The Syrian war has long ceased to be an internal civil conflict. This war has transformed into a classic geopolitical laboratory where the interests of regional and global powers intersect, alliances are temporary, and enmities are fluid. In this laboratory, one of the most paradoxical positions has been held by the PKK and its offshoots in Syria.
On one hand, for the US, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Syrian branch of the PKK, have been presented for many years as a “necessary partner” in the fight against ISIS. On the other hand, Turkey has consistently regarded this structure as a terrorist network targeting its national security. On the third side stands the Syrian state: Damascus, weakened for years, but now attempting to reassert its claim to sovereignty.
At one time, the Syrian branch of the PKK was presented in Western media as a “local ally”, “the most reliable force against ISIS”. Today, the same media effectively describes the same structure as a problem actor, using phrases such as “integration”, “withdrawal”, “security risk”. Such a shift in language in geopolitics is not accidental. It indicates the end of patronage.
What is happening in Syria today can be expressed in one sentence: the PKK did not win, its losing phase merely prolonged.
Washington's Cold Reality: The “Necessary” Era is Over
For the US, the PKK/YPG was never a strategic ally. It was merely a tool to be used. As soon as the fight against ISIS ended, the value of the tool diminished. This fact is no longer hidden.
Reuters openly writes that Kurdish fighters should be integrated into the Syrian army individually, not as a unified structure. This means there is no prospect of autonomy for Kurds within Syria. There is no point in even discussing a statelet. The concepts of autonomy, federalism, or the “Northern Syria project” have effectively been removed from Washington's agenda.
The main priority for the US now is the Iran–Israel confrontation, the Red Sea, competition with China, and post-Ukraine European security. Syria is increasingly relegated to the status of a secondary theater.
Washington is now calculating the risk of protecting the PKK, not its benefit. The name of this risk is Turkey. No one wants to play the “Kurdish card” in Syria anymore for the sake of an open confrontation with a NATO ally.
Damascus's Message: “Weapons Cannot Exist Outside the State”
The worst-case scenario for the PKK is not the US withdrawal. The worst-case scenario is the return of Damascus. Because the Syrian state is closed to federalism, and there are no concessions on this matter.
The Washington Post writes that for the Syrian state, the PKK/YPG issue has never been on the plane of “Kurdish rights”. This is a matter of sovereignty: “Syria’s government announced a ceasefire and ‘full integration’ agreement with the Kurdish-led SDF, potentially ending years of territorial fragmentation.”
(“Syria’s government announced a ceasefire and ‘full integration’ agreement with the Kurdish-led SDF. This could potentially end years of territorial fragmentation.”)
The key phrase in this sentence is “full integration”. This is a historic defeat for the PKK as a political-military actor in Syria. Because integration means becoming redundant.
The Syrian government's message is simple and stern: Hand over your weapons, lower your flag, join the system.
This is the official burial of the “Northern Syria project” that the PKK tried to build for years. Western media calls it a “compromise”. In reality, it is a format of surrender.
Ankara: Silent, Consistent, Consequential
Turkey has been the most patient and consistent actor in this process. Ankara neither engaged in open confrontation with Washington nor chose the path of an early agreement with Damascus. It neither wasted time with emotional statements nor exhausted itself with “we will finish it overnight” rhetoric. Instead, it played with time.
Again, Reuters writes: “Turkey has hailed the recent integration agreement as a historic turning point for its counter-terrorism objectives.” (“Turkey evaluates the recent integration agreement as a historic turning point in terms of its counter-terrorism objectives.”)
Turkey proved one thing: the fight against the PKK is not just a military issue, but a geopolitical one.
Today, in Western media, the PKK is no longer described as a “freedom movement” but as a “risk to regional stability”. This is a turning point. Because when terminology changes in the West, policy also changes.
The essence of this “historic turning point” is clear: the probability of the PKK being legitimized in Syria is reduced to zero. The US effectively accepts Turkey's security arguments. The Syrian state absorbs the PKK without turning it into an official structure. For Turkey, this is a more valuable outcome than a military victory – the PKK is geopolitically neutralized.
US Fear: ISIS Prisoners
The last argument remaining in Washington's hands is the ISIS prisons. The Wall Street Journal writes: “U.S. officials are concerned that escalating conflict could force Kurdish forces to abandon their posts guarding thousands of ISIS detainees.” (“US officials are concerned that the escalation of the conflict could force Kurdish forces to abandon their positions guarding thousands of ISIS prisoners.”)
The thesis “If the PKK is pressured, ISIS could return” is now frequently voiced. This argument is the PKK's last card of usefulness. But this card is also outdated. Because the West knows well that protecting the PKK does not reduce the ISIS risk, it merely postpones it.
Where the Triangle Closes
Some circles, relying on the illusion that “the PKK was not defeated”, still say that “if the PKK remains in Syria, it means it has not lost”. This is a superficial approach. In geopolitics, remaining and winning are not the same thing. It is true that the PKK has not been completely eliminated, nor has the YPG been completely dismantled. But as a political project, it is finished, and it has lost its status as a regional player. The PKK in Syria has been reduced to the level of a manageable threat.
The maneuvering space for the PKK in the Turkey-US-Syria triangle is closing. Washington is withdrawing, Damascus is integrating, and Ankara continues its pressure. This is not instant destruction for the PKK, but strategic strangulation.
In the language of Western media, the PKK is no longer seen as a “regional solution” but as a regional problem. History shows that actors perceived as problems in geopolitics do not have a long lifespan.
There is such a rule in history: the ideology of an actor whose patronage ends soon becomes obsolete. The PKK has reached this stage. The West no longer defends it, but merely manages it. A managed actor does not build a future; it only buys time. And time in this game is on Turkey's side, not the PKK's.
Elbay Hasanli,
Zurich
P. S. For Turkey, the PKK issue is not only a security problem but also a heavy economic burden. According to various official and academic calculations, Ankara has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the fight against the PKK over recent decades. Despite this, the PKK, having suffered serious setbacks, still tries to keep Turkey occupied. However, the light at the end of the tunnel is clearly visible...
