
Regardless, immediate consequences abound should an attack occur. The region has not recovered from the 2021 drought – the worst in 70 years – or a substantial deterioration in living standards and international aid. Furthermore, both Manbij and Tel Rifaat, home to over 550,000 people, hold a significant number of internally displaced people within an area already hosting roughly 2.8 million.
Ankara’s goal of repatriating one million Syrian refugees to “Safe Zones” in northern Syria will perpetuate this crisis and remains ambiguous. Between 2016 and 2021, only around 110,000 Syrians returned from Turkey, representing less than three per cent of the 3.7 million Syrian refugees today. The areas from previous incursions continue to suffer from institutional corruption and bleak economic outlooks, resulting in riots in al-Bab, making voluntary returns unlikely.
Politically, Turkish advancements will probably harden Syria’s de facto partition as no stakeholders are prepared to cede ground for a political agreement. A larger Turkish presence in Syria will deepen disagreements between these actors at the expense of peace and stability.
Regarding security, an offensive will foster increased violent reactions from the YPG, who intend to induce a state of chaos in Turkish-held areas to prevent resettlement and ethnic cleansing. This continues a cycle of violence that destabilises the entirety of northern Syria – opening the door for extremist groups such as Islamic State to flourish at the expense of the average Syrian.
Samy Akil , Alexander Langlois