From Sheikh Maqsoud to Deir Hafer: Testing the Ceasefire and Damascus’s Sincerity

The neighborhoods of Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh in Aleppo city witnessed violent clashes, reflecting a deep crisis of trust between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian Transitional Government.

These developments come in the context of the intersection of the military truce and the conflict of political wills between the two parties. The crisis began with a peaceful demonstration by residents of the two neighborhoods against security harassment and the imposed siege, but government forces responded with gunfire, treating the protest as a security threat rather than a civil right.

The Asaiish forces responded to the attack in a legitimate field manner, leading to fierce clashes that lasted for hours and revealed the fragility of the understandings between the two parties. Despite efforts following the events, a delegation from North and East Syria, including SDF Commander Mazlum Abdi, visited Damascus to solidify the March 10 agreement, which outlines lines of calm and joint coordination.

However, repeated breaches by the government side in the Deir Hafer and Deir ez-Zor axes undermine this agreement and recreate the field dynamics. These breaches are more than tactical transgressions; they carry a political message from Damascus that the field decision is still a negotiating tool used as needed.

In this context, Mazlum Abdi’s statement after the calm and breaches came with a different tone, announcing the direction of a military committee from the SDF to Damascus to discuss the integration of their forces into the Syrian army affiliated with the transitional government, emphasizing the importance of fighting ISIS within the framework of a comprehensive agreement.

The timing of this statement is not spontaneous; Abdi aimed to move the confrontation from the field to the political table, stressing that the SDF does not seek an internal war but a balanced national agreement. However, he also warned that it is impossible to discuss integration while breaches and one-sided targeting continue.

Political analyses indicate that Damascus, despite its formal acceptance of the ceasefire, considers any agreement as a testing stage rather than a serious political commitment. While the SDF seeks to turn the March 10 agreement into a permanent framework for joint security management and counter-terrorism, Damascus sees these initiatives as a threat to its historical monopoly on central authority.

In conclusion, the picture appears complex, with Damascus using military force to consolidate its position, while the SDF relies on politics to redefine the concept of power. Amidst this dynamic, the regions of North and East Syria are becoming a testing ground for Syria’s future, between building a partnership and decentralized pluralism or reproducing the traditional system of power and marginalization.