Surviving genocide: The story of resistance and solidarity of the Rohingya people

By Noor Sadaque & Denis Pilash

Published date 26 February, 2026

First published at Commons.

Myanmar, known as Burma until 1989, has suffered from authoritarian regimes and civil conflicts since its independence in 1948. These conflicts were waged against armed opposition, ranging from two communist factions to numerous discriminated ethnic minorities, including the Shan, Karen, Mon, Kachin, and others. The military dictatorship, established after the suppression of the popular “8888 Uprising” that began with students from Rangoon Polytechnic, built an incredibly corrupt economy with a hyper-wealthy general-oligarchic elite and a disenfranchised population.

The regime was forced to make some concessions following the 2007 protests, known as the “Saffron Revolution” due to the color of the Buddhist monks’ robes, and to hold freer elections in 2015 and 2020. These elections were won by the democratic opposition led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of Burma’s founding father who was assassinated by right-wing conspirators on the eve of independence. However, she still shared power with the military, making disgraceful compromises.

The most horrific of these compromises was the genocide of the Rohingya people — the Muslim population of Rakhine State. With the silent consent of Suu Kyi, a former icon of the struggle for democracy, security forces and ultra-nationalist Buddhist fanatics — who deny “infidels” the right to live there and label them as “strangers” — launched ethnic cleansing in late 2016. These cleansings were accompanied by various atrocities and intensified after the start of a military operation on August 25, 2017. Tens of thousands of Muslim civilians were killed, and another 1.5 million people were forced to flee to neighboring Bangladesh, where the first Rohingya refugees had appeared as early as the 1970s due to persecution by the Burmese authorities. As a result, the world’s largest refugee camp emerged at Cox’s Bazar on the border of the two states.

On February 1, 2021, the military carried out another coup d’état, detained the civilian leadership, and began shooting thousands of protesters who initially tried to resist the junta through civil disobedience and strikes. By drowning the streets of its cities in blood, the dictatorship further fueled the flames of a civil war that erupted with renewed vigor. Relying on military, political, and information support from the Russian Federation and the PRC, the junta — initially called the State Administration Council — defiantly violated agreements even during the ceasefire following a devastating earthquake and recently held farcical sham elections.

However, in the chaos of “everyone against everyone,” more than half of Myanmar’s territory is controlled by groups opposing the junta — from the People’s Defense Forces, subordinate to the opposition National Unity Government, to dozens of militias of various ethnic groups and smaller forces, including the Anti-Fascist Internationalist Front composed of international anarchist volunteers.

In this interview, conducted by Denys Pilash, you can learn firsthand how those who experienced genocide and continue to suffer from war and exile — the Rohingya refugees — survive under these conditions. From the refugee camp, Noor Sadeque tells us about their daily lives and prospects, as well as the importance of understanding mutual experiences and international solidarity.

Tell us about yourself: can you briefly share your journey? How did you end up in the refugee camp?

My name is Noor Sadeque son of Nur Alom from MaungDaw Township of Kyi Khan Pyin Village (Hawar bill), Myanmar. I’m a 25 year old Rohingya. I matriculated in 2016 from Maung Daw No.1 High School. But, I had to flee to Bangladesh to escape from the horrific situation in Rakhine state due to the 25th August 2017 violence, Antagonism. When I became a refugee in a Bangladesh refugee camp at that time, I began to work as a Site Coordination Team leader at Premiere Urgence Internationale (PUI) for 1 year and 3 months in camp no. 8w, 17 and 20. After that I worked at International Organization for Migration (IOM) as a Camp Operation Rohingya Team leader for about 5 years in camp no. 20, Camp-20 extension. Now I’m only focusing on empowering, developing, encouraging the youths, Socialism & Social activities, I have been working in several Civil Society Organizations such as Rohingya Youth Association (RYA), Rohingya Youth Advocacy Network. Now, I’m an advisor, founder of Rohingya Student Network (RSN) as a grassroots organization for the Advocacy of my community people, trying to empower, develop our youth and girls by providing capacity building training, trying to fight for our rights, justice, and fundamental rights.

We faced so many difficulties while we were being displaced and forced to migrate from Myanmar to the nearest country, Bangladesh. The Myanmar military government has given us a title so-called homeless and stateless because we tried to get our denied equal rights such as citizenship, peace, and tranquility. Myanmar’s brutal miliatry including local police extremist groups has planned a systematic and slow-burning genocide and made us the most persecuted minority on this planet. Behind the scene, there was a lot of massacres, gang rape, indoor burning, vivisection of infants, and throwing on to the burning fire, the oldest people were burnt up alive. A lot of people were killed by guns. People were sent into the central jail without investigation. When I was fleeing from Myanmar to Bangladesh, I witnessed many roadside deliveries. I saw so many unlimited dead bodies with my own eyes, isolated children from the parents who were crying and drowning in the water. Some old people were left alone at home because nobody was there to carry them for a long journey. I had to walk for two weeks, sometimes running under the rain and sometimes climbing the mountains. There was neither food nor medicines. Many people died on their way due to extreme fever. After all the hardship, we finally reached Bangladesh. We are very thankful to the Government and people of Bangladesh for taking care of us as their brothers and sisters. And, the humanity shown by the Bangladesh Army may almighty make this Bangladesh forever peaceful.

After reaching Bangladesh through boats, swimming and by foot, I took shelter in a refugee camp with my family. My parents are traumatized considering the future of their children including me. Fortunately, I got a chance to work for the Rohingya Students Network (RSN) as an Operations Coordinator. As a volunteer I can not maintain my poor family. Neither I nor my siblings can study and move freely. I have been scared of the use of smartphones and enjoying sitting in the tea shops inside the camps with my friends and loved ones because of arbitrary arrests and extortion by the Armed Police Battalion (APBn) of Bangladesh, as well as the torture committed by camp-based armed groups. Watching the news and raising a voice sometimes brings harm.

Furthermore, my future, fate and dream turned into a horrible nightmare that I can not see the way to come out of squalid crowded camp and refugee life where I have no right to freedom movement and education access as well. I am unable to relieve the stress in my mind, as I think constantly, day and night about my university studies, graduation, and achieving a professional degree, a goal I have held since childhood. Seeing others freely enjoying their studies abroad, along with their daily progress and achievements, makes me feel useless. This is especially painful because I know I am truly capable of pursuing those same opportunities, yet they are denied to me due to life in the camp. Over time, this situation has left me feeling deeply hopeless about the future.

What people across the world should know about the Rohingya genocide? What was the dynamics of persecutions and apartheid-style policies against the Rohingya people in Burma/Myanmar?

People around the world should first understand who the Rohingya are, an Indigenous Muslim ethnic minority who have lived in Myanmar’s Rakhine (Arakan) State for centuries. Despite this, the Rohingya have been systematically denied recognition, stripped of citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Law, and excluded from the list of 135 officially recognized ethnic groups of Myanmar. This legal and political erasure laid the foundation for genocide.

Persecution stems from both religious and ethnic discrimination. Since Myanmar’s independence in 1948, the Rohingya have been targeted due to their distinct identity, faith, and historical presence. They have been deprived of fundamental rights such as the right to nationality, political representation, education, and freedom of movement, through a calculated and institutionalized process. The Rohingya have been systematically targeted by the Myanmar military and all branches of the Myanmar government, particularly through policies implemented in Rakhine under Arakan State. More recently, in late August 2024, both Rakhine groups and the Arakan Army (AA) separately engaged in torture and applied similar policies aimed at erasing the Rohingya from the soil of Arakan. This occurred while the Arakan Army had taken control of significant areas where Rohingya communities had lived for centuries.

Apartheid-style policies against the Rohingya date back to colonial times, when the British promised the Rohingya a place within the fabric of Myanmar for their support against Japan during World War II. But, these promises were broken after independence, and the situation deteriorated further with the rise of Myanmar ethno-nationalism. The 1942 Japanese invasion marked a critical turning point, triggering widespread communal violence that profoundly disrupted Rohingya society. This period not only resulted in mass displacement and loss of life but also laid the foundations for long-term segregation, mistrust, and structural marginalization that continue to shape Rohingya lives today.

Over the decades, repeated military operations have forced the Rohingya into exile. In 1978, Operation Nagamin caused over 200,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. In 1991–92, another military crackdown displaced more than 250,000. The situation worsened in 2012, 2016, and reached its peak in 2017, when more than 700,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh after mass killings, village burnings, and systematic violence, the crimes that international bodies, including Human Rights Watch, have recognized as genocide.

The world must understand that this is not just a humanitarian crisis, it is a deliberate, long-standing campaign of erasure, rooted in state policies and implemented through brutality and discrimination.

Myanmar’s mainstream democratic opposition has once made the pact with the devil, letting the military and bigots proceed with the Rohingya genocide, and then paid its price when the Tatmadaw staged another coup and unleashed its repression against the entirety of Myanmar population. Do you think the broader anti-junta movements have learnt the lesson and embraced the rights of minorities?

The broader anti-junta movements in Myanmar have shown some signs of learning from their past silence and complicity during the Rohingya genocide. Especially younger activists and certain ethnic minority coalitions within the resistance have demonstrated a greater willingness to embrace inclusive democratic ideals and acknowledge the rights of marginalized groups, including the Rohingya. But, deep-rooted nationalist ideologies and calculated political strategies still present significant barriers to a unified stance on minority rights.

Although there have been statements of solidarity and calls for a future federal democracy, these gestures have not consistently translated into concrete commitments to protect and recognize the rights of minorities. In many cases, such support appears to be more tactical than principled. For a genuine democratic transformation to take root in Myanmar, the resistance must move beyond opposition to the junta, it must commit to justice, equality, and accountability for all communities, including those who have been historically oppressed, such as the Rohingya.

Are there generational and ideological divides (e.g., between secular leftists, Islamists, or purely survival-oriented pragmatists) inside Rohingya politics today? To what extent are women and youth involved in the political discourse?

There are clear generational and ideological divides within Rohingya politics today. These divisions occur among elder diaspora leaders, younger activists, and religiously-influenced groups. Many elders in the diaspora have decades of experience and a deep understanding of the political history and crises of the Rohingya. Meanwhile, the younger generation, especially those born or raised in exile carry the trauma of direct persecution and are usually more vocal about their lived experiences under the Burmese military. Additionally, some Islamic-oriented actors, particularly those affiliated with or sympathetic to armed groups, claim leadership roles, leveraging their religious knowledge to gain influence.

Currently, three main armed groups claim to represent Rohingya resistance through so-called jihad, the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), the Arakan Rohingya Army (ARA), and the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). These groups always attract support from religious students and clerics. But, most Rohingya youth today prioritize education and humanitarian work, specially with NGOs, and always use social media to campaign for peaceful solutions and educational access, which occasionally leads to friction with ideological groups.

Women, however, remain largely underrepresented in political leadership, especially within the refugee camps. Restrictions on free movement, public advocacy, and freedom of expression severely limit their participation. Still, some Rohingya women in the diaspora are advocating for rights and inclusion through various platforms.

Overall, the political landscape remains fragmented and a lack of unified leadership due to the continued marginalization of the Rohingya community, limited space for political engagement, and ongoing structural suppression.

What role do Rohingya armed groups currently play in the civil conflict? How do you assess the involvement of foreign powers (e.g., China, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh’s DGFI)?

Rohingya armed groups, such as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), have been involved in Myanmar’s ongoing civil conflict, but their role remains controversial and largely disconnected from the broader Rohingya struggle for justice. While these groups claim to represent Rohingya interests, their actions usually reflect internal power struggles and personal agendas rather than a coherent political strategy. Rather than uniting and protecting the community, they have at times created fear and division within the refugee camps and among the Rohingya population. Their lack of political vision, coordination, and transparency has made them ineffective in pushing for meaningful change.

Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, for example, has positioned itself as a defender of Rohingya against militant threats, yet its ideology and methods fall short of the kind of leadership needed to bring about justice, reconciliation, or long-term peace. The group’s alleged involvement in violent activities within the camps and its clashes with other Rohingya factions have further undermined its legitimacy.

Regarding foreign influence, there is not minimal evidence of official support from foreign powers like China or Saudi Arabia for Rohingya armed groups. China is known to support the Arakan Army, which has grown significantly in military and political strength, but no such support extends to Rohingya groups. As for Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, some people may offer informal or ideological support to Rohingya fighters, but this is limited, uncoordinated, and lacks institutional backing.

In the case of Bangladesh, particularly the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), there are isolated reports of minor interactions or tacit tolerance in specific instances, often driven by local intelligence strategies rather than genuine support. In general, Bangladeshi authorities, both government and security forces do not support Rohingya armed groups. In fact, they are more likely to monitor or suppress political and social activism within the camps, even among peaceful advocates.

Ironically, some Rohingya armed factions are believed to have made informal arrangements with their historical oppressors, the Myanmar military, to gain leverage over local rivals, including the Arakan Army. This also exposes their lack of political maturity and undermines the Rohingya people’s long-term goals.

In short, while Rohingya armed groups are active in the civil conflict, their role is fragmented, ideologically unclear, and disconnected from the aspirations of the broader Rohingya community for peace, justice, and coexistence. Their current involvement in Myanmar’s civil war does not bring the real hopes of Rohingya civilians or the values of a genuine liberation movement.

How would you describe the current relationship between the Arakan Army and the Rohingya population under its control? Do you see any possibility for negotiated coexistence?

Since the Rohingya have lived in Arakan for centuries, the Rakhine, who later formed the basis of the Arakan Army (AA) historically acted in alignment with the Myanmar government. The mistreatment Rohingya experienced from the Myanmar government was mirrored, and in some cases worsened, by the Rakhine, who exercised local power under the government’s authority.

In late August 2017, the Rohingya community faced near-total destruction as the Myanmar military, with active support from Rakhine collaborators, carried out widespread killings and torture. As a result, nearly one million Rohingya were forced to flee their homes and seek refuge in camps in Bangladesh.

By 2021, Myanmar had fully descended into dictatorship, while the People’s Defense Forces (PDF) were rising to resist the military and restore democracy. In parallel, the Arakan Army pursued similar policies against the Rohingya. After gaining significant control over parts of Arakan, the Arakan Army became an independent armed group, seeking to establish Arakan as a separate, self-governed region, independent of Myanmar. Today, the Arakan Army and local Rakhine communities exercise substantial autonomy in Rakhine State. Their goal of an independent Arakan directly excludes the Rohingya, as they have consistently refused to recognize Rohingya as part of Arakan nationality. When it comes to targeting the Rohingya, the Arakan Army and the Myanmar military always act in alignment. But, regarding the broader political struggle for Arakan’s independence, the AA positions itself against the Myanmar government.

In effect, both the Arakan Army and the Myanmar military through their respective policies have systematically denied the Rohingya recognition as citizens, whether of Arakan or of Myanmar.

The current relationship between the Arakan Army and the Rohingya population under its control can be described as one of cautious pragmatism, which is driven more by strategic considerations than by genuine ideological alignment. Historically, both the Arakan Army and many among the Rakhine Buddhist community have marginalized and even opposed the Rohingya. Today, while the Arakan Army controls large portions of Rakhine (Arakan) State, the remaining Rohingya communities live under silent oppression, with ongoing restrictions and incidents of violence.

While the Arakan Army occasionally permits religious practices or cultural events for the Rohingya, such gestures sometimes appear to be more performative than sincere, intended to garner legitimacy in the eyes of the international community and secure humanitarian aid. These actions serve to obscure the Arakan Army’s past and ongoing abuses and to present itself as a legitimate governing force, rather than a militant actor.

Nonetheless, a pathway to negotiated coexistence is not impossible. For this to happen, the Arakan Army and its political wing, the United League of Arakan (ULA), must shift toward inclusive governance that genuinely embraces the Rohingya as equal citizens of Arakan. This would require political dialogue with Rohingya leaders, protection of human rights for all ethnic groups, and full representation of the Rohingya in the future political structure of Arakan and Myanmar. Only then can sustainable coexistence and reconciliation become achievable.

How can the Rohingya movement align itself with broader democratic or revolutionary forces in Myanmar, including other oppressed ethnic minorities?

The Rohingya movement can align itself with broader democratic and revolutionary forces in Myanmar by advancing a common vision for an inclusive and federal Union, the one that guarantees equal rights, dignity, and self-determination for all ethnic groups. Building trust and solidarity with other oppressed minorities is important and can be achieved through mutual recognition of each group’s history of suffering and resistance under Myanmar’s military dictatorship.

To advance the unity, the Rohingya movement should actively engage in inter-ethnic coalitions that advocate for federalism, indigenous rights, human rights protections, and democratic reforms. Collaboration across ethnic lines based on the principles of “unity in diversity” will strengthen the collective movement against military rule and lay the foundation for a just and representative future for all peoples of Myanmar.

What is life in the camp like? What is the current humanitarian situation in the camps, particularly regarding food security and healthcare? Have the international aid cuts affected it? What are the internal challenges faced by politically active Rohingya in the camps?

Life in the camps is extremely difficult, marked by unending struggles that affect nearly every aspect of daily life. The conditions are harsh, and for the Rohingya refugees, each day is a challenge for survival.

The current humanitarian situation in the camps is dire. Food security is alarmingly low, with families entirely dependent on rations provided by the World Food Programme (WFP). But, these rations are far from sufficient. At times, WFP’s funding shortages have led to a drastic reduction in food assistance, once as low as $7 per person per month, and currently only $10. This amount is below what is needed to meet even basic nutritional needs. With no other accessible food sources, and limited livelihood opportunities inside the camps, most families struggle to sustain themselves. Only a few educated people manage to find work, which is not enough to support the families.

Healthcare services are also deeply inadequate. Although several health facilities exist across the camps, they are poorly equipped and fall far short of providing quality medical care. Vulnerable Rohingya refugees usually need to seek treatment outside the camps, at private hospitals such as Alif and Palong hospital in Kutupalong and Chattor Hospital in Cox’s Bazar, which is costly and logistically challenging. Most people who seek care within the camps report being prescribed only basic medications like low-quality paracetamol, and many express frustration over the lack of proper diagnosis and treatment.

Hospitals like Turkey’s TIKA and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) offer relatively better services, their capacity is limited and cannot meet the widespread medical needs of the population. The burden of managing healthcare and food needs always falls on the refugees themselves, with families which make extraordinary efforts, including daily labor for meager wages, to care for their loved ones.

The international aid cuts have had a devastating impact on both food security and healthcare. NGOs and INGOs are no longer able to meet the essential needs of the refugee population, which leave people in sorrow, despair, and a state of mourning for the life they once knew.

In addition to these humanitarian challenges, politically active Rohingya face serious internal threats. Armed groups operating within the camps frequently view political advocacy and community organizing with suspicion, usually perceiving it as a threat. As a result, many politically engaged youths have been targeted, silenced, or intimidated into giving up their work. Fear is widespread, and the space for political expression is rapidly shrinking.

Inside the camps, many armed groups remain active, usually opposing the work of educated and politically experienced experts who strive for peaceful solutions for the Rohingya. The Bangladesh authorities are aligned with these groups, primarily to maintain control over the Rohingya population. The armed groups, lacking sufficient knowledge and expertise, generally follow the directives of the authorities. It makes it nearly impossible for politically active members to receive the protection or recognition they need. Instead, leadership positions in the camps are always handed to unqualified people, sometimes very young boys, who lack the knowledge or maturity to lead, and who disrespect educated, religious, and community-oriented figures.

These trends point to a deeper structural issue. Those in power within the camp always align themselves with people or groups who can offer financial or material support, rather than those who seek to represent and serve the community through peaceful political engagement. Agencies like APBn, DSB, NSI, and DGFI 1 are seen as favoring these armed actors, further marginalizing political advocates.

In short, politically active Rohingya face a serious crisis. They operate without security, support, or recognition, despite their efforts to serve their community peacefully and constructively. Their voices are being silenced, and their efforts overshadowed by violence and fear.

What does “return with dignity” mean to you, and what concrete guarantees must be in place before any repatriation can be considered?

According to the Rohingya refugee, “return with dignity” represents not just a phrase, but a final hope and ultimate destination, it is a dream of reclaiming life, identity, and rights in our homeland. But, such a return must not be rushed or symbolic, it must be rooted in concrete, enforceable guarantees that ensure the full restoration of our rights and safety.

Before any repatriation can be considered dignified, the fundamental rights of the Rohingya must be fully recognized and upheld by the Myanmar government. It should include the unconditional restoration of full citizenship, freedom of movement across the country, and the ability to participate in education, economic activities, social life, and political processes without discrimination or restriction.

Repatriation is very important for us because life as refugees now approaching eight years in the camps of Cox’s Bazar has been overwhelmingly difficult. Every day is a struggle for survival, marred by insecurity, deprivation, and statelessness. Our prolonged displacement has only deepened our pain and eroded our future.

For repatriation to be truly dignified and sustainable, it must be facilitated and monitored by international stakeholders, including the United Nations, humanitarian organizations, and concerned governments. Their active involvement is essential to ensure that the process is conducted with accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights.

Only when these critical guarantees are firmly in place, when safety, justice, and equality are assured, can Rohingya people return to Myanmar with a sense of trust and dignity, ready to rebuild their lives in peace and freedom.

What gives you hope in the face of overwhelming adversity? And what would justice look like — not just for the Rohingya, but for all peoples in Myanmar?

In the face of overwhelming adversity, what gives us hope is the remarkable resilience and strength of our communities. Despite the suffering, displacement, and injustice we continue to endure, our collective courage, unity, and determination to seek justice remain unshaken. Acts of solidarity, whether through global advocacy, grassroots mobilization, or community resistance renew our hope and inspire us to keep fighting for a better future, not only for the Rohingya but for all the people of Myanmar.

Justice, to me, is multi-dimensional and must be inclusive, transformative, and rooted in accountability, human dignity, and equality. For the Rohingya and all people of Myanmar, justice must include,

1. Accountability for Atrocities; all perpetrators responsible for human rights violations, whether against the Rohingya or other ethnic and religious groups must be held accountable through fair and transparent legal processes, both nationally and internationally.

2. Recognition of Rights; the Myanmar government must recognize the rights of all communities, including the Rohingya. This includes restoring full citizenship, ensuring access to education and healthcare, and guaranteeing freedom of movement and protection from discrimination.

3. Ethnic and Religious Harmony; the government must actively promote dialogue and mutual understanding among the diverse ethnic and religious communities of Myanmar, advancing reconciliation and long-term social cohesion.

4. Inclusive Democratic Governance; a truly democratic and inclusive political system must be established, the one that represents all peoples of Myanmar, ensures equal participation in decision-making, and upholds the principles of justice, freedom, and equality.

5. Reparations and Support for Victims; justice also means reparations for victims of violence, discrimination, and displacement. The government must offer unbiased support to those affected, help them rebuild their lives with dignity and security.

Justice for Myanmar cannot be selective. It must serve every community that has suffered and strive to create a future where no one is oppressed because of their identity, religion, or ethnicity. That vision of justice and the global support behind it is what sustains our hope for change.

What do Rohingya refugees know about the war in Ukraine? Has Russia’s role in supporting both the Myanmar junta and the invasion of Ukraine influenced your perception of international power dynamics?

Many Rohingya who have access to education and social media are well aware of the war in Ukraine. We see the images of cities and places in ruins, people forced to flee, and a nation bravely resisting occupation. What stands out most is the double standard in the global response. The international community acted swiftly and decisively in condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But when it comes to the Myanmar junta, also backed by Russia, the response has been slow, weak, or at times, completely silent.

Russia’s open support for the military that has oppressed and persecuted us reveals the darker reality of international politics. It makes us feel invisible, as if our suffering is less important. It exposes how global power sometimes operates not through principles of justice, but through interests and alliances.

So yes, our perception of international power dynamics has changed. The war in Ukraine has taught us not only about conflict, but also about how the world chooses whose pain to acknowledge and whose to ignore.

What do you most want our audience to understand about the Rohingya struggle today?

We are not just victims, we are human beings, born with hopes and dreams like anyone else. Our struggle is not only about the genocide we endured in the past, it’s also about the future we are trying to build. It’s about our right to education, freedom of movement, citizenship, and the chance to live with dignity.

We were born and raised stateless. Many of us are growing up in refugee camps, where the future is uncertain, and every day is a struggle just to survive. Yet, despite all of this, we educate ourselves, we serve our communities, and we raise our voices even when doing so puts us at risk.

So please, do not see us only as numbers or headlines. See us as students, teachers, parents, artists, and peacebuilders. We don’t want pity. We need your solidarity, genuine and strong.

Do you see any meaningful parallels between the Rohingya struggle against ethnic persecution and the Ukrainian resistance against foreign occupation? Could there be space for mutual solidarity between the two peoples?

Yeah, definitely. Both the Rohingya and the Ukrainian people are fighting for survival, identity, and freedom from forces that seek to erase them. Ukrainians are resisting tanks and missiles. The Rohingya are resisting erasure through statelessness, systemic apartheid, and forced exile.

Although the contexts are different, the pain of losing our homeland, our rights, and our people is deeply human and deeply shared. There is a profound space for solidarity, because pain recognizes pain. Both communities can draw strength from one another’s courage and resilience.

If we can build bridges between our stories, perhaps the world will stop choosing which lives are more worthy of protection and begin defending all human rights equally.

Do you think an international solidarity movement can make a real difference for the Rohingya cause?

Yes, absolutely. An international solidarity movement is important and can play an advanced role in making a real difference for the Rohingya cause. Today, the only reason Rohingya genocide survivors have even a glimpse of hope for survival and justice is because parts of the international community have stepped up, although modestly. The Rohingya people remain heavily reliant on international attention and support, more than on any domestic or regional actors.

Without sustaining international solidarity, the Rohingya crisis risks being forgotten. If the world turns away, our situation will worsen, and justice will remain out of reach. But, it is also important to acknowledge that even though the international community has made efforts, such as humanitarian aid, public condemnation, and some diplomatic pressure, the overall progress remains extremely limited. One major reason is the lack of meaningful involvement from influential powers like China.

China plays a decisive role in Myanmar’s internal politics, particularly through its support for both the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army, who control key territories. Any meaningful resolution to the Rohingya crisis will likely require China’s participation or approval, as both armed and political actors in Myanmar are deeply influenced by China’s interests.

Therefore, for an international solidarity movement to truly bring change, it must include strategic engagement with regional powers such as China, Thailand, and Japan. These countries have real influence and can pressure relevant actors inside Myanmar toward a resolution.

To say shortly, international solidarity is crucial, its effectiveness will depend on a more inclusive approach, one that involves not only western democracies and human rights bodies but also regional powers with real leverage. The Rohingya people are counting on the international community not just for survival, but for a durable and just solution to this long-standing crisis.

From Historical Blockage to Radical Rupture: The Ontological Revolution of Socialism

By Mahir Engizek

February 9, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

​The intellectual framework of new socialism gains meaning through the transcendence of the three main pillars of modernity: statism, industrialism, and hierarchical rationality. These three pillars have been reproduced in different forms throughout history. Capitalism reinforced them through the dogmas of growth, competition, and the market. Traditional socialism, on the other hand, preserved these three elements under a different guise by expanding the state and centralizing economic planning.

​For this reason, a new conception of socialism cannot be envisioned without a critique of modernity. To criticize modernity requires questioning not only economic relations but also modes of knowledge production, moral norms, perceptions of time and space, and even how society gives meaning to its own existence.

​The knowledge production model of modernity is built upon the concept of “centralized truth.” This understanding produces knowledge not from within society, but through institutions positioned above society. The university, state bureaucracy, fields of expertise, and scientific authorities are the truth-production mechanisms of modernity.

​Although these mechanisms ostensibly defend free thought, they reduce the diversity of social experiences to a single form of rationality. This reductionism destroys the richness of social knowledge. New socialism recognizes the production of knowledge by society and the place of social experiences in the production of truth. Therefore, “truth” is not a piece of information descending from the center to society, but a process arising from the multi-layered life practices of society.

​This new understanding of knowledge is also mandatory for political transformation. Because as long as knowledge production remains centralized, politics remains centralized. As knowledge disperses, politics disperses. As knowledge becomes democratized, politics becomes democratized. Therefore, new socialism aims for the dissolution of structures that monopolize knowledge. Strengthening the social circulation of knowledge is the fundamental condition for strengthening the social subject. This means the reconstruction of society’s capacity to give meaning to itself.

​Reconstructing society’s world of meaning beyond modernity also requires a transformation in the understanding of time. Modernity views time as a linear line: the past is left behind, the future has not yet arrived, and the present is merely a transitional moment on this line. This linear perception of time constantly directs society toward the future; the future is always imagined as a more “advanced,” “larger,” and more “developed” stage.

​This fetishism of progress is the common ground for both capitalist growth and traditional socialist developmentalism. Yet, freedom becomes possible by stepping outside the perception of linear time. Recognizing the cyclical and relational dimension of time returns society to a life suited to its own rhythm. New socialism evaluates time not through criteria of growth and development, but through social harmony and ethical life.

​Modernity’s understanding of space is also open to criticism for new socialism. Modern cities squeeze human relations into technical functionality. Space becomes an area where production and consumption processes are organized. However, the liberation of society is possible through the re-socialization of space. Space is not merely a geography but also a network of social relations. Therefore, new socialism re-relationalizes space. The neighborhood, the commune, locality, and community transform into political subjects. This transformation ensures that politics ceases to be state-centered.

​In this context, one of the most fundamental goals of new socialism is to rebuild society’s own organizational capacity. Under the modern state, society becomes a disorganized entity. The more the state grows, the more society shrinks; the more the state centralizes, the more society becomes passive. This passivity is one of the fundamental psychological structures of modernity that governs social life. The aim of new socialism is to make society an active subject again. When society’s organizational capacity increases, the need for the coercive mechanisms of the state decreases.

​The self-organization of society is not just a political model but also a philosophy of existence. When society organizes itself, the individual becomes not only an economic actor but also a political actor. This political agency takes the individual out of loneliness and strengthens them through social bonds. The modern individual is lonely. The individual of new socialism, however, is a relational being. This relational individual finds freedom not in loneliness but in subjectivity within social bonds.

​The understanding of freedom in new socialism also requires an ethical transformation. Ethics is the invisible law of social life. In modern society, ethics has remained in the shadow of the law. Law is determined by the central authority; ethics is produced by the social conscience.

​Therefore, the expansion of the centralized legal system often means the weakening of social ethics. New socialism sees law not as a mechanism that replaces society’s ethical capacity, but as a tool that strengthens this capacity. As ethics strengthens, the need for a centralized legal system decreases.

​The reconstruction of social ethics also requires placing economic relations within an ethical framework. The purpose of the economy cannot be merely production or growth. The purpose of the economy is to meet social needs and strengthen the ethical foundations of social life. Therefore, it is mandatory to restructure economic relations based on community and with ecological sensitivity. When the economy is not compatible with society’s ethical framework, freedom weakens.

​This point points to the ontological dimension of freedom. Freedom is not an internal state of the individual, but a set of relations that determine the conditions of society’s existence. When society is free, the individual is free; when the individual is free, society rebuilds its own organization in a more creative way. This mutual interaction makes freedom both an individual and a social process. Freedom is not the absence of power, but a form of existence that emerges with the dissolution of power within social relations.

​Within this entire framework, while new socialism aims to transcend the contradictions of modernity, it simultaneously constructs a new social ontology. This ontology offers a new way of knowing regarding society’s own existence. Society is not a hierarchical pyramid but a multi-layered network of mutual relations. Every relationship within this network carries the potential for freedom. Therefore, freedom expands with the reconstruction of social relations. It narrows as hierarchy and power relations increase.

​This intellectual structure carries new socialism beyond old paradigms and turns it into an ethical, political, and ontological project of freedom. Such a project does not wait for the future; it builds its own future in the practices of today.

​The radical transformation of new socialism is not just a theoretical construction but also a reconceptualization of social experience. In the terrain where modernity atomizes the individual and dissolves social bonds, experience is no longer evaluated in a purely economic or political framework as in the past.

​Experience is the sum of social memory, cultural accumulation, ethical relations, and individual creativity. This sum is the most fundamental basis for the reorganization of the social subject. The subject can no longer be defined only by a class or an organization. It is the result of social bonds, cultural diversity, gender relations, ecological consciousness, and historical memory.

​At this point, the radical rupture directly invalidates the classical socialist paradigm that centers the state and central power. The power mechanism of the state is a framework that limits social relations. No matter how well-intentioned it is managed, the centrality of power limits social freedom.

​New socialism makes the state a tool that supports the collective will of the social subject, not a central power. The power-oriented structure of the state functions as a mechanism that absorbs social energy; social organization, on the other hand, is a process that distributes and reproduces this energy. 

Therefore, a free society is a stateless but organized society.

​When women’s freedom is placed at the center of this structure, social transformation is not merely a symbolic change. The dissolution of patriarchal relations requires a restructuring that penetrates even the smallest nodes of power. Women’s freedom is not just gender equality, but the fundamental indicator of society’s capacity to organize itself.

​The dissolution of the patriarchal structure also clears the way for stateless democratic mechanisms, collective ethical norms, and social creativity. Women’s freedom is the ontological foundation of the freedom paradigm. It ensures the formation of a new ethical and relational order at every level of social life.

​Ecology is also an inseparable part of this holistic vision of socialism. Modern capitalism and industrialism treat nature as a means of commodification; they detach humans from nature and reduce living spaces to a single logic of production-consumption.

​Yet, a free society sees nature both as a part of its own life and as a part of social relations. Ecological consciousness is a criterion of social freedom; the value given to nature is directly related to social responsibility and collective will. Therefore, new socialism is a life model that reorganizes both human and nature relations.

​The dogmas of the modern left are forced to dissolve in the face of this radical rupture. The sanctity of the state, the absoluteness of central planning, the idea of a single revolutionary subject, and the linear understanding of history become invalid within the critical framework of Leader Öcalan’s paradigm.

​History is no longer understood as a process advancing on a single line, but as a multi-layered, multi-subjective, and relational organization. The future is not a utopia waiting for a certain moment to happen, but a process built through the continuous transformation of today’s social relations. Freedom and socialism are no longer goals deferred to the future, but dynamics that must be actively produced at every moment of social life.

​In new socialism, knowledge production also undergoes a radical transformation. Knowledge is no longer produced under the monopoly of central institutions and authorities. It is a product of social experience, collective memory, and cultural accumulation. This distribution of knowledge is the fundamental building block of social organization. When knowledge is democratized, power also disperses. When knowledge remains in a central position, power concentrates. Therefore, social liberation is closely linked to the democratization of knowledge production.

​The relationship between the individual and society is at the center of this paradigm. The individual is not conceived as having a freedom independent of social relations. Freedom is reproduced within social relations. In these relations, the individual is both the subject and assumes the responsibility of the relations. The freedom of society feeds individual freedom. Individual freedom, in turn, strengthens social bonds. This two-way process defines freedom not only as a right but also as a social obligation and a practice of life.

​In new socialism, ethical and political fields are inseparable. Ethical transformation is a prerequisite for the reconstruction of social relations. In modern society, ethics often remains in the shadow of the law, and individuals are prevented from assuming their own responsibilities. In new socialism, ethics is placed at the center of social life. The individual and society regulate their own behavior through collective conscience. This ethics-based life takes the place of central authority and ensures the social continuity of freedom.

​The radical rupture is a holistic paradigm that goes beyond classical socialism and the modern left. This paradigm addresses social, economic, cultural, ethical, gender, and ecological relations within the same integrity. It transcends the boundaries of the state and central power. It subjectivizes society collectively. It re-establishes the relationality between the individual and the community, and between freedom and responsibility. This is not just a theoretical proposal, but a vision of freedom and socialism fed by the practices of today and continuously produced.

​New socialism is not only a proposal for a social order but also an intellectual project that transcends the epistemological and ontological boundaries of modernity.

​While modernity atomizes the individual, it defines society as a mechanical system. This mechanical definition paves the way for hierarchy, centralization, and the concentration of power. New socialism, however, sees society as a network of relations. Every relationship carries freedom, every bond carries responsibility, and every community carries a creative capacity. This ontological transformation allows social life to redefine itself. Society is no longer an object shaped by power, but a subject that continuously produces its own existence.

​Another dimension of the radical rupture is the reconstruction of the collective will. In traditional socialism, the collective will is squeezed into the state or central party mechanisms. Individual subjectivity is often ignored or subordinated to central authority. New socialism processes the collective will within the network of social relations and positions the individual’s subjectivity as an active element within this network. Collective will is no longer a top-down decision-making mechanism, but a horizontal, pluralistic, and continuously reproduced process. In this process, the individual is not just a subject demanding rights, but a creative actor shaping social experience.

​Modernity’s understanding of history also undergoes a radical critique. The traditional left has envisioned the line of history as a linear and progressive process. Revolutions, development, and central planning are seen as steps forward. Yet, new socialism conceives historical experience as a multi-layered, relational, and pluralistic field. The past is not merely a heritage; it is the source of today’s social organization and the vision of future freedom. Making the past, cultural accumulation, and social memory visible again is the fundamental condition for social freedom.

​In this context, social memory is not just historical knowledge, but also the creative source of freedom. Memory serves as a guide in the organization of social relations. When society’s collective memory is strong, individuals and communities can organize their own experiences freely. Memory breaks modernity’s myth of one-way progress and prepares the ground for a free future vision. The future is no longer a distant utopia, but a process built by the continuity of today’s social practices.

​In this new paradigm, economy is not addressed merely as a relationship of production and consumption. Economic relations are redefined together with social and ecological bonds. Capitalist growth and industrial production push the limits of social and natural life; new socialism shapes production within the framework of social needs and ecological balance. When economic processes are made compatible with social ethics and ecological consciousness, the potential for freedom is unlocked. This is not only an economic but also an ontological and ethical restructuring.

​Women’s freedom is at the center of social freedom. The dissolution of patriarchal relations directly increases society’s capacity to question power relations. Women’s freedom functions as a mechanism that disperses social energy and strengthens collective responsibility. Social freedom cannot be completed without women’s freedom. Because patriarchy reproduces power through the state, the economy, and cultural norms. New socialism aims to dissolve patriarchy at these three levels and to re-establish social relations on the basis of equality.

​Knowledge production is also an inseparable component of freedom. Knowledge is not a content received from central authorities, but is produced through social experience and collective memory. The democratization of knowledge is the fundamental condition for social organization and collective will. As knowledge disperses, power also disperses; when knowledge is monopolized, power concentrates. Therefore, knowledge is not merely a tool, but a mechanism that shapes freedom itself.

​The ontological and ethical dimension of freedom is at the heart of the holistic paradigm of new socialism. Freedom is not an internal state of the individual; it is a process reproduced within the network of social relations. The individual becomes free within social relations, and society nurtures individual subjectivity. This two-way process makes freedom both an individual and a social practice. Freedom is not the absence of power; it emerges with the dissolution of power within the network of relations.

​In conclusion, new socialism transcends the boundaries of modernity, the classical left, and the paradigm that centers the central state. It subjectivizes society collectively, positions the individual as a relational being, questions patriarchy and central power, and offers an ecological and ethical framework. In this paradigm, freedom is not merely a right, but a continuously produced process, a form of existence, and the fundamental dynamic of social life.

​New socialism is no longer a utopia deferred for the future, but an existential space built with the relational, collective, and creative social practices of today.

Kurdistan Analysis 

Rojava and Syria at War – A Political Assessment

By Ali Çiçek

January 25, 2026

Source: Academy of Democratic Modernity

Since the beginning of the year, events in Rojava and Syria have escalated dramatically. In view of the rapid developments, there is an urgent need for a thorough analysis of the current situation and the goals and interests of the actors involved in this complex web of political relationships.

This is not the first time that the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) has come under severe pressure. Since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011, the revolution in Rojava has repeatedly been targeted by a range of actors, including the so-called Islamic State (IS), the Assad regime, and—most persistently—the Turkish state.

The latest escalation began on January 6^th 2026, when troops and militias affiliated with the so-called Syrian transitional government launched attacks on the districts of Sheikh Maqsood, Ashrafiye, and Beni Zeyd in Aleppo. These attacks soon expanded across large parts of Rojava, effectively placing all of northern Syria under assault. Despite a ceasefire allegedly announced by the Syrian regime on January 18^th, the violence has continued unabated and has since spread to Haseke and the areas surrounding Kobane. Reports indicate that civilians have been subjected to massacres.

As a result of these ongoing attacks, the very existence of Rojava is now at stake. The current developments reflect a shifting balance of power in the region and signal the onset of a new political phase in the Middle East.

In order to understand the main dynamics of the current situation, the background to the latest developments in Syria and their impact on Rojava, it is therefore necessary to analyse the comprehensive upheavals in the Middle East in more detail. A historically grounded understanding of these political processes is crucial for democratic forces to assert themselves against appropriation by capitalist modernity and to develop an independent, emancipatory perspective.

A new stage in the Third World War

The conceptual and theoretical framework of the ‘Third World War’ coined by Abdullah Öcalan in his works “Manifesto for a Democratic Civilization”, provides a central orientation for an appropriate assessment of current developments in Syria.

This term, which has been used by the Kurdistan Freedom Movement for over two decades, describes the global process of realignment of hegemonic forces and zones of influence that began with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The years 1989-90 marked the end of the bipolar world order, which divided the world between the Soviet bloc and the capitalist bloc, and led to the breakdown of former power balances, especially in the Middle East. In this chaotic phase, the goal of the forces of capitalist modernity is the complete integration of the region into capitalist hegemony.

In this context, three central groups of actors can be distinguished in the Middle East, each acting with different interests and objectives;

First, the international actors, led by the USA, form a dominant bloc. Since the early 1990s, the United States have pursued the goal of restructuring the region as part of the so-called ‘Greater Middle East Project’ (GME) with the aim of dominating the region’s resources and trade routes. The GME was developed in response to the power vacuum following the collapse of real socialism and aims to transform the Middle East in line with neoliberal ideas. A look at the bloody consequences of this policy over the past thirty years in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria illustrates the devastating effects on societies in the region. The US strategy is based primarily on three pillars: eliminating potential threats to the US and the West, controlling energy resources and energy corridors, and ensuring Israel’s security and capacity to project war towards the region. In this context, both the dismantling of Iran’s Shiite crescent project and the establishment of a so-called “Arab NATO” play a central role. The latter manifests itself, among other things, in the Abraham Accords, which aim to strategically unite Sunni states – in particular Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states – with Israel.

The second group of actors consists of the existing nation states in the region, which are attempting to resist the Greater Middle East Project’s efforts to reshape the region and impose their policies of domination, dismantling the 20th century order of Sykes-Picot. Instead, they insist on the state order established around a hundred years ago by the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

The third actor is represented by social forces. Today, these are primarily represented by the Kurdistan Freedom Movement, which, with the development of the model of Democratic Confederalism and the democratic nation, is formulating an alternative to both the nation-state order and the Greater Middle East Project.

From October 7^th 2023 to the fall of Syria’s Baath regime

With the Palestinan genocide that began on October 7^th 2023, the process of reshaping the Middle East gained considerable momentum. The existing status quo was seen as an obstacle to Western hegemony and was therefore deliberately broken up in order to establish new power relations. In this context, Iranian influence in Palestine (Hamas) and Lebanon (Hezbollah) was weakened, while the change of power in Syria broke another central pillar of Iran’s regional hegemony. Iran is thus faced with the alternative of undergoing regime change or submitting to the existing hegemonic order.

Within this restructuring of the Middle East, Israel is assuming the role of the hegemonic centre. A new regional security architecture is being built around Israel. The Abraham Accords mark a process of gradual integration of Arab nation states into this system, with Israel as the central actor and representative of Western hegemony. At the same time, the Sunni bloc, which was significantly shaken by the Arab Spring, is being reformed. In this context, there are increasing calls for a strategic encirclement of Iran. Beyond the security policy dimension, the transformation of the Middle East region in line with the new world order also aims to control energy reserves and new energy routes, secure the unhindered movement of capital, dominate the Eastern Mediterranean, and establish political regimes that limit and contain the scope of action of Russia and China.

The fall of the Baath regime on December 8^th 2024 after 62 years of rule represents a continuation of this policy and ushered in a new phase of uncertainty in Syria. When Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which has its roots in al-Qaeda, recently developed from a previously small Islamist emirate in the Idlib region and was under the patronage and supervision of the Turkish state, took power, it became clear that the Syrian crisis was not over. HTS, which now forms the transitional government, marks the beginning of a new phase of instability.

HTS’s Syria as a new proxy force of the West

With the fall of the Assad regime and the takeover by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the network of relationships in Syria has changed qualitatively. A new balance of power has emerged that must be understood in order to correctly assess current developments. The developing situation should be analysed primarily from the perspective of the US and the Western bloc.

Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the goal of the US and its allies has been to overthrow the Assad regime and install a pro-Western government – a goal that has effectively been achieved with today’s transitional government. This put the US in direct opposition to Russia and Iran, which were the central pillars of support for the Assad regime during the war. Until Assad’s fall, Russian policy was aimed at stabilising Syria’s existing nation-state system by keeping him in power.

With HTS taking power, this balance of power has entered a new phase. With HTS, a force that was built up with significant preparation by the United Kingdom¹, there is now a government in Damascus that is integrated into the US and Western-led reorganisation project. HTS accepts the rules of capitalist modernity, is economically integrated into the Western camp, de facto recognises Israeli hegemony and remains silent on the Israeli occupation of parts of southern Syria.

For America, this shift in alliances is nothing new. When the US allied itself with the Kurds, they were under attack from IS, Assad was in power in Syria, and the US was opposed to Assad. Considering the support they gave to the YPG and later the SDF, there was a serious change in relations with the SDF after the regime change in Syria as the US began to support the new Syrian regime. Previously, the US tried to control its predominantly tactical-military relations in Syria from east of the Euphrates, but now it is trying to implement its political and diplomatic strategy through Damascus.

This new strategy was formally sealed at the meeting in Paris on January 5^th and 6^th 2026, where Syria and Israel agreed on a joint communication mechanism under US supervision. However, this meeting was not limited to that. At the same time, an alliance was formed against the DAANES. It is no coincidence that Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was also present in Paris on that day. This alliance against Rojava, supported by the US, France, Britain and Turkey, is also backed by the EU. This was clearly demonstrated during the visit of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to Damascus, who pledged political support for the new regime, while a war of annihilation was being waged against Kurdish settlements. In this sense, the attack on Rojava is not an isolated event, but part of a coordinated approach between the al-Sharaa regime and the West.

To achieve more concrete interests, the victorious forces in Syria are now fighting amongst themselves and the project of a democratic Syria has no place in this. Israel genuinely wants Syria to remain fragmented. Turkey, meanwhile, wants a Syrian administration loyal to it and implement Neo-Ottomanism throughout the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. The Gulf states and Britain want to establish a sphere of influence in the Eastern Mediterranean through HTS. The most influential of all these powers, the US, wants to establish a balance among these countries, all of which are its allies, and will most likely ultimately take a position close to Israel’s arguments. Turkey’s project is, in fact, to revive a period similar to the Assad regime under different names; at this point, it is automatically antagonising the people of the region. This means, that they are pushing for a centralist nation-state power on the fundament of ethnic-based division and oppression. Israel, on the other hand, is taking a purely tactical approach to the region. Having secured all the short-term concessions it wanted from the HTS leadership after the Paris agreement, the Israeli government appears set to wield the HTS groups like the sword of Damocles over the rest of Syria for a long time to come. Note that Israel is merely observing HTS’s massacres after the Paris agreement. Turkey, on the other hand, will constantly provoke HTS against SDF, attempting to minimise the gains of the Kurds.

US pragmatism towards the Kurds

The pragmatic policy of the US towards the Kurds before the fall of Assad was primarily due to the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). From the US perspective, this 12-year tactical alliance was driven by three key motives: firstly, cooperation with the YPG offered the most effective way to gain military prestige in the fight against ISIS. Secondly, the US pursued the goal of bringing the revolution under control, limiting its socialist or ‘Apoist’ (a term used for the supporters of Öcalan’s political line) orientation and steering it into a nationalist, nation-state direction. Thirdly, the Kurds served as a means of exerting pressure on the Assad regime and the Russia-Iran bloc.

With the new balance of power in Syria and the establishment of a pro-Western regime in Damascus, these tactical interests have shifted fundamentally. The former arguments and constraints have lost their significance. Against this backdrop, the US is now attempting to put the Kurds under massive political, military and economic pressure in order to force them into a de facto ‘voluntary’ integration into the Syrian state. At the same time, Turkey is being given greater leeway to limit the influence of the Kurds and push them further towards Damascus.

The US has made no secret of this position. On January 20^th 2026, the US Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, openly expressed this tactical approach to the SDF in his statement: “Today, the situation has fundamentally changed. Syria now has an acknowledged central government that has joined the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS (as its 90^th member in late 2025), signalling a westward pivot and cooperation with the US on counterterrorism. This shifts the rationale for the US-SDF partnership: the original purpose of the SDF as the primary anti-ISIS force on the ground has largely expired, as Damascus is now both willing and positioned to take over security responsibilities, including control of ISIS detention facilities and camps.”²

The US has brought the new Syrian regime under al-Sharaa together with Israel (for the first time in the history of both countries), and continues to try to strengthen this regime and build a new Syria through al-Sharaa. In this context, the relationship between al-Sharaa and Israel is of utmost importance to the US. This also included al-Sharaa establishing a relationship with Israel in which he submits to its hegemony in the region, which he ultimately did at the Paris meeting. In a second step, the US is now trying to somehow “integrate” the Kurds, with whom it has had a military alliance for over ten years, into the new regime.

This is where the breakdowns and difficulties have arisen. Negotiations have been ongoing since March 10^th 2025, and the regime in Damascus has largely turned a deaf ear to the SDF’s demands. Whenever an agreement with the SDF seemed within reach, Turkey intervened directly. On January 4^th, immediately prior to the attack on Aleppo, negotiations between the SDF and the Damascus delegation were initially going well, according to press reports, and it looked as if an agreement would be signed. But then the Turkish-friendly Foreign Minister al-Sheibani entered the negotiating room and declared the negotiations over. A day later, negotiations on a security agreement with Israel began in Paris, and on January 6^th, an agreement was reached. On the same day, the attack took place in Aleppo. Turkey was involved in the attack on Aleppo with all its might, and continues to be so now. From planning to implementation, Turkey has been involved militarily, diplomatically, in terms of intelligence and technically. This is an operation carried out jointly with the government in Damascus and the armed groups acting on behalf of Turkey. The attacks were essentially aimed at breaking the will of the Kurds in the negotiations between the SDF and Damascus, undermining their demands for recognition, forcing integration by weakening their military strength and weakening the SDF’s negotiating position in order to achieve complete capitulation.

With regard to relations between the Kurds and the US, a certain division between international and regional actors along the western and eastern Euphrates has emerged in recent years. Until the current turning point, the US had signalled to the Kurds that it would not interfere in matters west of the Euphrates. On this basis, the US did not oppose Turkish military operations in Afrin (2018), Manbij (2024) and Till Rifaat. Nevertheless they withdrew their troops and remained silent when Turkish army attacked and occupied Till Abyad and Ras Al-Ayn in 2019, both lying east of the Euphrates.

Now, again, we are witnessing a huge military offensive east of the Euphrates: cities such as Tabqah, Raqqa and Ayn Issa are now under the control of the Syrian regime, while Haseke and Kobane are under siege. The division between west and east, previously considered an imaginary ‘red line’, has lost its validity in this new phase. The US’s silence on these developments is effectively tantamount to supporting Ahmed al-Sharaa’s claim to establish state sovereignty over the whole of Syria. The current situation shows that the US’s fundamental concept is no longer to negotiate the division into a western and an eastern Euphrates region, but rather to weaken the SDF as much as possible.

US attempts to unite Damascus, Turkey, and Israel

From the US perspective, the underlying logic in Syria is to bring Israel and Turkey into alignment. On the one hand stands Israel, the West’s closest ally in the region; on the other hand stands Turkey, a NATO member whose relationship with the West has been marked by tensions but remains strategically indispensable. Washington seeks to encourage Turkey and Israel to identify shared security interests, coordinate their approaches, and present a joint framework for Syria. Ultimately, this strategy points toward the formation of a broader alignment linking Damascus, Turkey, and Israel.

Strategically, Turkey and Israel pursue divergent objectives in Syria. Turkey is determined to prevent the Kurds from establishing political, administrative, or military autonomy and has shown little willingness to compromise on this issue. Accordingly, Ankara favors the emergence of a strong, centralized Syrian leadership under al-Sharaa that would consolidate all levers of power. Israel, by contrast, despite having enforced certain demands on al-Sharaa, does not trust either the regime or the power bloc surrounding him. From Israel’s perspective, this leadership could pose a challenge to its security in the medium to long term. It is therefore not in Israel’s interest for Syria to become overly powerful or to significantly expand its military capabilities. Instead, Israel favors a more fragmented, decentralized, and flexible political structure—one in which Kurds, Druze, Alevis, and other social groups are represented—thereby limiting Damascus’s ability to project power and preserving Israel’s own room for influence. The reason for this is not an interest in democracy, but rather a desire to maintain their own hegemony and influence. In addition, it is essential to Israel and Western powers to be able to use the HTS against Iran and Shiite militias, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. Despite these fundamental differences, efforts to identify a shared middle ground between Turkey and Israel continue. The United States is actively attempting to bring Damascus, Ankara, and Tel Aviv to the negotiating table.

It should be emphasised that all of the state actors mentioned are ultimately part of capitalist modernity. Although they have different strategies for expanding their own hegemony, they come together in the short term to suffocate alternatives such as those represented by Rojava as a project of democratic socialism.

In this equation, the Kurds are now being pressured to integrate into the new regime by being diminished, weakened and ideologically diluted. Whether this will succeed is a question that will now depend on Rojava’s resistance.

The ideological essence of the attack

The attacks on Rojava are not only political and military in nature, but also have a profound ideological dimension. With the current pressure, the US is attempting to liberalise the revolutionary achievements and strengthen nationalist forces. On the one hand they want to push nationalist agendas, on the other hand they continue to try to divide the Kurds into good (KDP, etc.) and bad (PKK, etc.) in order to weaken the unity of the Kurds. At the heart of this is an attack on the idea of the democratic nation – the core of the revolution. Kurds are to be played off against Arabs and the project of coexistence undermined. Accordingly, the attacks were directed in the beginning of the war particularly against regions with a majority Arab population, such as Raqqa, Tabqa and Deir ez-Zor. The aim is to make division based on ethnic lines and from there to either force capitulation on the Kurds or to crush their political will by brute force, which would open the way for ethnic cleansing, massacres and systematic demographic change. So the current situation is intended not only to destroy the achievements of Kurdish society in Syria, but also to fuel hostilities between peoples. Weakening the Kurds in order to dominate the Middle East is a 200-year-old policy of ‘divide and rule’. It is a new version of the imperialist policy of ‘divide and rule’ that has maintained the hegemony of capitalist modernity in the Middle East for the past 200 years.

At the same time, Kurdish nationalist forces such as ENKS and KDP are being specifically promoted, as was recently evident at the meeting in Erbil on January 17^th 2026. For years, these forces have been propagating a discourse that seeks to reduce self-government to a purely ethnic-cultural agenda. The decree issued by al-Sharaa on January 17^th recognising the Kurdish language and making further concessions should also be understood in this context as a tactical manoeuvre intended to give impetus to this nationalist line. The decree has no constitutional binding force, while the regime itself is based on denial, division and massacres of Alevis, Druze and Kurds. The simultaneous continuation of military attacks by HTS makes it clear that what is sought for ultimately is complete submission to Damascus.

At this point, two different strategies towards the Kurds are evident. On the one hand, the Turkish state and the Syrian regime are pursuing a policy of crushing revolutionary achievements, which extends to genocidal practices. On the other hand, the US strategy is aimed less at physical destruction than at liberalising and depoliticising the revolution. Support for this plan aims to distort and channel the revolutionary-democratic potential of the Kurds. The policy of ‘divide and rule’ is implemented primarily through support for nationalist Kurdish elements. In particular, the revolutionary, radical democratic and socialist forces in Kurdistan are to be neutralised in this way. One of the main goals in this context is to isolate the PKK and the line of freedom. International support for this plan aims to distort and channel the revolutionary-democratic potential of the Kurds and finds broad support in the international diplomatic arena. This promotes a nation-state line that is limited to certain Kurdish rights and demands, and that subordinates itself to the US-Israeli project for the Middle East. At the same time, a weakened Kurdish minority remains a potential instrument for the forces of capitalist modernity to be used again as leverage in conflicts with Damascus.

In this context, there can be no talk of a ‘betrayal’ of the Kurds or Rojava by the US or the EU. Betrayal can only exist where there is a strategic partnership or a joint political project for the future. At most, those actors who have consciously tied their future to the US and placed their bets on a strategic alliance can be said to have been betrayed.

However, this does not apply to Rojava. At no point has there been a common ideological or political project between the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the US. From the outset, relations have been purely tactical in nature, dependent on a specific geopolitical constellation and strictly limited to the joint fight against the so-called Islamic State.

The US, as an imperialist power and hegemon of the capitalist world system, pursues the goal of exploiting the achievements of a society’s struggle for freedom for its own interests. Against this backdrop, the current attacks must be understood not only in political and military terms, but above all, in terms of their ideological depth. The forces of capitalist modernity have coordinated their efforts to increase pressure on the Kurds, to contain them and to instrumentalise and exploit them in accordance with their own strategic plans. These attacks have once again shown that the forces of capitalist modernity are capable of trampling on all values in pursuit of their own interests.

In contrast, the strategic line of the Kurdistan Freedom Movement is clear: its partners are not imperialist states, but global democratic forces, social movements and anti-systemic actors who advocate self-determination, equality and an alternative social order.

Characterizing the policies of the HTS

In this context, it is worth taking a closer look at the Syrian government. The character of the Syrian transitional government controlled by HTS can only be understood in the context of its ideological orientation and political practice. From the outset, HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa has pursued a reactionary and monistic line. He has continuously threatened the Kurds, ignored the reconciliation initiatives of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, and instead demanded their complete submission to his repressive rule. With the HTS, the Islamic State is part of the Syrian government, and the liberation of IS terrorists by HTS militias, such as on January 19^th in the town of al-Shaddadah and in Raqqa, clearly demonstrates this connection. Through the identity of HTS, the hegemonic forces brought ISIS to statehood.

This policy aims to destroy the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, which was built by Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians and other population groups on the basis of the concept of a democratic nation. It is to be replaced by an authoritarian system based on a single nation and a single faith. This thinking represents a direct attack on the centuries-old fraternal coexistence of peoples and religious communities in the Middle East. The aim is to prevent the democratic understanding of nationhood that could enable peace and stability in Syria and the region.

The attacks by HTS are therefore not an isolated security policy measure, but part of a comprehensive plot against the future of Syria. HTS is acting as a central player in a policy that aims not at national unity, but at division and fragmentation. While the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria had created a Kurdish-Arab unity, HTS is deliberately trying to stir up hostility between Kurds and Arabs. The HTS in that sense is waging a proxy war under the influence of external powers. With such a strategy, neither a democratic unity of Syria nor a stable future for the state is possible.

‘Integration’ or assimilation?

Since the beginning of negotiations on the integration of North-East Syrian autonomous regions into the new Syrian order, it is now clear that, for HTS, integration actually means assimilation. The latest decree on January 17^th by the president of the transitional government, Ahmed al-Sharaa, which superficially appears to recognise Kurdish rights, does not represent a break with previous policy. Rather, it is a tactical exercise of power within a strictly state-centred mindset. This does not resolve the crisis, but rather reorganises it and makes it controllable.

At its core, the decree recognises elements of cultural identity, but refuses to acknowledge the collective political subjectivity and self-governing capacity of society. Local decision-making mechanisms and forms of self-organisation are excluded from the legitimate political sphere. The recognition thus has a restrictive rather than a liberating effect.

The central question is what and whom this recognition concerns: Is a struggling, organised society being recognised – or merely a fragmented, individualised and controllable social group? In actuality, the decree aims to undermine the political and military balance in northern Syria, in particular the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

This strategy does not rely on open military destruction, but on more subtle means. The aim is to separate society from its collective political will, isolate the SDF and portray it as a purely ‘military problem’. While individual cultural rights are granted, these are deliberately decoupled from the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the SDF in order to deprive them of their social legitimacy. Terms such as ‘national unity,’ ‘one roof’ and ‘no privileges’ do not serve pluralism, but rather the enforcement of a centralised state model as the only legitimate order.

Diversity is not understood as a constituent political force, but as a condition that must be controlled. The existence of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the SDF is marked as a deviation from the norm. The goal is not to understand the Kurdish question, but to crush and reshape it.

Ethnic division and instrumentalization of Arab tribes

Another key factor in current developments is the deliberate ethnic division between Kurds and Arabs. Parallel to diplomatic talks between Ankara and Damascus, concrete military and political preparations were therefore underway.

A central component of these preparations was the deliberate exertion of influence on Arab tribes in the DAANES areas. Both the al-Sharaa government and Turkey have been working for some time to dissuade these tribes from cooperating with the self-administration. These efforts have been intensified in recent months in particular.

According to Syrian sources, even before the fighting began, the transitional government had already succeeded in winning over some Arab forces in Aleppo that had been cooperating with Kurdish units. This change of sides served as a test run for similar strategies east of the Euphrates. These activities were coordinated by al-Sharaa’s advisor on tribal affairs, Jihad Isa al-Sheikh (Abu Ahmed Zekkur), who was active in both Turkey and north-eastern Syria³.

At the end of 2025, a delegation travelled to Turkey and held meetings with tribal leaders in Kilis, Urfa and Mardin. This was followed by talks in Ras Al-Ayn, Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor. The aim was to restore trust with the Arab tribes and win them over to cooperate with HTS.

Officially, this initiative is presented as a contribution to the ‘social unity of Syria’. In fact, it aims to increase unrest in the areas controlled by the SDF, to detach Arab tribes from the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and to instrumentalise them against other social groups, such as the Druze in Sweida. In the short term, this strategy may strengthen HTS, but in the long term it exacerbates ethnic tensions and paves the way for further division in Syria.

International plan to destroy a democratic model for the region

On this basis, the attack on Rojava is not solely aimed at destroying the achievements of Kurdish society. Rather, the goal of this international plan, which is supported by regional actors such as Israel and Turkey as well as international forces – above all the US and European states – is to destroy the project and idea of a democratic Syria and a democratic Middle East.

The attack is directed against the principles of local democracy, women’s liberation, equal rights for ethnic and religious communities, and the idea of a ‘third way.’ It is intended to demonstrate that alternatives beyond the nation state, nationalism and power politics are not possible. The Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is therefore being forced into either total surrender in order to return to the order that existed before 2011 or complete physical annihilation.

Today, especially under conditions of war, it is essential to make clear to the world who is truly defending freedom. This struggle cannot be carried out through states or governments; it must be rooted in society itself, in the streets. Genuine legitimacy and lasting power emerge only through mass solidarity. When such collective strength exists, it becomes far more difficult for states to sustain violence and repression. Otherwise, decisions are made from above, and people are reduced to passive spectators. There is no reason to place trust in governments. They shift positions overnight when their interests change. History is filled with examples of this, and we continue to witness it today. For this reason, the form of engagement we need is not official diplomacy, but people’s diplomacy. People must be able to understand one another directly, across borders. What is happening must be explained openly and without mediation to societies themselves. This is not only a moral necessity but also a powerful geopolitical force. The responsibility to communicate the reality of the world cannot be left to states alone. Every state is willing to abandon its principles the moment its interests are threatened. That is why the only sustainable source of pressure lies in the shared awareness and solidarity of peoples. Explaining the realities of the world to societies everywhere is the foundation of a durable and effective people’s diplomacy. If this does not happen, plans will continue to be made from above, and once again, people will be left watching from the sidelines.

The Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the Kurdistan Freedom Movement have now called for the expansion of resistance against the attacks and is counting on total resistance. The benchmark for this is the resistance in Kobanê in 2014–2015. It were not only the fighters of the YPG and YPJ who defeated ISIS, but also the broad support, moral backing and solidarity of societies, democratic and socialist forces worldwide. In this sense, it is now time to once again provide such support to the resistance fighters in Rojava-Kurdistan. Against the united forces of capitalist modernity, the forces of democratic modernity must unite to create a second Kobanê and prove that the resistance of the peoples remains unbroken and that the idea of democratic socialism lives on as an alternative to the existing system of exploitation and oppression.

NOTES:

1 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/21/jonathan-powell-syrian-terror-group-national-security/

2 https://x.com/USAMBTurkiye/status/2013635851570336016

3 https://yeniyasamgazetesi9.com/saranin-sabikali-asiret-danismani/

Liquidationist Logic and Ungovernable Freedom: Rojava

By Mahir Engizek

January 23, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image by Mahir Engizek

I am not seeking a balance here. I make no claim to neutrality. I consciously reject the language of “both sides.” Because I am a warrior of my people. Because in the face of the attacks directed at the Rojava Revolution, neutrality is not merely political naivety; it is functional complicity. At certain moments in history, there is no room for a mere difference of opinion; there is only alignment. Today, when it comes to Rojava, the issue is not interpretation; it is position.

​The attacks on the Rojava Revolution are not a crisis. They are not a miscalculation, a case of getting out of hand, or a mere local tension. What is happening is a conscious process of liquidation, woven over a long period, patiently matured, and executed in a multi-layered fashion. This liquidation is not limited to military destruction. It encircles through diplomacy, dissolves through special warfare, and attempts to rot the movement from within by producing local treachery. Weapons are merely the visible face. The real war is the targeting of meaning, legitimacy, and hope.

​Therefore, the attacks on Rojava cannot be explained by the concept of security. No state’s border has been threatened. No global power perceives a direct military risk from Rojava. The problem is not what Rojava does, but what Rojava is.

Rojava is not a “model”, it is a threat

​The Rojava Revolution is not an abnormality for capitalist modernity; it is a direct threat. This is because Rojava has physically shattered the core assumptions that the system believed could never be challenged. It has demonstrated that a society can govern itself without a nation-state, that life can be organized without the hegemony of the market, and that freedom is not possible without breaking the back of male dominance. This demonstration is dangerous because it is not a theoretical claim, but a living practice.

​Capitalist modernity is not entirely opposed to freedom. On the contrary, it encourages it as long as it remains controllable. Individual freedoms, consumer choices, and ballot-box democracy are not problems for this system. The problem arises when freedom becomes collective, institutionalized, and begins to transform power relations. The freedom built in Rojava is precisely this: a freedom that cannot be regulated, centralized, or imprisoned within representative mechanisms.

​This is why the Rojava Revolution is being suffocated with offers of integration. Rhetoric such as “be realistic,” “respect regional balances,” and “don’t go too far” are not calls for peace; they are exhortations to surrender. The system is not against Rojava existing; it is against Rojava existing as Rojava.

The fear of ungovernable freedom

​The real crisis created by Rojava is neither military nor diplomatic. It is ontological. It is the crisis of ungovernable freedom. Rojava has rendered the classical tools of power dysfunctional. It has produced a structure that is not centralized around a single leader, not reduced to a single party, and not dependent on external intervention. This is a nightmare scenario for the modern logic of power.

​Capitalist modernity, in crisis zones, desires neither total stability nor total destruction. What it needs is controlled chaos. This chaos legitimizes intervention, prevents local subjectivities from taking root, and produces an uncertainty that can be rearranged at any moment. Rojava has broken this pattern. It has produced collective order out of chaos and political will out of uncertainty. This is exactly why Rojava is ungovernable. Any form of freedom that cannot be governed is, for the system, an anomaly that must be liquidated.

The women’s revolution: the red line

​One of the primary reasons the Rojava Revolution is so targeted is that it has made women’s liberation a foundational principle rather than a secondary one. Here, women are not just holders of rights; they are subjects who actively share power, organize defense, and govern society. This situation is unacceptable not only for local patriarchal structures but for the global capitalist system.

​Capitalism operates in alliance with patriarchy. Male dominance is not just a cultural issue; it is the backbone of production relations, property regimes, and political representation. The breaking of this backbone in Rojava is an attack on the most sensitive point of the system. Consequently, women’s leadership is constantly targeted, criminalized, and branded as radical. Women’s freedom here is not an ornament; it is the redistribution of power. No power structure voluntarily consents to its authority being stripped away in this manner.

The diplomatic lie: the myth of neutrality

​The stance of international powers becomes clear at this point. The US and the EU have never recognized Rojava as a political subject. For them, Rojava is, at most, a militarily useful apparatus. It was tolerated as long as it was useful in the fight against ISIL, but the moment it began to produce its own political will, they sought to constrain it.

​Terms like neutrality, balance, and restraint are the ideological cloaks for this containment. This language consciously erases the distinction between the aggressor and the defender. Attack is stripped of being an action and reduced to a situation. Defense, meanwhile, is presented as a problem that escalates tensions. This is the raw reality of how modern diplomacy functions as another form of war. The goal here is not to stop the conflict, but to stop the revolutionary defense.

The logic of liquidation is permanent

​The attacks on Rojava are not temporary. As long as this revolution exists, it will be a target. Because Rojava represents a possibility for the future; not just for a geography, but for humanity. This possibility forces the following question in the Middle East and beyond:

​“Is a life without the state, without patriarchy, and without capitalism possible?”

​The moment this question is asked, the system trembles. Because when this question is answered, it becomes clear that the current order is not mandatory. The Rojava Revolution is targeted because it answers this question not theoretically, but practically.

​This is why the logic of liquidation is so persistent, multi-layered, and ruthless. At this point, the question is: Will Rojava be defended, or will we watch its step-by-step strangulation under the guise of realism? History records the answers given to this question, not those who remained neutral.

The liquidation that began in Aleppo

​The attacks directed at the two large Kurdish neighborhoods in Aleppo, Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah, were not the beginning of the liquidation process against the Rojava Revolution; they were its first overt declaration. These attacks did not arise from military necessity. They were not carried out by forces out of control on the ground. There was no misunderstanding or sudden tension. What occurred was the conscious and planned targeting of revolutionary freedom as it manifested in urban space.

​Therefore, reading what happened in Aleppo as a mere front is insufficient. Aleppo is a laboratory. It is the first area where the logic of liquidation tested which tools and under what conditions it could be deployed. Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah became the most symbolic targets of this experiment.

Fear of the urban revolution

​For modern power, the city is not just a settlement. The city is the space where legitimacy is produced, where power is visible, and where memory is institutionalized. Many things tolerated in the countryside are never accepted in the city. Because a revolution that takes hold in the city ceases to be temporary and becomes irreversible.

​The presence of the Rojava Revolution in Aleppo crossed the threshold of tolerance for precisely this reason. Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah are not just Kurdish neighborhoods. These are spaces where women’s leadership, multi-ethnic councils, communal life, and self-defense were materialized at an urban scale. They proved that the revolution was not a rural experiment but could thrive in the metropolis. The message was clear: the revolution may be squeezed into the countryside, but it must not take root in the city.

The Turkish state and Jihadist apparatuses

​The perpetrators of these attacks are not ambiguous. The Turkish state is not conducting a classical occupation by deploying jihadist structures like HTS and the SNA. What is being applied here is an updated version of modern counter-guerrilla logic: violence that appears stateless but is directed by the state.

​HTS and the SNA are neither independent actors nor do they have their own political agendas. They are apparatus structures used by the Turkish state to vacate areas without taking direct responsibility. Their task is not to win a military victory, but to make life unsustainable. The targeting of civilians, the siege of neighborhoods, and the destruction of infrastructure are not coincidences. The goal is to force the people to migrate, to scatter collective memory, and to empty the revolutionary space. This is not classical war. This is demographic and political liquidation.

The strategy of civilianized destruction

​The character of the attacks on Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah is clear: civilian life was targeted more than military objectives. This cannot be explained as a mistake or lack of control. It is a conscious strategy. Because a revolution lives through social continuity before it lives through armed force. When that continuity is broken, military resistance loses its meaning.

​Making neighborhoods uninhabitable targets not just today, but tomorrow. The return of the displaced population is made difficult. Communes are dispersed. Women’s organizations are fragmented. Fear is planted in the memories of children to replace collective memory. The essence of modern colonial violence is exactly this: occupying the memory, not just the land.

The resistance of the Asayish: ethical-political defense

​Under these conditions, the resistance displayed by the Asayish forces was not a military counter-attack. This resistance was an ethical-political defense. The goal was not to gain territory, but to protect the people, prevent the spread of the attack into the heart of the neighborhood, and buy time. This is a clear example of what revolutionary defense means.

​Revolutionary defense is not always built on winning in the conventional sense. Sometimes, resisting in the right place means preventing a much larger destruction. This is exactly what was done in Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah. A balance was maintained between means and responsibility. This balance is the very essence of revolutionary ethics.

Diplomatic intervention: the operation to halt the defense

​As the resistance lengthened, the larger plan behind the attack was revealed. The goal was not to quickly topple the neighborhoods, but to push the resistance to a certain threshold. This threshold is the point where international actors would step in. Indeed, at this stage, the intervention of the Syrian Democratic Forces in Aleppo came to the agenda, but it was blocked by diplomatic pressure before it could even happen.

​At this point, no masks remained. If the issue had been the protection of civilians, the aggressor would have been stopped. If the issue had been preventing the conflict from growing, the source of the attack would have been targeted. But the opposite was done. While the attack continued, the expansion of the defense was prevented. This is not neutrality. This is a clear political preference.

Withdrawal: not defeat, but exposure

​The withdrawal of the Asayish forces from Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah was a necessary decision taken under these conditions. This was not a surrender; it was a strategic withdrawal to prevent a more destructive scenario. However, the responsibility for this necessity lies not with those who resisted, but with those who consciously left the resistance isolated.

​It was seen once again in Aleppo that the diplomatic arena is not an alternative to the military arena, but its complement. The siege established at the table is intended to complete the liquidation that remained unfinished on the ground.

Aleppo is not an exception, it is a model

​What happened in Aleppo did not end there. On the contrary, the model tested here would later be reproduced in Der Hafir, Meskenah, and the Raqqa–Tabqa line. The same actors, the same justifications, the same results. This repetition proves that what occurred was not accidental, but systematic.

​In this sense, Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah are not just experiences of withdrawal. They are areas of exposure that reveal the true function of the international system, diplomatic rhetoric, and the fables of balance.

​The attempt to purge the revolution from the city was meant to be stopped here. But this attempt could not be suppressed. Because what happened in Aleppo showed not the weakness of the Rojava Revolution, but how terrifying it is perceived to be.

Siege under the guise of diplomacy

​While Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah were under siege in Aleppo, what descended upon the field was not peace. What was brought to the table was not a solution. The mechanism put into play was not a diplomatic process in the classical sense at all. It was the completion of a military liquidation through diplomatic means. This is the most refined, most hypocritical, and least visible front of modern war.

​Today, what is called diplomacy does not produce peace. Diplomacy freezes power relations. It protects the status quo. It limits the revolution. And it does so while appearing not to shed blood. Yet, blood flows exactly at the moment this neutral fable is established.

Neutrality is a lie, balance is a weapon

​The US and EU-centered diplomatic discourse served two main functions during the Aleppo process. First, to make the perpetrator of the attack invisible. Second, to push the defender into a guilty position. Expressions like de-escalation, restraint, and preventing the spread of conflict are not innocent. These are not technical concepts; they are political ammunition.

​This language consciously erases the difference between the aggressor and the defender. The attack is stripped of being a will and becomes an abstract situation. Defense is presented as a part of this situation. Thus, while the responsibility of the aggressor is evaporated, those resisting are put under moral pressure. This is not neutrality. This is a preference that protects the aggressor.

The real target of diplomacy: revolutionary self-power

​The decisive factor in Aleppo was this: an intervention by the Syrian Democratic Forces in the city would not have escalated the conflict, but rather stopped the attack. This was known by everyone. Despite this, the intervention was blocked through diplomatic channels. Because the issue was not the spread of conflict. The issue was the legitimization of revolutionary self-power in the city.

​The active presence of the Syrian Democratic Forces as a defensive force in Aleppo would have confirmed that the Rojava Revolution was not just a structure squeezed into the countryside, but a political subject on a metropolitan scale. It is this confirmation that the logic of liquidation can never accept. Therefore, diplomacy was operated as a prevention mechanism. What was prevented was not war. What was prevented was the victory of the resistance.

Production of knowledge: epistemological war

​In this process, diplomacy has not only a political but also an epistemological function. The knowledge produced here is this: The Rojava Revolution is a source of instability. This is not said openly; if it were, it would be exposed. Instead, it is hidden within neutral concepts like local actors, chaos on the ground, or uncontrolled elements. These expressions anonymize the attack. They blur the perpetrator. They distribute the responsibility. In the end, no one is guilty. Everyone is just trying to manage the situation.

​This is a classic technique of modern power. As Michel Foucault stated, power operates not only through force but through the production of knowledge. The knowledge produced here codes the revolution as the problem and the status quo as the solution. Thus, a moral issue is transformed into a technical one.

Hopelessness as a weapon

​Another dimension of the diplomatic siege is the intended destruction of social morale. The feeling that Rojava has been left alone in the international arena has been consciously produced. Messages like “No one is standing up for you,” “Everyone can sacrifice you,” and “Be realistic” are the psychological ammunition of special warfare.

​In modern war, victory is not only won on the front. It is won in the minds. Hopelessness is a weapon here. When the idea that the revolution is alone becomes widespread, the meaning of resistance begins to be questioned. At this point, diplomacy becomes more destructive than direct military violence.

The guardians of the status quo

​The stance of the US and the EU is not a contradiction. This stance is perfectly consistent. For them, the problem is not ISIL. ISIL is a threat that can be eliminated when necessary and summoned back when needed. The real problem is uncontrollable freedom. This is why the Rojava Revolution is dangerous.

​For this reason, diplomacy has never offered Rojava an equal partnership. Rojava has always been treated as a temporary, exceptional, and postponable structure. This approach is part of the strategy to suffocate the revolution by spreading it over time.

The limit of diplomacy is the righteousness of the revolution

​However, this siege has, despite everything, revealed a truth. If Rojava were truly a marginal, temporary, and insignificant experiment, such a comprehensive diplomatic siege would not be necessary. The limits of diplomacy have turned into indirect proof of the revolution’s righteousness.

​Truly ineffective structures are not limited so systematically. They are not watched so carefully. They are not sought to be suppressed with such meticulousness.

The same scenario after Aleppo

​The mechanism put into play in Aleppo is not an exception. It is a model. In Der Hafir, Meskenah, and the Raqqa–Tabqa line, the same language, the same justifications, and the same results will be reproduced. Military failures will be attempted to be compensated for with diplomatic successes. Diplomacy here is the language of liquidation, not peace.

Der Hafir – Meskenah: the recurring model

​Aleppo was not an exception. What happened in Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyah was not a deviation, an excess, or a tension unique to the field. What was tested there was a functioning model of liquidation. What happened in Der Hafir and Meskenah is the generalized, refined, and more quietly implemented version of this model. The same mind, the same tools, the same diplomatic covers. Only the location has changed. This repetition is not a coincidence. Repetition is strategy.

The goal: spatial continuity

​The choice of Der Hafir and Meskenah is not accidental. These areas are not merely geographical transitions between the Aleppo and Raqqa lines; they are the political arteries of the revolution’s spatial continuity. When these arteries are cut, the revolution is forced into a fragmented, disconnected structure condemned to defense. The goal is not to conquer an area. The goal is to choke the political flow between areas.

​This is the fundamental principle of the modern counter-revolutionary mind: instead of targeting the whole, sever the connections. Divide the revolution into individual fronts. Present each front as a local problem. Then, leave each one isolated.

Same scenario, same masks

​The method applied in Der Hafir and Meskenah mirrors Aleppo exactly. First, jihadist apparatus structures like HTS and the SNA are deployed. Then, the attacks are serviced as local conflict, uncontrolled development, or chaos on the ground. Diplomatic channels step in. The same words are put into circulation: restraint, balance, de-escalation.

​This language is not innocent. This language erases the perpetrator. When the perpetrator is erased, the attack is no longer seen as a plan. It is severed from being a will. Thus, the revolution is presented not as the victim of a planned liquidation, but of unfortunate circumstances. This is the most effective masking technique of modern warfare.

Low-intensity destruction

​The aim in Der Hafir and Meskenah is not a rapid military result. The method preferred here is constant pressure. Intermittent attacks, threats directed at civilian areas, the targeting of infrastructure. The goal is not to win in a day, but to wear down over months.

​This strategy differs from classical war logic. Here, rather than seizing land, the priority is to make life unsustainable. The people are forced to migrate, if not today, then tomorrow. Communes become dysfunctional. Social bonds loosen. The revolution is intended to be brought to a state where it appears to be standing but is exhausted from within. This is the silent form of demographic engineering.

The lie of preventing the spread of conflict

​The same scenario was repeated in these regions: the room for maneuver for the Syrian Democratic Forces and local defense forces was narrowed through diplomatic pressure. The justification was familiar: conflict must not spread. Yet, the conflict was already spreading. The only thing they wanted to prevent from spreading was the revolutionary counter-response.

​At this point, it is no longer possible to make well-intentioned interpretations. The limitation of defense is not a mistake but a conscious choice. Because when defense expands, the liquidation plan is disrupted. When the aggressor is repelled, the diplomatic discourse collapses. Therefore, defense is halted, while the attack is managed.

The limit of controlled chaos

​The experience of Der Hafir and Meskenah has also shown the internal limits of the controlled chaos strategy that capitalist modernity relies on so heavily. Chaos cannot always be controlled. Structures like HTS and the SNA do not always produce violence in the desired dosage. The instability created begins to challenge the control capacity of the forces organizing the attack at a certain point.

​This contradiction is the system’s weak point. Because constant chaos erodes not only the revolution but also the mind that manages it. Therefore, the logic of liquidation is forced to constantly recalibrate its military and diplomatic moves. Der Hafir and Meskenah have been the fields for these recalibrations.

A lesson for the revolution

​What happened in these regions has once again revealed a painful but instructive truth for the Rojava Revolution: defense is not merely military. Defense must be simultaneously political, social, and ideological. When spatial continuity is broken, political continuity is also put at risk.

​Der Hafir and Meskenah showed that the revolution cannot survive solely through frontline defense, and that social organization, popular participation, and political clarity must be strengthened simultaneously. Because if the attack is multi-layered, the defense must be as well.

The next stage

​After this stage, the logic of liquidation turned toward a more advanced target. Der Hafir and Meskenah served as intermediate stops, preparing the ground for the real target: the Raqqa–Tabqa–Deyr Zor line. Here, not only external attacks but strategies of internal dissolution, deepening local contradictions, and the production of treachery would be deployed more prominently. The model was set. It was time for dirtier tools.

Raqqa–Tabqa–Deyr Zor: internal collapse and the production of treachery

​The Raqqa–Tabqa–Deyr Zor line is the most complex, calculated, and immoral stage of the liquidation process carried out against the Rojava Revolution. This is because it is no longer possible to achieve results through naked attacks alone. This line is targeted not militarily, but through its social fabric, historical vulnerabilities, and consciously deepened contradictions. Here, the war is fought not on the front, but inside homes, at tribal meetings, in marketplaces, and in minds.

​At this stage, the logic of liquidation knows very well: if the Rojava Revolution collapses on this line, the claim of a multi-ethnic revolution collapses. If this claim collapses, the moral superiority of the revolution collapses. If moral superiority collapses, the military result follows automatically.

ISIL: the unextinguished threat, the used appartus

​The first tool deployed on this line is the re-emergence of ISIL. However, this is not a comeback. ISIL is used here not as an organization, but as a constant sense of threat, a ghost, a psychological weapon. Sleeper cells, cellular attacks, targeted assassinations. The goal is not territorial control, but the production of insecurity.

​The reactivation of ISIL in this manner cannot be explained as a weakness. It is an overt preference. Finance channels, intelligence leaks, freedom of movement. None of these are remnants that escaped control. ISIL is not the absolute enemy here. It is a manageable element of fear. For capitalist modernity, the danger is not radical violence; the danger is radical freedom. Therefore, as long as violence is kept at the right dose, it is functional for the system.

The weaponisation of the tribal issue

​The second pillar of special warfare on this line is the conscious politicization of tribal structures. Tribes are neither inherently reactionary nor spontaneously revolutionary. They are social structures shaped by historical conditions. However, here, tribal identity is sought to be used as a weapon against the revolution.

​Economic problems, embargo conditions, infrastructure deficiencies. These are real. But these real problems have been consciously billed to the revolution as a whole. Occupation, siege, and international isolation are made invisible, while autonomous administration is placed in the crosshairs. This is the classic method of special warfare: blaming the result, not the cause.

​The rhetoric of Arab–Kurdish conflict was deployed at exactly this point. This rhetoric does not reflect the reality on the ground. It is the pre-propaganda for the reality they wish to create. Because the strongest aspect of the Rojava Revolution is its structure, which is not based on ethnic supremacy. If this structure collapses, the revolution collapses.

Treachery: a structural production, not a moral one

​The concept of treachery must be correctly positioned here. Treachery cannot be explained by individual character weakness. Treachery is a political result produced in an organized manner. Material promises, security guarantees, bargains for the future. Local collaborators are created on this ground.

​For this reason, you cannot solve the problem by making a list of traitors. That only serves the logic of liquidation. The real issue is to dry up the ground on which treachery feeds. That ground is uncertainty, loneliness, and the feeling of having no future.

​This is the most dangerous dimension of special warfare: instilling in people the feeling that the winning side is already determined. When this feeling spreads, even the most resilient social structures begin to crack.

Perception seeks to replace reality

​Much of the war waged on this line is a war of perception. Constant news of crisis, assassinations, sabotages. Meanwhile, the transformations created by the revolution in daily life are systematically made invisible. The councils governed by women, common life practices, collective production. These are consciously ignored.

​Because that which is not seen becomes undefendable. That which cannot be defended is abandoned. That which is abandoned results in treachery. This chain is not accidental.

The failure of special warfare

​Despite this, special warfare has not fully produced the intended result. This is because the Rojava Revolution is not just a management model, but an ethical-political stance. The people know who paid the price, who fled, and who bargained. This memory is more resilient than propaganda.

​Treachery has not become widespread; it has remained limited and exposed. This is proof that the revolution is still alive.

Where does the revolution response begin?

​The struggle against local treachery cannot be conducted solely through security reflexes. Explaining every problem with the label of treachery is to fall into the trap of special warfare. The real revolutionary response is the organization of truth.

​Problems must be discussed without denial, criticism must be institutionalized without being suppressed, and the people must have a real say and decision-making power. Because special warfare feeds on silence. The struggle on this line is being waged not just with weapons, but in the council, in the market, in the school, and in the home. As long as the logic of liquidation cannot destroy this social depth, it cannot achieve permanent results.

Revolutionary self-power: the only true guarantee

​There is no longer any uncertainty left to discuss. What happened in Aleppo, Der Hafir, Meskenah, and the Raqqa–Tabqa–Deyr Zor line has proven a single truth repeatedly:

​The Rojava Revolution will not be protected from the outside.

​The Rojava Revolution will not be secured through diplomacy.

​The Rojava Revolution will not survive through balance policies.

​Any approach that still refuses to accept this is, consciously or unconsciously, an extension of the logic of liquidation.

The bankruptcy of external alliances

​The relations established with the US, the EU, and similar powers have been conjunctural, not strategic, from the beginning. These relations never aimed to guarantee the existence of the revolution. Their goals are clear: to manage the area, to limit the revolution, and to keep it as an element that can be sacrificed when necessary.

​None of these powers care about women’s liberation. None of them care about communal life. None of them care about the equality of peoples. Their only concern is a controllable order. Rojava, however, produces an uncontrollable freedom.

​Therefore, every support is temporary. Every partnership is conditional. Every guarantee is revocable. Despite this, still expecting strategic protection from external actors is either political blindness or an escape from responsibility.

What is self-power and what it is not?

​Revolutionary self-power is not just military capacity. Self-power starts with weapons but is not defined by them. Self-power is:

​The participation of the people in politics,

​The foundational will of women,

​The dynamism of the youth,

​The councils being real decision-making mechanisms,

​A political culture where criticism is not suppressed but organized.

​To reduce self-power merely to a security issue is to narrow the revolution.

Because the logic of liquidation most easily collapses structures that have the most weapons but the weakest politics. Rojava’s strength lies in the meeting of weapons and politics on the same ethical ground.

Women’s leadership: the red line

​The fundamental difference that distinguishes the Rojava Revolution from all other regional experiences is women’s leadership. This leadership is not a showcase. It is not a symbol at all. This leadership is the backbone of the revolution. And for that very reason, it is the most targeted area.

​The moment women’s liberation recedes, the revolution collapses. It is that simple. Every step where women are excluded from decision-making mechanisms and where the military and political spheres are managed with male-dominated reflexes is a conscious or unconscious support given to the logic of liquidation.

​Therefore, the first line of defense for revolutionary self-power is the uncompromising protection of women’s leadership.

Communes and councils: real or nothing

​Communes and councils are either real decision-making mechanisms or they are meaningless. There is no middle ground. If the people are only being informed but cannot actually participate in decision-making processes, if criticism cannot go up but instructions come down, then there is management, not revolution.

​The logic of liquidation seeps in most from here: through bureaucracy, through hierarchy, through silence. The way to protect the revolution is not to make it harder, but to deepen it. The stronger the political will of the people, the more ineffective special warfare becomes.

The four parts of Kurdistan: the regional truth

​The Rojava Revolution has never been merely an issue for Rojava. The reality of the four parts of Kurdistan is both the advantage and the burden of this revolution. Regional balances, the fears of states, and international bargains are directed at this revolution for this very reason.

​It is impossible to escape this reality. To present Rojava only as a local experience is to leave it defenseless. The revolution is the product of a regional truth and can only survive by facing this truth. This is not adventurism; it is realism.

Conclusion

​There is no longer a need for flowery sentences, diplomatic politeness, or vague expressions. The reality is this:

​The logic of liquidation cannot win as long as it cannot dissolve the revolution from within.

​The logic of liquidation cannot achieve results as long as the people claim their politics.

​The logic of liquidation cannot advance as long as women’s leadership stands tall.

​The future of the Rojava Revolution lies not at the tables, but in the communes, in the councils, on the line of resistance, and in the will of the people. This is not a wish. This is the necessary conclusion of what has been lived.Email

Mahir Engizek

1 Comment

The Kurdish Question and the National Question: Nation-State or Citizenship State?

By Rezgar Akrawi

January 24, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

WOMAN, LIFE, FREEDOM

1. Introduction

The Middle East has been witnessing bloody nationalist conflicts for decades that have left millions of victims and displaced persons and massive destruction on all levels. The Kurdish question represents one of the most important of these complex nationalist conflicts, as the Kurds are distributed across four main countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, and their political, economic, and cultural conditions and circumstances differ in each country. The fundamental question here is: What is the real possible solution now for the Kurdish question and the national question in the region? Is it in building separate nation-states, or in struggling for a citizenship state and equal rights?

Yes, there was and still is blatant national oppression against the Kurds in most countries of the region, and this is an undeniable historical reality, as the national question and the Kurdish question cannot be addressed without clear and explicit recognition of the truth of this oppression that the Kurds and other national minorities have historically suffered in authoritarian states, whether of a nationalist or religious nature. This oppression was a systematic policy practiced by central states through forced denial of identity, banning of language, forced displacement, up to genocide, and we have bloody and stark examples of this:

• In Iraq, brutality reached its peak during the era of Saddam Hussein through the brutal Anfal campaigns that disappeared tens of thousands in mass graves, and the crime of bombing Halabja with chemical weapons in which they annihilated thousands of civilians in moments, in parallel with “Arabization” policies and forced demographic change.

• In Syria, the two regimes in the eras of Hafez and Bashar al-Assad imposed a nationalist blockade represented in the Arab Belt to isolate Kurdish areas, and the unjust 1962 census that stripped hundreds of thousands of their nationality and their right to citizenship, with a comprehensive ban on language, culture, and political activity. Today, in January 2026, this trajectory is renewed through the military attack launched by the Syrian army and militias allied with it on areas controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces – SDF -, in a clear continuation of policies of repression and militarization, and pushing civilians once again to be victims of power and hegemony struggles, far from any just democratic solution to the national question.

• As for Turkey, the state has practiced for decades policies aimed at erasing the Kurdish national existence, classifying the Kurds under a humiliating designation which is “Mountain Turks,” and launched military campaigns that destroyed thousands of villages and displaced millions, with widespread criminalization of everything related to Kurdish identity.

• In Iran, the Kurds face compound repression under the yoke of the authoritarian theocratic regime, manifested in national repression and field and political executions, complete militarization of Kurdish cities, and economic marginalization of border areas to push their residents toward poverty and dependency.

These facts constitute an essential part of the modern history of the region and no serious leftist approach can ignore them. But fundamentally they represent one face of a comprehensive authoritarian policy pursued by those regimes, as they did not target the Kurds alone, but rather directed their repressive machinery against all citizens of those countries from all nationalities, as the dictatorship that crushes Kurdish identity is the same one that silences the overwhelming majority, throws opponents regardless of nationality, religion, and belief into prisons, confiscates their freedoms and exhausts their human dignity without exception, which makes the struggle against national oppression an integral part of the general struggle against class and political authoritarianism.

At the same time, recognizing the justice of the Kurdish cause and the right of Kurds to equality and dignity does not necessarily mean adopting all nationalist projects proposed in the name of this oppression. Confronting real national oppression is not achieved by replacing one dominant nationality with another, but rather by dismantling the foundations of the exclusionary nation-state itself, and building a democratic state based on equal citizenship, guaranteeing full national, cultural, and linguistic rights for all components, and putting a permanent end to cycles of mutual national injustice.

2. From “Oppressed Nationality” to Ruling Authority Experience

As we see in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, which constitutes a complete quasi-state situation, the “oppressed nationality” has transformed into a ruling authority facing widespread accusations of repressive practices and organized financial corruption. The two main parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), have contributed to consolidating a family-tribal governance structure, in which they share power, wealth, and influence. A bloody Kurdish civil war broke out between the two parties that lasted from 1994 to 1998, claiming the lives of thousands of Kurds, and its cause was the struggle for influence and control of resources, not national liberation. Even after the end of the civil war, the conflict between them continued in other forms, and they transformed into a clear model of authoritarian hereditary family rule.

According to reports from international human rights organizations, the authorities in the Region have committed widespread violations of human rights. Financial corruption in the Region is rampant, as Region employees do not receive their salaries for months. The Region also witnessed widespread popular demonstrations against unemployment, corruption, authoritarianism, and salary cuts, which were suppressed in many cases, while the two ruling parties continued to consolidate their monopoly on the Region’s wealth and strengthen security and military tools to protect their narrow interests.

In Syria as well, the Syrian Democratic Forces “SDF,” which has ruled vast areas in northern and eastern Syria with American support since 2014, has transformed into an authority that concentrates political and military decisions in its hands, adopting policies with a clear centralized character, with limited space for political and intellectual pluralism. Despite implementing a set of important reforms of a progressive and civil nature, especially in some social and administrative aspects, and expanding women’s participation, these reforms remained governed by a certain class and political ceiling, and did not touch the essence of the power structure based on political monopoly and the dominance of a closed party apparatus. According to international reports, widespread human rights violations have been recorded against the SDF, including the continuation of child recruitment, and the adoption of strict security policies that included arrest, repression, and torture of opponents. In my estimation, the experience of Kurdish nationalist left, no matter how developed, is unlikely to exceed the level of reforms with a leftist and civil character, similar to the experiences of nationalist elites that ruled the region in the last century, which began with broad social and leftist promises, but their closed centralized structure ultimately led them to slide toward dictatorship, authoritarianism, and marginalization of popular will.

Through these experiences, in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and in northern and eastern Syria, it becomes clear that the conflict that was marketed as a liberating nationalist conflict has practically transformed into a struggle for power, influence, and wealth between nationalist political forces of a bourgeois nature, ruling or aspiring to rule. The nationalist discourse here has emerged from being a tool of liberation, and transformed into an ideological cover to justify authoritarianism and suppress opponents, and reproduce the same relations of domination that the masses previously revolted against under unjust nationalist regimes, but this time with a local character.

The historical national victimhood, no matter how bitter, does not grant any nationalist authority a blank check to practice repression and oppression. The transformation of the “oppressed nationality” into a “tool of repression and authoritarianism” represents the great moral defeat of the liberationist project, and proves that the defect is not in the ruling elites, but rather in the structure of the exclusionary nation-state itself.

3. Marginalizing Class Struggle and the Danger of National Civil Wars

Nationalist conflicts in the region carry a real danger of pushing societies toward national fanaticism and bloody national civil wars, in which the toiling masses are fuel for conflicts that do not serve their interests. The exclusionary nationalist discourse from some parties not only works to feed hatred and division, but also performs a clear political function of transforming the conflict from a social class conflict between the toiling masses on one hand, and the ruling classes and dominant bourgeoisies on the other hand, into a false national and identity conflict. In this sense, nationalist conflicts do not constitute an incidental deviation, but rather an effective tool to weaken class struggle and dismantle the social consciousness of the masses, and distract them from their daily issues related to rights, work, salaries, services, and social justice.

Under the cover of defending nationality or identity, class struggle is marginalized, exploitation is justified, and existing or aspiring authorities are immunized from any social accountability. Economic crises, corruption, and authoritarianism are transformed from the product of concrete class policies into secondary results of a fabricated national conflict, and the masses are pushed to line up behind ruling nationalist elites that do not differ in their essence from the rest of the ruling classes in the region. Thus nationalist conflicts lead to the escalation of war discourse, mobilization and hatred, emptying social struggle of its content, and cutting off any possibility of building a unified leftist class movement across nationalities and sects.

The mission of the left and progressives in this context is to rely on human and internationalist identity, and solidarity with the suffering of all civilian victims of dictatorship, wars, and armed conflict, regardless of race, religion, sect, or political orientation. Selective solidarity, which confines empathy to a specific race, sect, or political direction, and turns a blind eye to crimes committed against civilians of other components, is false inhuman thinking, and directly contributes to entrenching national and religious fanaticism, deepening social division, and weakening any real liberationist project based on social justice and equality.

4. Is the Nation-State Possible Now?

Objective conditions are not suitable for the Kurdish nation-state project, as areas with a Kurdish majority are surrounded by hostile regional powers (Turkey, Iran, and the influence of Arab states), and Kurdish nationalist movements do not possess any serious real international support. American or Western support is circumstantial and linked to immediate interests.

Even if a Kurdish state were achieved, what guarantees its survival in light of being surrounded by several authoritarian states, or guarantees its non-transformation into a new dictatorial model? The experience in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and in Syria is clear before us: tribal-party rule, authoritarian practices, widespread financial corruption, and widespread violations of human rights.

It is necessary to speak clearly about a demographic reality in many areas where nationalist projects are proposed: these areas are not all of a single national majority. How can a new nationalist project be built on lands where part of their population is from other nationalities? This demographic problem creates acute national tensions, and opens the door to accusations of practicing policies whether “Arabization,” “Kurdification,” and “Turkification” against other residents. It is difficult to build a nation-state or quasi-state on a national basis in multi-national areas without creating new national injustice.

5. Betting on Major Powers, Especially America

Some of the current Kurdish nationalist movements in the region, at certain stages, have built and continue to build much of their projects on American support and its allies. America, as the largest capitalist power in the world, supports most reactionary and racist regimes, and has never been on the side of oppressed peoples or humanitarian and liberationist values. America’s presence in the region aims primarily to ensure its strategic interests and enhance its hegemony.

I believe that the United States’ alliance with Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq came mainly to fill a vacuum resulting from the absence of large American ground forces, whether through regular forces or security companies, and therefore it has relied and continues to rely on Kurdish human military forces in implementing its agenda and enhancing its influence. Recently, this alliance in Syria has witnessed a clear shift toward Ahmed al-Sharaa and the central government. This alliance closely resembles the alliance of some Iraqi opposition parties with the United States before the overthrow of the Ba’ath regime. It is, in my opinion, a temporary and fragile alliance governed by American interests, lending legitimacy to American intervention and its practices. We see the repercussions of this clearly in Syria, and it cannot be ruled out that the same scenario will repeat itself in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq according to the interests of the United States and the arrangement of its priorities.

History proves that American policy stems from its strategic interests, not from a moral commitment toward peoples, as shown by many experiences in the region, and it is known for abandoning its allies when their role ends or when their interests conflict with its agenda. We have many examples of this, including what happened to the Kurds in Iraq in 1975, and what happened to the Afghans after the Soviet withdrawal. America’s strategic interests and relations with Turkey, Arab states, and other countries in the region remain the most important and fundamental. Betting on major capitalist powers, headed by the United States, is betting on a “political mirage.” These powers do not see nationalist movements as “allies,” but merely as “pawns” in a geopolitical chessboard, bought and sold in backroom deals as soon as corporate and oil interests require it.

6. Citizenship State and Rights with Human Identity

There must be a clear distinction between demanding cultural, linguistic, and administrative rights for Kurds and other national minorities, and demanding a separate nation-state. These rights are legitimate and just demands that every leftist and progressive should support, from constitutional recognition of plurality to administrative decentralization, but the struggle for them under current geopolitical balances is more appropriate to be within the framework of an equal citizenship state transcending nationalities and religions. The possible alternative today is not in building new nation-states that reproduce divisions, but in a citizenship state that neutralizes nationality and religion from power, and restricts the formation of parties on national or religious bases, so that the focus of struggle is the rule of law, equality, and social justice, instead of mobilizing the toiling masses in national-religious conflicts that serve the interests of the bourgeoisies alone.

This transition is not a leap into the void, but rather a gradual path that requires clear constitutional mechanisms to ensure the non-return of abhorrent centralization, and from here emerges the model of geographical (administrative) federalism as a rational alternative to national federalism; so that regions are granted broad powers in managing their developmental and service affairs, which empties the conflict of its ethnic charge and transforms it into competition for welfare. This must be coupled with “comprehensive constitutionalization of identities” to guarantee the cultural rights of all components as inalienable rights, and building oversight institutions and an independent judiciary, which paves the way for the emergence of political currents competing over social, economic, political, and environmental programs.

International experiences, despite their different contexts, prove the possibility of building this model; Switzerland succeeded through decentralization in accommodating four official languages, South Africa chose citizenship instead of revenge, and even in India, Bolivia, and Spain, we find serious attempts to manage diversity through self-governance and recognition of plurality without dismantling the state. These examples are not perfect, but they confirm that the alternative to the exclusionary nation-state is not a utopian dream, and it is a project achievable through political will and continuous popular struggle that places human dignity and rights above all narrow national or sectarian considerations.

It is possible that a question may be raised here that the citizenship state is merely a utopian dream in light of the current reality of the region’s states, where authoritarianism is entrenched and national divisions are deep. But this objection ignores a fundamental fact: the separate nation-state project is more utopian under current circumstances. Talk of establishing an independent and stable Kurdish state surrounded by hostile states, without real international support, and in multi-national areas, is what resembles a far-fetched dream. As for the citizenship state, it is a realistic gradual project that begins with concrete steps: constitutionalizing national rights, building democratic institutions, implementing administrative decentralization, and strengthening the rule of law. These are steps achievable through continuous popular struggle, not a leap into the unknown. Modern history proves that democratic transformation is possible even in the most difficult circumstances. The issue is not in the “utopianism” of the project, but in the political will and organized struggle to achieve it.

This does not mean belittling the importance of national identity or hostility to legitimate national rights. There is no call here to abolish national identity or deny its specificity, but rather a call not to transform national identity into a basis for building power and the state and into a tool for discrimination and exclusion. National identity is a cultural, linguistic, and human right that must be protected, but the state must be built on the basis of equal citizenship, not on ethnic belonging. The issue is in opposition to using national identity as a cover to justify authoritarianism or to transform social conflict into a national conflict serving the interests of ruling elites. It is necessary to defend the essence of national rights by guaranteeing them constitutionally and institutionally for all components, instead of linking them to exclusionary national state projects that reproduce injustice in reverse. Kurdish national identity, like other identities, must be respected and preserved, but not as a tool to build national power.

7. The Right to Self-Determination and Realistic Rationality

With my full support for the full and legitimate right of the Kurdish people and all peoples to self-determination, including secession, I do not see that global and regional conditions are now suitable for secession, independence, and declaration of new nation-states. We must reject forced unity between peoples and support coexistence and voluntary unity on the basis of equal citizenship, while at the same time we support and endorse the right to self-determination, including secession, if that will give more rights and equality, better life, better security, and fewer conflicts in the region.

This position does not mean hostility to Kurdish national liberation or belittling the justice of its historical cause; on the contrary, it is a defense of the essence of liberation itself from the distortion inflicted upon it by bourgeois nationalist projects when they transform liberationist struggle into power, authoritarianism, and corruption. Under current circumstances, I believe that the toiling masses are dragged into wars and national conflicts, and will face deeper economic and political crises for the sake of national entities, even if formed now, current circumstances and previous experiences suggest that they may face the danger of transformation into another authoritarian model in the region, and will not change anything in their lives.

As Marxists and leftists, we must deal with scientific rationality and study local, regional, and international conditions, class power balances and our capabilities from all aspects and the capabilities and strength of our “enemies,” and the realistic possibilities for achieving the solutions and policies we propose and their mechanisms. We must avoid participating directly or indirectly in dragging the masses into losing and destructive national wars, and avoid promoting or supporting them, as they will create nothing but great tragedies for civilians, especially workers of hand and mind, and great losses humanly, economically, politically, and militarily for all parties. Relying on rationality and realism is very necessary, not on “national heroics,” “national pride,” and “confronting the national enemy by all means and to the last bullet.” This discourse does not achieve victory in military and political battles, but rather drags the masses into more wars and destruction.

8. Tasks of the Left and Building the Alternative Within the Citizenship State

Our mission as the left today in countries witnessing national problems is to separate our line from all parties to the national conflict, and struggle for a state based on citizenship, equal rights, social justice, and respect for human rights, not on a national or sectarian basis. The road is long and difficult, but it is the only road capable of reaching a real and sustainable solution to the national question, away from wars and conflicts that produce nothing but tragedies for the masses.

The left can organize itself practically within the citizenship state project by building political, trade union, and mass organizations transcending nationalities and sects, starting from the common material interests of workers of hand and mind, and linking the struggle for national rights with the social battle against exploitation, corruption, authoritarianism, and achieving the socialist alternative. This path requires complete political and organizational independence for the left from all forms of bourgeois forces with nationalist discourse, and daily work within society to unite the toiling masses around a concrete program for equality and the maximum possible social justice, democratic decentralization, and freedoms, as the realistic entry point for building this alternative.

The peoples in our region are not in a state of inherent conflict, nor were they born governed by hatred and division, but rather they are victims of organized national mobilization and recruitment operations, where the toiling masses from different nationalities are pushed into bloody national conflicts, so that popular sacrifices are transformed into fuel to secure the seats of bourgeois cliques that use nationalist discourse as a screen to protect their class interests. Our main battle is not to change national symbols, the color of the flag, or the language of the ruler, but rather to dismantle the chains of authoritarianism, exploitation, and fanaticism from their roots, and build a democratic socialist human space that accommodates everyone. The path to the rights and freedom of the Kurd inevitably passes through the rights and freedoms of his Arab, Turkish, Syriac, and Iranian neighbor, under a state that does not ask the citizen about his origin. And guarantees him his bread and freedom, and respects his human dignity.

Email

Rezgar Akrawi

Rezgar Akrawi is a leftist researcher specializing in issues of technology and the left, working in the field of systems development and e-governance.