Prof. Bezwan: The model proposed by Turkey in Syria is a new civil war plan

Prof. Naif Bezwan stated that the 'individual integration' and 'ultra-centralist' model imposed by Turkey will not lead Syria to peace, but to a deeper fragmentation, and said, "The solution is in the federal administration model shaped by the will of the peoples."


ANF
NEWS CENTER
Saturday, January 3, 2026

Recent military and political developments in the Syrian field; The Aleppo-based clashes point to a new era with the postponement of the SDF-Damascus integration talks, the "individual integration" statements from Turkey and Damascus, and the demands of the Alawites for federal, decentralized administration after the Kurds and Druze.

Prof. Dr. Naif Bezwan, a faculty member at the Faculty of Law at the University of Vienna, evaluated the fractures in the Syrian field, the attitude of regional actors and possible scenarios to ANF.

'TURKEY'S ROLE IN SYRIA IS A DICTATORSHIP MODEL'

Criticizing Turkey's threats against Rojava and the political structure it has built for Syria, Bezwan stated that this approach focuses on conflict rather than solution and said:

"The singular and monistic model that Turkey has assigned to Syria is an extremely centralized and dictatorial policy, that is, it is a policy that disregards the rights and freedoms, future, recognition and constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of the basic components of Syria. Therefore, those who reject a concretely fair, inclusive and negotiated political solution; Therefore, there is an approach indexed to war, conflict and tension. Because the 'ideal order' they have designed for Syria is not a project that can be achieved or implemented without conflict, tension, pressure and the danger of civil war. There is a political and security project that prioritizes war and conflict, thus excluding negotiation and peace, and aims to create a sphere of influence."

'ALEPPO AND TISHRIN ARE DEFENSE BARRIERS'

Emphasizing that the conflict situation in Aleppo is more than a local conflict, but a regional struggle for existence, Bezwan drew attention to the importance of the defense line and said:

"Even if what happened in Aleppo and Tishrin saw a decrease in these conflicts from time to time, a de facto de-escalation situation was created or an agreement was reached, the siege and attacks of the Shara regime and Turkish-backed paramilitary forces continued.

Perhaps it should be said that the defense of Aleppo is the defense of the whole of Rojava.

Although the defense of Tishrin and Aleppo seems to be 'line defense', it is not only the defense of a certain region; It is the defense of Rojava and the whole of Kurdistan. In this sense, line defense and surface defense mean the same thing. Because this is a defense line and from the moment that line is broken, the whole of Kurdistan will come to a point where it will be threatened. The whole of Kurdistan will be deeply and negatively affected by this. Rojhilat is also affected by this; Both Bashur and Bakur. This is why the oppression and siege continued. The vital issue of preventing this is once again revealed for all Kurdistan and other peoples of Syria."

Bezwan said that the imposition of a central solution is pregnant with new conflicts and evaluated the concept of "integration" as follows:

"The solution they call the 'central solution' is nothing but the construction of a new dictatorship regime that will be dependent on Turkey. 'Integration' is defined as so-called individual integration; This is exactly why it is imposed. This is a regime fiction that denies the rights and freedoms of Syria's historical and sociological components and the Kurds' attainment of constitutional status. Therefore, when such a regime construction they have in mind is successful, it will pave the way for a development that will lead to new conflicts and a new civil war, let alone produce any solution. If this succeeds, it will mean that a new civil war will be staged again in Syria."

'THERE IS AN APPROACH THAT DENIES POLITICAL NEGOTIATION'

Bezwan noted that Turkey's recent moves through the Damascus administration and HTS are a "search for legitimacy" aimed at spreading the war, referring to the words of Turkish officials against the SDF, "We will support the Damascus government if it takes the initiative to attack":

"It is said here that instead of Turkey's direct involvement, a proxy power should be used. The approach is this: There is an approach that will encourage the proxy in Damascus and provoke it and produce excuses and excuses to get involved in the war and conflict. This is a policy that drags the Damascus regime into conflict, imposes a new civil war and denies negotiations and a political solution. Turkey encourages and provokes Damascus' attacks in order to produce an excuse and legitimacy for direct military intervention.

However, in the latest statement made by the Ministry of National Defense, it is noteworthy that while it is emphasized that it is ready for all kinds of cooperation if the Syrian government takes concrete steps in line with the principle of 'one state, one army', it is probably deliberately left unclear what kind of steps these steps will be. On the one hand, provoking and encouraging conflict comes to the fore, on the other hand, the negative political consequences and responsibility arising from this are left to the Damascus regime."

'COMPONENTS IN SYRIA, INCLUDING ALEVIS, WANT A FEDERAL SOLUTION'

Bezwan stated that the historical and social reality in Syria requires a federal structure and peace, pointing out that this demand strengthens the legitimacy of the SDF and continued as follows:

"A monist, ethnic and sectarian supremacist regime; In a multi-faith, multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-national country like Syria, it is appropriate to emphasize that it will not yield any results other than programming a new civil war and dictatorial regime. Different components of Syrian society are becoming aware of this fact day by day. They experience this by paying a great and heavy price. That's why they give great support to the federal solution and unity project. In other words, the Kurds are not alone in these demands. In fact, some social segments and faith groups – now including Alevis – are expressing their demands more openly in a way that takes precedence over the demands of the Kurds. This is an important development.

At the same time, it is a big mistake to reduce all Sunni Arabs in Syria to HTS. The biggest and most concrete proof of this is the experience and reality of SGD itself. We know that more than half of the SDF are Arabs of the Sunni faith. There is a very important will for a decentralized and federal peace in the Syrian geography; It is becoming more and more evident every day that there is no other way to keep Syria together."

'TURKEY IS A PARTY TO THE MARCH 10 AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF HTS'

Describing Turkey's approach to the March 10 Agreement as a "colonialist policy", Bezwan made the following assessment:

"The March 10 Agreement is a founding partnership agreement signed between the two founding elements. Turkey is not a party to this agreement. The agreement in question expresses a framework signed by the two founding leaders equally. The basis of the agreement is based on a political solution and an 'integration' based on constitutional rights. Declaring non-compliance with an agreement to which Turkey is not even a party, by putting forward the concept of integration based on completely arbitrary interpretations, will not yield any results other than disintegration.

This is an exceptional situation that is rare in diplomatic and political history and should be considered on its own. I invite everyone to think together. You will subject a single concept of an agreement to which you are not even a party, and you will subject the miracle to a self-proclaimed interpretation by taking it completely out of context, and if it is not complied with, you will declare it 'casus belli' to the detriment of one of the parties to the agreement! This is truly a situation that is very rare even in the history of colonialism."

POSSIBILITY OF RUSSIA RETURNING TO THE FIELD

Naif Bezwan, while evaluating the possibility of Russia actively returning to the field in Syria through the distinction of "strategic" and "tactical", stated that this move has a historical background and used the following statements:

"We need to focus well on the issue of Russia coming back to the scene. Russia's approach to Damascus is quite strategic. Since the Tsarist period, including the Soviet Union process, Russia has had a strategy of landing in the Mediterranean, that is, in warm seas, and positioning itself there permanently. For the first time in Syria, in the last 150-200 years, it had the chance to gain a base at such a critical point in the Eastern Mediterranean and to gain strategic depth together with the Assad regime. Therefore, Russia looks at the issue with a long-term perspective."

Stating that other powers on the ground want to involve Russia in the process for tactical reasons rather than a focus on a solution, Bezwan emphasized:

"Powers such as the Damascus regime, Turkey and Israel, which want Russia to enter the field, approach the situation more tactically. These actors see Russia as a backup plan or a counterbalance rather than a negotiated political solution. For example, Damascus sees Russia as a 'lifeline' in case America withdraws its support. The expectations of Israel and Turkey differ according to their own agendas. Russia's presence on the ground stems from the need for the parties to activate plans B or C rather than a real and lasting solution.

I do not think that Russia's landing on the field will yield a positive result in favor of the Kurds in the long and medium term. Immediately after the fall of the Assad regime, Russia has been showing an attitude that gets along well with the current regime in Damascus and prefers it. Because for now, it can only legitimize its presence there through this regime. Nevertheless, Russia can play several games together; In order to strengthen its position, it can activate secret options against Damascus' interim regime and has the potential to produce counter-forces. However, in the end, I do not think that Russia's involvement in the field is good news for a permanent and democratic political solution in Syria."

Evaluating Israel's perspective on the Damascus government through Prime Minister Netanyahu's words, "Half of the current Syrian army is radical groups," Bezwan said, "This is a striking statement. If half of the army is radical, every strategic move you make can result in 50 percent wrong results. In other words, it points to the almost mathematical impossibility of strategic and political investment in the regime."

"Finally, it would be appropriate to emphasize this for the SDF," Naif Bezwan said, pointing out that the SDF is a decisive actor in the Syrian field and made the following assessment:

"The most critical point in this regard in the coming period is that the SDF has no bargaining margin either territorially or politically. The SDF entered the negotiation process with a very reasonable and minimal proposal (a decentralized model) for the Kurds; This narrows its bargaining power, because it is not possible for it to go behind it.

The same is true for Aleppo and Tishreen. In other words, there is no chance of retreating behind this line, neither territorially nor politically. Therefore, strengthening cooperation between Kurdish forces and other Syrian components will be the main task and challenge of 2026."