The events in Aleppo’s al-Ashrafiyya and Sheikh Maqsoud districts have generated not one account, but two irreconcilable views of the same event. In one telling, the operation appears as a disciplined, law-bound military action that placed civilian protection at its core. In the other, it is understood as yet another episode in a longer continuum of domination, terror, and structural violence exercised by an authority incapable of genuine statehood. These two views do not merely diverge in emphasis or interpretation; they rest on fundamentally different understandings of power, law, and the very meaning of civilian protection. Examined side by side, they reveal less about Aleppo alone than about the collapse of a shared political and moral language in contemporary Syria.
Below are two visions of what happened:
Aleppo Heals: A Military Operation that Places Civilian Protection Above All Else
Aghiad Abu Zaid – Al-Thawra
In record time, the Syrian Arab Army concluded its security operations in the Ashrafieh and Sheikh Maqsoud districts of Aleppo in northern Syria. The operation combined decisive military action with a deliberate effort to mitigate humanitarian repercussions. The Military Operations Authority placed the protection of civilians at the forefront of its priorities and translated this commitment into concrete measures consistent with international humanitarian law.
The Syrian government, led by the Ministry of Defense, deliberately avoided launching a swift, high‑intensity assault that could be resolved within hours. Its caution stemmed from the risk of civilian casualties, given the presence of the “SDF” in residential neighborhoods and their entrenchment in vital locations. Schools and hospitals had been converted into military headquarters, which compelled the Syrian Army to adopt heightened precautionary measures.
On Saturday morning, the Operations Authority announced the completion of the sweep of Sheikh Maqsoud in its entirety. The army had faced significant challenges during the operation because the “SDF” used civilians as human shields and positioned themselves inside civilian homes. Such conduct constitutes a clear violation of international law and is classified as a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
A Model to Emulate
Before launching the operation in Ashrafieh and Sheikh Maqsoud, the Syrian Army’s Operations Authority declared the positions of the “SDF” to be legitimate military targets and urged civilians to distance themselves from them. Two humanitarian corridors were opened to allow residents to leave the districts. Nearly 155,000 people departed toward other neighborhoods in the city and its countryside, and temporary shelters were established for them.
In addition, the Syrian Army took practical steps to secure civilians and transport them away from the lines of contact with the “SDF”. The operation was not sudden. The army announced the date of its commencement in advance and issued instructions enabling civilians who could not leave to protect themselves.
Military expert and strategist Colonel Abdul‑Jabbar al‑Akeidi described the conduct of the operation as successful and exemplary by the standards of modern armies. He characterized it as “a highly precise, limited, and tightly executed operation, carried out with advanced military, security, and intelligence tactics, and completed with minimal losses”.
The operation, he noted, took into account the preservation of civilians and their property. It “aligned with international standards and laws that safeguard human rights and ensured that the operation remained exceptionally clean”.
Regarding the Ministry of Defense’s publication of maps and its evacuation of civilians, al‑Akeidi told Al‑Thawra that “the most professional and capable armies in the world are those that take such measures”. He explained that publishing maps and coordinates, warning people to avoid military sites and windows, and advising them to move to lower floors all demonstrate the Syrian Army’s concern for civilian lives.
Strategic analyst Brigadier General Zahir al‑Saket concurred. He told Al‑Thawra that the operation “cannot be described as a full‑scale war or even a limited one, but rather as a precise and surgical military action”. Its sensitivity stemmed from the fact that it was conducted in densely populated areas. He added that it came in response to the pleas of Aleppo’s residents, who had long suffered from what he described as “ongoing terrorism by cross‑border armed groups, foremost among them the SDF and the PKK”.
The Military Operations Authority published twelve maps before the army carried out “focused strikes” on the designated areas. Residents of those areas were instructed to evacuate immediately for their own safety, since the “SDF” had turned them into military positions. Text messages were also sent to residents of Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh through local communication networks, warning them to avoid specific locations.
International law and human rights specialist Mu’tasim al‑Kilani told Al‑Thawra that “the measures taken by the Syrian government constitute strong legal evidence of its respect for the principle of precautions, even if incidental, unintended harm were to occur”. Rule 15 of customary international humanitarian law stipulates that “all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimize incidental harm to civilians”.
The Syrian government decided to end the state of instability in Aleppo, which had brought life in the city to a near standstill. This decision came in response to popular demands to halt the violations committed by the “SDF”, whose attacks on vital roads and residential neighborhoods had caused dozens of deaths and injuries. The group escalated its assaults on the Syrian Army and internal security forces during December and early 2026, resulting in the deaths of more than twenty‑five soldiers and the injury of many others.
The Significance of Concluding the Operation in Record Time
The military operation ended on Saturday morning in record time and with minimal losses. Al‑Akeidi described it as “a precise action akin to a surgical procedure, and highly successful”. He considered it “a test for the Syrian Arab Army and the Syrian state on political, military, security, ethical, and moral levels”.
The operation proceeded “according to the plans laid out for it, in the presence of the Chief of Staff, the Deputy Minister of Interior, division commanders, senior military leaders, and under the direct supervision of President Ahmad al‑Shar’a”. This, he said, reflects a genuine determination to ensure the success of the operation and to thwart the calculations of the “SDF”.
Brigadier General Asaad al‑Zoubi told Al‑Thawra that the Ministry of Defense’s plan was based on sound preparation, respect for humanitarian considerations, adherence to commitments, and the preservation of civilian lives. This was reflected in the publication of maps and instructions.
He added that the publication of maps and the rapid conclusion of the operation with very limited losses demonstrate the strength and high confidence of the Syrian Army’s personnel, and that the army “is capable of achieving success under all circumstances”.
With the conclusion of the military operations in the city, attention has shifted to areas still under “SDF” control. Colonel al‑Akeidi believes that “the liberation of Ashrafieh and Sheikh Maqsoud will have consequences extending toward the Syrian Jazira, particularly Deir Hafer, Raqqa, Deir ez‑Zor, and Hasakah”.
He noted that the conduct of the Aleppo operation will play a major role in this trajectory, “from operational planning to the exemplary model of dealing with civilians”. He considered the battle a source of strength for the Syrian government, since the army won not only militarily but also morally, ethically, and humanely.
The operation in Ashrafieh and Sheikh Maqsoud aimed to restore stability to Aleppo and protect civilians from the indiscriminate attacks of the “SDF”. The group had intensified its shelling of neighborhoods in recent weeks, using heavy artillery and suicide drones. The al‑Midan district, the Sheikhan roundabout, and al‑Nile Street were targeted more than three hundred and fifty times in the past month alone, in clear violation of agreements signed with the Syrian government, particularly those of March and April.
Aleppo’s governor, Azzam al‑Gharib, said in a Saturday press conference that the “SDF” had failed to implement the April first agreement requiring its withdrawal from Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh. Instead, it turned the districts into launchpads for attacks on army positions, internal security forces, and nearby neighborhoods. He confirmed that “the group’s violations were repeated many times, and the state exercised patience and called for calm to protect lives, but the ‘SDF’ escalated its assaults, killing six civilians and injuring more than seventy others, most of them women and children”.
No violations or abuses were recorded during the three‑day operation. On the contrary, the conduct of the Syrian Army and security forces projected an image of discipline. Messages of reassurance were also sent to the Kurdish community in Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh, encouraging them to move freely into Aleppo’s neighborhoods and strengthening trust among the components of Syrian society.
Internal Divisions within the “SDF”
During the operation, internal disputes emerged within the “SDF” between those who wished to withdraw and those who insisted on confrontation. The Syrian Army’s Operations Authority had called on the group’s fighters to surrender themselves and their weapons at the nearest military point in exchange for guarantees of safety.
Colonel al‑Akeidi explained that the disagreements were evident regarding the withdrawal of “SDF” elements from Sheikh Maqsoud. He noted that the divisions “were significant between the Qandil cadres of the PKK on one side and Syrian Kurds on the other”.
He added that similar disputes exist in the Syrian Jazira, since “the PKK cadres control decision‑making and hold real authority and influence”.
According to the Ministry of Defense, around two hundred “SDF” fighters defected and surrendered to the Syrian Army, and security forces ensured their protection.
The army also detected the presence of PKK elements during the operation. Minister of Information Hamza al‑Mustafa confirmed that “SDF” and PKK groups had converted several civilian facilities in Sheikh Maqsoud into military positions.
The Ministry of Health reported that PKK‑affiliated armed groups expelled staff and doctors from Yassin Hospital in Sheikh Maqsoud and turned it into a fortified military point.
Thus, the military operation sought to restore stability to Aleppo and return properties seized by the “SDF” in and around the districts, after a full year of government attempts to avoid confrontation and resolve the issue through dialogue.
In a statement issued Saturday, the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that since the liberation of the city on December eighth, 2024, the government had pursued a comprehensive national approach aimed at unifying the security track and consolidating the authority of state institutions as a prerequisite for stability. Within this framework, security agreements were reached in April 2025 to end all non‑state military manifestations in the two districts. These agreements later collapsed due to repeated violations, including armed attacks launched from within the districts against residential areas in Aleppo on the seventh and eighth of this month, which resulted in civilian casualties.
The Ministry affirmed that the intervention does not constitute a military campaign, nor does it involve any demographic change or target any population group on ethnic or religious grounds. It was limited to specific armed groups operating outside any agreed security framework, whose activities obstructed the implementation of previous understandings and were linked to serious violations, including the recruitment of minors.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
