In his first comments on the Kurdish question in the wake of the collapse of the regime of Bashar Assad, in December 2024, Russian President, Vladimir Putin, remarked “the Kurdish question requires a resolution. This, should have been addressed within the framework of Syria under Bashar Assad.” Yet Assad, like his predecessors, futilely tried to sweep the Kurdish question under the carpet.
Vitally enough, Putin explicitly praised the Kurdish fighters, labelling their cause a just one, laying likewise all the stress on the idea the Kurds were deceived by “some European officials” after World War I, 1914- 1918.
Most importantly, the Russian president admitting its complexity, emphatically stressed the need for the Kurdish question to be addressed within the framework of the “new regional changes.” It is the natural historical development, that nothing remains stationary, as empires rise and fall.
Yet, admitting the Kurds were deceived, and given that Assad has gone, there remains the third and most important of themes Putin touched on; new regional changes. Reasonably, there is an evolving regional change taking shape for a time not so long.
The crisis in 2011 offered the Kurds a once-in-the-century opportunity to organize themselves. During the protracted struggle, the Kurds rose exponentially to prominence, ending long decades of denial. Yet, at its hardest, Assad’s fall has been Syria’s most defining moment as far as the Kurds are concerned.
In complete contrast to the Post-WWI era, Syrian Kurds are a force to be seriously reckoned with. Most crucially, sinking their differences, they seem in complete accord. The recently convened Middle East Peace and Security (MEPS) forum gives substance to this hypothesis.
The rule- breaking attendance of Mazloum Abdi, Commander-in-Chief of Syria Democratic Forces (SDF), and Ilham Ahmed, Co-chair of Rojava’s Foreign Relations Department to have Rojava’s say in the forum organized by an American University, is quite significant a gesture and a step forward.
Seen on the surface by all Kurds a blessed realization of the long-sought and much-awaited Kurdish unity, which quite fairly rings true, the event symbolically frames a bigger picture. The full protocol honor given to Abdi and Ahmed adds more color to the picture.
Yet, apart from that, on the ground, Rojava given the role it has been playing militarily, slowly yet steadily is morphing into a more political player in the region. The invitation extended to Rojava to be represented at MEPS, discharges into this notion.
Conferences like MEPS are considered Second Truck Diplomacy, which to the extreme is an appealing alternative to formal talks aiming at conflict resolution. More or less, this reflects the political shift and regional changes Putin referred to, and underscores likewise the role Syria’s northeast enclave of Rojava assumes in the Post-Assad era.
The scene, Duhok, where Abdi and Ahmed were received with great honors and esteemed respect, is understandably significant.
It is an open secret that KRI plays a mediating or rather more precisely facilitating role in the peace process in Turkey initiated by Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
Now, not unnoticed, KRI plays a stepping stone, assuming a more diplomatic role. This underscores Rojava’s ascending role goes deeper far beyond its military task. Backed by Ocalan and KRI, the SDF navigtes the regional change with admiration.
In Syria, the SDF and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) play the balance weight. With Syria descending into more grievous difficulties, the SDF/AANES seem to assume that role more seriously.
Back now to Duhok. Taking the stage, Abdi engagingly caught the attention of those interested and involved in the Syrian affair. Lacking no purpose of firmness, Abdi delivered a meticulously- chosen and a carefully delivered word, in which he brought into focus a set of themes.
Politically speaking, SDF’s resolvedly put all emphasis on the idea that “it would not be possible for Syria to reinstate centralization as a form of governance” since the Baathist model is no longer tenable for a country shaking the dust from its feet following a 15-years-long protracted civil war.
For long decades, the Kurds have been the object of predatory instincts of oppressive dictatorial regimes. The Kurds seem to have departed from the unapproved practice of being victims of ruthless autocrats and tyrannies.
Militarily, Abdi highlighted likewise the idea of self-defense throughout the years of the crisis when he said his force has always taken the defensive side. A point to the letter. The Kurdish history is unique in the sense the Kurd has never encroached upon the confines of other nations. The glorious chapters of the Kurdish history reveal the deeds of defense. The Kurdish history abounds with such deeds.
To render it justice, it should not be denied that the status quo of Rojava is a history written in blood, and largely a defender’s blood. No one can give a blind eye to the Kurdish sacrifices during the Syrian struggle.
From the outset, with all perseverance, and an undaunted intrepidity, the Kurds were not impotent in establishing an order that had never existed before, proven crucially valuable to Kurdish people at a time the most remarkable character of Syria is anarchy.
With dearly sacrifices, the Kurds had to bear the brunt of resistance to every evil force on the Syrian scene. It may well be believed that the progress of Syrian Kurds, on whom unshakable faith in their cause had bestowed success, is a unique case whose recognition is a right not privilege.
Mentioned though in passing, Abdi significantly sent a message to neighboring countries. He said the Kurds pose no threats to Turkey or anyone else. By nature, it must be said, the Kurd is not an aggressor.
The Kurds are a peace- loving nation. Yet the Kurdish issue is a Janus-faced one. If solved, it would be a boost for Syria as a whole. If not, it would be its Achilles heel. Since times immemorial, at every stage of history, the Kurds are the key to regional security.
One more theme that Abdi touched on was the largely debatable eight- point agreement he signed with Syrian interim President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, on March 10, 2025, a topic that would loom large in the Syrian politics.
Needless to say, the agreement was signed at the heat of the massacre taking place in the Alawite heartlands of Latakia and Tartus. To this Abdi gave justification. He appended his signature to the agreement to avert the country more divisions.
Giving it enough fairness, the pact gives an ever- first official recognition given to the Kurds in the country. However, it comes short of Kurdish expectations. Yet the flawed bond suddenly unraveled.
Essentially vague, the signatories have ever since interpreted it according to their own understanding. Instead of settling issues or rather answering questions, the agreement on the contrary gave rise to new ones. It was an adumbration of what would follow.
Within four days of the agreement, al-Sharaa signed a draconian constitutional declaration, enshrouded to the extreme in Islamic sharia law, giving at the same time vast unchecked powers to himself.
The assertive temporary constitution reduced technically the agreement to ashes. Whether that was a deliberate political act to nip the agreement in the bud, and put SDF in an awkward position, cannot be fully ascertained. It was, however, categorially rejected in Rojava.
Differences and controversies over the agreement, and on top of that mistrust, created a gulf growing wide between the government and the Kurdish authorities. This has facilitated an upswing in nationalist political agitation. Yet, being a stop-gap agreement, a revised version could serve such an end.
Confusingly, it has become ever since a kind of Martens Clause, on which the prosperity of a State so sarcastically reposes. In a sense, Damascus approach to SDF as far as the March Agreement is concerned, recalls the fable of the wolf and the lamb. Trust is lacking.
The case of Alawite commissioned and non-commissioned officers and conscripts, who were ensnared into the so-called settlement process, remains unresolved. Upon surrendering their weapons, they were given a settled- status card, which was supposed to be their guarantee to safety. Ironically, their cards turned to testify to their guilt.
In pursuance of its system of duplicity, Damascus seeks an excuse to display its cruelty on Rojava. Yet, the Kurds, not lacking wisdom, would not put themselves to the sword. Proverbially fair, keeping the past under the carpet is not a wise tactic to have a better future.
In the main, tribalism, regionalism, and factionalism shape Damascus politics. Yet by all appearances, Syria’s chronic dilemma has always been an enemy within; radical Islam, a devouring monster, whose basic tenet is to exert a kind of divine superiority over inferior subordinates.
Diverse, it may seem, yet Syria is far from becoming a cohesive country, witnessing conversely the creation of a meteorically rising mainstream culture pitted against other ethno- religious groups. This adds weight to the Kurds’ insistence on decentralization.
Equally fatal, the recent pro- government rallies held on the first anniversary of toppling Assad attest with no slightest sense of suspicion to the medieval master-serf notion, and thirst to kill. Deep- rooted hatred for development, and deep-rooted love for plunder.
Islamist extremists has been Syria’s throbbing headache. One year after the collapse of Assad, Syria is in the grip of turbulence. Alarmingly, the scarcely-more-to-be-trusted motley of zealots rules the roost.
To avoid past mistakes, history should be an inspiring example for the Kurds in their rightful struggle to preserve their unique culture and peculiarity. This is the public opinion every Kurd embraces body and soul. Otherwise, it is merely putting new wine into old bottles.
