A Russian-American faceoff over the Kurdish card in Syria

The race between the United States and Russia over the possession of the Kurdish card in Syria has become very clear during the current period, until the situation between them has become like a new conflict between them starting from the periodic clashes between their forces deployed in the region.


Moscow received the message that Washington announced through its actions when it sought to make the Kurdish-Kurdish dialogue succeed between the parties of the Kurdish Autonomous Administration and the Kurdish National Council within the body of the opposition coalition supported by Turkey, as a prelude to starting a consensus mediation between Ankara and the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC).

What was explicitly announced by the US envoy to Syria, Joel Rayburn, who called the coalition to an effective dialogue with the “SDF”.


This also coincided with the release of press leaks, according to which Washington was seeking to form a Syrian opposition government in the areas of northeastern Syria that the two sides would share, but these leaks were not confirmed by the relevant sources, nor did the current data and circumstances indicate the possibility of achieving them.


In addition, Moscow did its actions in this context through a memorandum of understanding signed in Moscow between the Popular Will Party headed by Kadri Jamil, which is supported by Russia, and the Syrian Democratic Council, as some reports indicated, according to the nominated articles of that memorandum, that Moscow is seeking to win over the administration’s Kurds.

Subjectivity, in response to the actions that Washington was taking.


The latest Russian trends regarding the win over of the “SDF” is what the Saudi owned, London based “al Sharq al Awsat” newspaper indicated, quoting a Kurdish leader as saying that Russia is seeking mediation between Ankara and the “SDF”.


The newspaper quoted Russian experts as saying that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov intended to host a delegation from the “SDF” a few days ago (during the signing of the memorandum of understanding), which carried messages to Ankara and Washington, within the framework of what he described as “the Russian leadership’s endeavor to reduce tension between Turkey and the component”.

Kurdish, and play the role of mediator to remove the reasons that impede the progress of negotiations.


Courting Turkey?


“Nine years ago, the ground was open and still is for the Turks to monopolize the so-called Syrian opposition, and Sochi or Geneva are nothing but indications of the Turkish monopoly on the issue of Syria, as well as the handing over of Afrin to the Turks from the Russian side, and the handing over of Tal Abyad to Ras al Ain (Sera Kaniye) to the Turks from the side.

The US are only a hard evidence for this.


The Kurdish issue is at the solution table, and this proposition does not satisfy the Turkish side, and the solution to the Syrian issue is linked to the solution of the Kurdish issue, and time is not in the interest of the Turks.

The Russian and US sides want the Syrian issue to be resolved according to the Turkish blessing”, and if “there was a Russian or US co-optation of the Kurdish side, or a blocking and damning, then it is for economic and strategic interests, given the strategic location of northeastern Syria, and also on the other hand, the Syrian society’s acceptance of the democratic solution, and the idea of ​​peoples’ coexistence, given Syria’s exhaustion in the Third world war”.


What about Moscow’s support for Damascus?

Russia supports the “SDF” in its approach to any agreement with Damascus, adding that “it is not possible for Russia to take any step that would harm the position of the Syrian state, such as sponsoring a Turkish agreement – Kurdish or consensus between (Ankara) and the Syria Democratic Council”.


As for the role of the United States in Syria… the United States is aiming to weaken the Syrian government without collapsing it, and forcing it to head towards the Geneva track and implement UN Resolution 2254.


The prominent and declared goal of the US military presence is Confronting “ISIS” However, confronting Iranian influence in Syria and the entire Middle East region ranks second on the scale of priorities of the US national security strategy.


Washington has always sought to find a kind of balance between its NATO ally (Turkey) and its ally and partner in the international coalition against ISIS (the Syria Democratic Forces), in a way that guarantees the emergence of a regional force, Turkey to confront Iranian influence, by virtue of the fact that the Turkish state will not It can play this role as long as there is no Turkish-Kurdish consensus or agreement that may start with understandings between the Turkish state and the political representative of the Syria Democratic Forces (the Syria Democratic Council).


Any Russian communication, support or support for the Syria Democratic Council will inevitably be in favor of the sovereignty of the Syrian state, and what is being talked about recently about a Russian initiative for reconciliation between the SDF political council and Turkey, it is likely that it will be a Russian attempt to draw the Autonomous Administration of northern and eastern Syria to its side and deprive it.

From the oil deal with the US company (Crest Energy); In addition, any American support or support for Dam, will be aimed at including it in the platforms of the Syrian opposition and strengthening its ranks, to force Damascus to head towards the Geneva track, and on the other hand to reduce the state of tension and hostility between Turkey and the Syria Democratic Council, in preparation for a historic consensus that may happen between Turkey and the Kurds.

It is serving its strategic plans in the Middle East, on top of which is confronting Iran.