On September 16, 2019, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani visited Ankara in order to continue Astana trilateral peace talks on Syrian settlement and to meet face to face with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan separately.

On the eve of the meeting, many skeptics in Russia voiced that Turkey was not fulfilling its obligations under the Sochi agreement signed a year ago. According to them, Syria’s last de-escalation zone in Idlib had turned into a nest of terrorists (mostly from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham) who regularly carry out attacks against Russian military bases in Syria in Tartus and Khmeimim.

Consequently, most Russian observers agreed that the hour for a full-scale operation in Idlib by Damascus backed by Iran on the ground and Russia from the air, was fast approaching. The Sochi agreement was not working, and, therefore, it was time for Russia to look for another way to resolve the issue, namely, through a large-scale military intervention. These Russian observers expected to get such a message from President Putin as the result of his trip to Ankara on September 16, 2019.

Three Assads

Bashar al-Assad has not been the same politician throughout the crisis. The Assads of 2011, 2015 and 2019 are considerably different. It is even possible to say that these are three different political figures with three different types of behavior.

In 2011, Middle Eastern autocracies fell like dominoes and it seemed that Syria would quickly follow behind Egypt and Libya, and that Bashar al Assad would follow Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi. The prospect of a rapid overthrow loomed in front of Damascus.

In 2015, Assad, who several years earlier managed to transfer the seemingly inevitable collapse into a protracted civil war, was completely exhausted and went to the last frontier. So, Russia decided to directly intervene into the Syrian civil war, which the Russian leadership avoided up to the last moment. The result we may see today.

In contrast to 2011 and 2015, in 2019, Assad feels like a winner in the Syrian civil war, after recapturing most of the lost territory. Of course, statements by some officials, including Russian ones, claiming that “the war in Syria is over” and “the country is returning to a peaceful life,” should be considered at least premature. However, it is clear that Assad today has the psychological state of a winner who has pulled back from the edge of the abyss. This radical change in the civil war has transformed the psychological state of Assad and may lead to a change in how he acts.

The first task of Syria in turning the tide of the civil war is a final restoration of control over the country’s territory. Here there are two geographies: Idlib, controlled by the Democratic Union Party; and the east of the Euphrates, by the People’s Protection Units (YPG) with the support of the U.S.

There is no one-step solution available to Damascus in the east of the Euphrates River. As long as the U.S supports the PYD and YPG, then Damascus can do nothing about the YPG enclave that was established with U.S.’ support and protection. Some hopes, although very uncertain, have been raised by the announcement made by President Trump at the end of last year to withdraw American soldiers from Syria. However, nothing indicates that this decision may, even theoretically, be implemented in the foreseeable future. Attempts to replace American troops with Europeans have still not led to a result.

Syrian Civil War Cannot Be Won Militarily

The task of Russia looks much more complex and goes beyond specific case of the Syrian civil war. As a global player, Russia takes into account much more factors than just supporting Damascus. Which, in fact, President Putin once again demonstrated during his visit to Ankara. 

Firstly, the civil war in Syria cannot be won with a mere military victory and it would not be enough for establishing peace and tranquility. At this stage what is required is the arrangement of political dialogue between all parties of the conflict. It is clear that an exclusively military solution of the Idlib problem will only contribute to solving the short-term task of establishing control over an important part of the country by Damascus. However, it will deepen the problem of the country’s division. Therefore, it will not solve the problem of ensuring sustainable peace in the country, about which, Russian President Putin constantly speaks.

Secondly, at this stage, Russia considers Bashar al Assad as the only political figure who can keep the country together. Therefore, Russia seeks to restore his legitimacy in the eyes of the international community, primarily in the West, including the European Union. Russian diplomats are nowadays making noticeable efforts to reopen international diplomatic missions in Damascus.

Thirdly, Russia wants to return as a full-fledged player in the Mediterranean basin through Syria. This task has two dimensions: one of them is military, and the other is political. The military dimension is already ensured by the presence of Russian military bases in Syria – both aviation (Khmeimim) and naval (Tartus). The political dimension is impossible without Russia itself being able to engage in dialogue with various forces in the region, which it trying to hold in Syria.

And finally, it is clear that Russia cannot be an equidistant player in the Middle East. However, the Russian Foreign Ministry is trying its best to be able to maintain a dialogue with all regional players. Even with those with whom there are serious disagreements. Therefore, interrupting dialogue is a bad option, which it is trying to avoid.

In the context of Russian-Turkish relations, this means that for now in the eyes of Russia, the continuation of dialogue between Moscow and Ankara and the joint large strategic projects (such as the Turkish Stream gas pipeline, Akkuyu NPP, the supply of S-400), outweigh both the failure in the implementation of the Sochi agreement signed a year ago, as well as Turkey’s pursuit of its own policy in Syria, which differs markedly from Russia.

In its dialogue with Turkey, the Russian side still hopes that Turkey will gradually increase the level of its dialogue with Damascus, anticipating that, in the end, Turkey will finally abandon the expectation that “Assad must leave,” as a condition for beginning an active political dialogue in Syria.

Taking into account the motivation of the Russian leadership disclosed above, it becomes clear why at the final press conference of the trilateral meetings not a single word was said either about the Sochi Agreement or about the situation in Idlib.

Although, Russia is extremely concerned that Turkey’s fulfillment of its obligations under the Sochi Agreement is being delayed, this didn’t prevent the leaders of the three countries, including President Putin, from demonstrating a good mood, and together with the Presidents Erdogan and Rouhani, from making jokes with the audience during the final press-conference after the Summit on September 16, 2016.

Astana bigger than Astana

In its regional affairs Russia is guided by the position of strategic patience, obviously not wanting to risk its relations with Turkey – both existing and promising (including cooperation and contracts in the defense industry). Hence, it is ready to move towards the formation of the Constitutional Committee and the adoption of a new constitution for the country as per the Astana Peace Plan despite the unresolved case of Idlib.

There is one more circumstance that can be discerned from the results of President Putin’s trip to Ankara, it is the desire to make “Astana bigger than Astana”. That is to turn the Astana format of the Syrian settlement into a permanent Astana platform to solve regional issues in the Middle East. It creates a precedent for resolving difficult regional problems exclusively by regional powers in a “micro format” without resorting to large, slow, and inefficient instruments like the UN, and is a breakthrough towards a new world order. It is in this context, that the statements made by the three presidents in Ankara towards Yemen, and their willingness to contribute to the settlement of the crisis should be understood. No doubt, the existence of such a strategic goal outweighs the difficulties faced on the road towards peaceful settlement in Syria or the existence of disagreements between Russia, Turkey and Iran. Moreover, all three countries are united by a commitment to the territorial integrity of Syria.

On 16 September, 2019 the leaders of Turkey, Russia and Iran came together in Ankara for a trilateral summit in line with the Astana process. One of the main outcomes of the summit was the announcement of the formation of a participants list for the Syrian constitutional committee.

On 23 September, United Nations chief, Antonio Guterres said an agreement was reached on the composition of the constitutional committee and that the UN considers the committee to be the next step in efforts to find a political solution to end the more than eight-year-long war in Syria. Despite this significant progress, the formation of the constitutional committee isn’t final as the procedures of the committee are yet to be decided, and it is here that the differences between the Astana states will become more critical. The decision over the procedures of the committee will set the framework for Syria’s new constitution. Therefore, before the committee commences, the outcome of these discussions will be the most significant building block towards the reconstruction of Syria.

The formation of the constitutional committee in line with the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 has been a major obstacle for over the past eight years and only the Astana format has proven itself able to achieve progress. After the guarantors of the Astana process formulated their willingness to push along this process, the Assad regime and the Syrian opposition managed to come up with a list of 50 participants from their sides. Both sides were supported by their fellow backers in their efforts to formulate their own list, which is Iran and Russia for the regime and Turkey for the opposition. However, a third list was to be prepared by the UN of 50 independent figures but this faced several obstacles. This third list of independent members is of decisive importance, as whoever can manage to influence more than half of the independent members might secure its majority within the constitutional committee.

At first, the Assad regime protested against the decision-making role of the UN arguing that the UN’s role has to be limited to monitoring rather than taking an active role. Only with the pressure from the Astana format did the regime step back and accept the UN’s role in forming the list of independent members. However, the regime again blocked the process when the UN shared its list with all sides. The Assad regime argued that some of the independent members should have been in the list of the Syrian opposition instead. After diplomatic back and forths, the number of independent people considered problematic by the regime was reduced step-by-step, first to six then three until there was finally agreement on the last person during the Ankara summit.

At the current stage, the procedures of the committee have to be decided, but now the differences will be even bigger and won’t be limited to the Syrian opposition and the regime, but will include the differences between Turkey, Iran and Russia. Among other issues, the most visible will the question of who will head the committee. While Iran and Russia argue that the regime is the legal authority of Syria in the UN and deserves to head the constitutional committee, Turkey underlines that such a move will be fruitless and cannot result in a political solution, as such, the UN has to head the committee. From the Turkish standpoint, the Assad regime can be seen as a legitimate actor only if it wins an election after a genuine political transition process, but for Iran and Russia the regime is already a legitimate actor. After years of cooperation, the Astana process now comes to a point in which they have to decide if the opposition and the regime should be equal, or if both sides should find a solution under the regime’s direction.

Following the last meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, they announced that there was a list of constitutional committee members agreed to by both the Syrian government and the opposition. They also confirmed that efforts to form the committee and kick off its work were a priority and developments were expected soon.

Talk of the creation of a Syrian constitutional committee is the result of Turkish, Russian and Iranian efforts via the Astana process to help move the conflict towards a political solution. Leaders of these countries act as guarantors for Astana decisions and insist that the process aims to reinforce UNSC resolution 2254 (2013) which, calls for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. The constitutional committee is to be formed with 150 members: 50 regime representatives, 50 opposition representatives and 50 civil society representatives chosen by the UN.

However, it is unlikely that progress will be made on the constitutional committee with the situation as it is in Syria. Both the conditions on the ground and the political atmosphere are not conducive for a diplomatically negotiated solution. Without disregarding the efforts of regional and international actors at reducing the violence and moving the conflict towards a negotiated solution, it’s not enough to achieve the conditions needed for the formation of a constitutional committee. This is because the demilitarized zone agreed to by Russia and Turkey are not going to keep the regime at bay, the fight east of the Euphrates is still up in the air, and the political consensus needed to make basic decisions regarding the constitution are nonexistent. These obstacles are the main reasons why a political solution to the Syrian conflict and efforts to do so through the formation of a constitutional committee are doomed for failure.

Operational obstacles to a negotiated solution

Even though many claim that the military situation on the ground is wrapping up, this is an incorrect assessment. Unfortunately, the many efforts to bring violent attacks to a halt in Syria have failed to do so and the largely defenseless civilian population is usually at the receiving end of such attacks. Military operations are ongoing in eastern Syria, chasing down the remnants of Daesh fighters that were not in Baghouz when the U.S.-led coalition attacked that territory. Furthermore, in the north east, the so called Syrian Democratic Forces – of which the PKK’s Syrian wing, the YPG, make up the bulk of the force, are on a crash course with the locals, Arab tribes, and Daesh sleeper cells. The situation in eastern Syria is further complicated following a recently released statement from Hayat Tahrir al Shaam, the Jabhat al Nusra Al Qaeda affiliate that is the dominant force in Idlib and northern Hama, which claims that sleeper cells of its own, living in regime controlled parts of Deir Ezzor, attacked and killed a number of regime soldiers. This came just days after the YPG-dominated SDF announced the defeat of Daesh in its last enclave, Baghouz. 

In northwestern Syria, the Syrian regime – backed by Russian air power – continues to conduct air strikes in northern Hama and Idlib province – especially along the M5 highway. These strikes are causing serious damage to civilian infrastructure and also killing civilians, including children. A successful regime operation would result in a further consolidated regime victory over the opposition and an unprecedented displacement of civilians and opposition members who would be forced to leave Idlib towards northern Aleppo or into Turkey. This would surely destabilize the Turkey backed Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield territories and put added pressure on Turkey to ensure security and stability in these territories. Just a few days ago a Turkish soldier was killed in an exchange of mortar fire between Turkey-backed forces in northern Aleppo and YPG elements in Tel Rifaat. With the Turkish Minister of Defense Hulusi Akar opening a new operations command center in Akcakale, Turkey is surely motivated to keep military operations in high gear. Especially against groups like the PKK affiliate, the YPG, who pose a direct threat to Turkey’s national security. Likewise, Russia and the regime backed by Iran are not taking off the table the option of an offensive in Idlib any time soon.

Understanding what the future holds for Syria is aided by the case of the southern Syrian province of Daraa. There the Syrian opposition was forced to concede their weapons and sign Russian facilitated reconciliation agreements with the regime because the United States told opposition forces there that they could no longer protect them from Russian and regime attacks. Now, the frustrated public, and select opposition forces, have formed what is being called a “popular resistance.” They have claimed several attacks that have targeted Syrian regime officials, including an Air Force Intelligence officer and Hezbollah operatives operating between Damascus and Daraa.

In northwestern Syria, the Syrian regime – backed by Russian air power – continues to conduct air strikes in northern Hama and Idlib province – especially along the M5 highway. These strikes are causing serious damage to civilian infrastructure and also killing civilians, including children

And east of the Euphrates, the PKK is further entrenching it’s forces into public life. PKK founder Ocalan is venerated by militant ideologues who plaster his face all across northeastern Syria from Deir Ez-zor, to Raqqa, and Qamishli. With U.S. forces on the retreat, Arab tribal forces are expected to counterbalance the influence of Leninist Marxist ideologies. However, the tribal forces’ loyalties are misplaced, working with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in an attempt to take measures steps to prevent further Iranian expansion in Syria. Their fear is that when the U.S. retreats, the regime, backed by Iranian funded militias, will move in to take valuable Syrian territory. The land east of the Euphrates is where most of Syria’s oil fields and natural resources are found- including fresh water and are able land that produces much of Syria’s grains.

With so much at stake, a political solution may not be the most feasible means for reaching an end to the conflict. The regime is still hopeful to retake the entire country by force, further legitimizing Assad’s rule. And Russia is stuck between propping up a government that has destroyed its own country for the sake of survival, and working with Turkey, hoping to bring it further away from NATOs sphere of influence.

Diplomatic obstacles to a negotiated solution

With the situation on the ground so complicated, the diplomatic efforts are a reflection of those intricacies. Both Turkey and Russia are insistent on achieving progress through the Astana process because it will secure their voices at future negotiations and ensure their participation in a rebuilding process, worth hundreds of billions by some estimates, that Russia and the regime insist have already begun. However, ensuring the necessary progress is proving more difficult than desired.

There are three groups that are to make up the proposed constitutional committee. If Russia and Turkey have reached consensus on the regime and opposition lists, there remains the question of approving the list of 50 Syrian civil society members. Those are to be chosen by the new UN Special Envoy to Syria Geir Pedersen. He adopted from his predecessor a Syrian Civil Society Support Group that is sanctioned by the UN. They sponsor and facilitate meetings with Syrian civil society organizations that operate inside Syria and outside as well. The issue with those civil society members is that they may not have approvals from other members of the constitutional committee, from both the regime and opposition sides. Some observers familiar with Syrian politics note that the Syrian civil society inside regime controlled areas is generally pro regime and do not represent the Syrian public at large. The second group of Syrian civil society adopts the opposition’s approach to the conflict and operate in opposition controlled areas and in Turkey. The third portion of Syria’s civil society organizations operate in YPG controlled areas east of the Euphrates River and are directly affiliated with the Marxist Leninist PYD political wing of the YPG. The division of Syrian civil society will make it very difficult for the incoming UN Special Envoy’s job of finalizing a Syrian civil society list that much more difficult.

Another major issue of contention is the constitution itself. There are two approaches to dealing with the constitution. Unconfirmed reports to Arab news sources say the French are suggesting skipping writing a new constitution and making amendments to the 2012 constitution. These amendments would be reached through direct negotiations between the regime and the opposition facilitated by the international community. The regime accepted this proposal on the condition that future elections would only allow people in regime controlled areas to participate in the voting.  This option excludes the votes of the millions of Syrians that are displaced inside Syria, made refugees in surrounding countries, and those Syrians that are yet to be accounted for. The other option is for the constitutional committee form and engage in extensive negotiations to write a new constitution. Neither of these options are possible without first making progress on some core issues: release of prisoners, return of refugees, and holding those responsible for crimes against the Syrian people accountable. Insecurity and instability are a symptom of a larger condition in Syria. The cycle of violence Syrians are living in is a result of the Assad regime’s security apparatus and violent attacks against defenseless civilians. If this is not stopped, then any efforts towards a political solution will be in vain.

Finally, there are erroneous calls for changing the name of the Syrian Arab Republic so that it does not have any ethnic identifier. PKK ideologues representing the so-called Autonomous Administration in eastern Syria are calling for a complete autonomy and are engaged with negotiations with the Assad regime to achieve this status. It’s not clear if they have made much progress, but what is clear is that they expect to play a significant role in any of the future scenarios regarding forming a constitutional committee and moving the country out of a cycle of violence and into a political transition. Ironically, all of their efforts are quite deceptive since they have been partners with the regime in suppressing legitimate opposition against Assad, they have coordinated business transactions between Assad and Daesh, and have contributed to the destruction of major Syrian cities including Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, and helped U.S. forces kill scores of civilians in the name of fighting terror.

The PKK’s efforts are deceptive since they have been partners with the Syrian regime in suppressing legitimate opposition. The PKK has also coordinated business transactions between Assad and Daesh, and contributed to the destruction of major Syrian cities. 

Constitutional committee woes

Forming a constitutional committee requires that the participants have consensus and approval from all sides. The cycle of violence on the ground must come to an end and civilians must be able to reunite with their families and return to their homes. But as UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen clearly saw when he visited Home recently, regime efforts are more focused on rebuilding and renovating destroyed markets than rebuilding civilian homes and letting people come back home. Unfortunately, the international community may be sabotaging efforts to form a constitutional committee because they see little potential in the Syrian opposition and do not want Turkey and Russia to succeed in creating the political momentum needed to push the political solution forward and give reverence to the UN Geneva resolution 2254. For these reasons the military option is still very much on the table for the Assad regime and its Iranian allies. Russian pressure may not be enough to stop an Iranian backed Assad regime from trying to retake Idlib province.

Engaging in talks preceded by confidence building measures including the release of prisoners and excluding those responsible for committing gross human rights violations from the political process are critical to ensuring the success of any political efforts towards peace. For the Astana guarantors, cooperation and coordination with the UN, is critical to keep the momentum of their diplomatic efforts alive. But before any of this can move forward, there needs to be real grass roots support from the Syrian public in regime controlled areas, opposition controlled areas, and the Syrians spread around the region and the world. Furthermore, regardless of developments on the ground, without the participation of the Syrian public, both inside and outside Syria, a constitution written in Geneva or Astana, or even Paris, may not have the legitimacy required to mobilize the Syrian public to participate in a transitional political process. This is even more unlikely if Bashar al Assad remains the figurehead of the Syrian regime and is not held accountable for the crimes he, and those who fought with him, committed against the Syrian people.