Beyond the End of Military Power: How Is the Kurdish Presence in Syria Being Reshaped?
Political Analysis by Ibrahim .M. Kaban
Syria today is witnessing one of the most sensitive and complex phases in its modern history. The ongoing transformations are no longer merely an extension of the conflict that began in 2011; rather, they have become closer to a comprehensive process of restructuring the Syrian state itself, redefining the position of the actors within it, and redrawing the boundaries of power and influence for every party involved.
In this transitional phase, the dynamics of open warfare are gradually giving way to regional understandings and the redistribution of influence, as the interests of multiple powers — most notably Turkey, Damascus, and international actors — intersect in shaping the contours of a “post-conflict Syria.”
Within this context, the Kurds find themselves facing a new turning point, one that concerns not only the future of the Autonomous Administration experience, but also the future of their political and constitutional position within a state that is itself being redefined.
From State Vacuum to the Emergence of Kurdish Agency
The Kurdish presence in northern and eastern Syria over the past decade was not merely the result of a fully developed internal political project. Rather, it emerged primarily as a consequence of the gradual collapse of central state authority and the appearance of vast security and administrative vacuums after 2011.
This vacuum enabled the rise of an unprecedented political and administrative experience in modern Syrian history, represented by the “Autonomous Administration” and its military forces, which played a central role in confronting ISIS. This granted them practical legitimacy at the international level and opened a wide margin for political and military maneuvering.
However, despite its importance, this legitimacy remained largely tied to the security and military function of these forces more than to a stable political and constitutional recognition within the structure of the Syrian state.
Naturally, the decline in the intensity of the war contributed to a reassessment by regional and international powers of the Syrian situation, including efforts to end the consequences of the civil war through the unification of forces within a military and political institution that reproduces the previous centralized model.
Here, it is important to point to the role played by Turkey in ending the military status of the SDF forces through their integration with the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham movement, which assumed power in Damascus. The negotiations between the Turkish state and Mr. Öcalan had a direct impact on producing and achieving this outcome.
The Turkish Presence: From the Logic of War to Engineering Syria According to Its Standards
Turkey approaches the Syrian file from a direct strategic security perspective, considering any form of armed Kurdish entity along its southern border an existential threat that must either be contained, dismantled, or reintegrated within new political arrangements.
What is noticeable in the current phase, however, is the shift in Turkish policy from the logic of direct military intervention toward a more complex strategy based on “engineering the Syrian political environment” in a manner that prevents the emergence of any independent or semi-independent Kurdish entity in the long term.
This transformation reflects an evolution in Turkish strategy from managing military operations to managing political outcomes — in other words, attempting to reshape the nature of the future Syrian state in a way that minimizes the chances of the emergence of independent Kurdish centers of power outside the central authority.
In this sense, Turkey is not only operating within the battlefield itself, but also within the broader process of redefining the Syrian state.
International Transformations and the Redefinition of Local Allies’ Roles
In recent years, the nature of the international role in Syria has undergone a gradual transformation, particularly the American role, which shifted from direct and comprehensive military support toward managing a limited presence aimed more at preventing the return of chaos than at reshaping the political system.
This transformation does not mean a complete withdrawal from the Syrian scene, but rather a change in the role of the international actor — from a maker of realities to a manager of balances.
Within this new context, all local forces that emerged during the years of war, including Kurdish forces, are being reassessed according to a new standard based on their ability to integrate into post-conflict arrangements, rather than solely on their ability to achieve territorial control.
This transformation imposes upon all parties the necessity of redefining their political tools, the limits of their influence, and the nature of their future alliances.
The Internal Kurdish Dilemma Between Plurality and Representation
Alongside external transformations, the Kurdish reality in Syria faces an internal challenge of no lesser importance: the absence of a unified Kurdish political framework capable of formulating a collective vision for the future of Kurdish existence within the Syrian state.
The multiplicity of political references, the divergence of visions among Kurdish forces, and the absence of an agreed-upon Syrian-Kurdish national project have all made it difficult to transform the gains achieved during the years of war into a sustainable political project.
Moreover, the predominance of the military dimension over the civil and political dimension during the war contributed to slowing the process of building political and civil institutions capable of conducting long-term negotiations over constitutional rights.
One of the most significant challenges in the coming phase therefore lies in “transitioning from managing reality to shaping the future.”
In addition, the contradictory nature of the various Kurdish political projects deepens the crisis. The Autonomous Administration does not adopt a specifically Kurdish nationalist project; rather, it promotes the idea of general democracy and coexistence among peoples within a single framework, a model that in many ways resembles an internationalist approach stripped of specific national demands.
Meanwhile, other Kurdish political actors possess dozens of different projects, yet in practical terms they lack the unifying tools necessary to build and lead a coherent political project. At most, what becomes visible are narrow partisan disputes that contribute to obstructing any meaningful development of the Kurdish issue.
As a result, a fragmented Kurdish reality emerges, opening the door for Damascus and Turkey to manipulate the Kurdish arena internally by supporting certain actors at the expense of others.
From the Question of Existence to the Question of Position
The discourse surrounding the “end of the Kurdish role” in Syria does not accurately reflect the nature of the ongoing transformations as much as it reflects a transformation in the nature of that role itself.
The Kurdish issue in Syria is no longer linked solely to the question of existence; it has become fundamentally tied to the question of “position” within the future Syrian state.
In other words, the question is no longer: “Do the Kurds have a political existence in Syria?”
Rather, the question has become: “What form will this existence take? What are its limits? What are its instruments? And how can it be constitutionally secured?”
This transformation from the question of existence to the question of position represents the essence of the current transitional phase. It requires the Kurds to produce unity in their political stance, end internal conflicts, and strengthen the internal Kurdish house through unifying demands and pursuing them through appropriate peaceful means.
Within this context, efforts can be directed toward strengthening grassroots and political action in order to constitutionally secure rights. The future Syrian equation will not be decided solely through territorial control or military balances, but through a long and complex political and constitutional process related to the nature of the state, the form of governance, the level of decentralization, and the distribution of power between the center and the peripheries.
This means that the fundamental challenge facing the Kurds is the transition from the logic of military power — which was a historical necessity during the war — to the logic of political and constitutional consolidation within the state.
This requires a redefinition of political priorities, including: Unifying Kurdish political representation, Building a unified negotiating discourse, Strengthening civil and administrative institutions, Opening toward other Syrian components.
Working to secure cultural, linguistic, and constitutional rights within the framework of the state
Conclusion
What Syria is witnessing today cannot be understood as the end of a project or the beginning of a collapse, but rather as a profound transitional phase in which the Syrian state is reshaping itself and redefining the roles of all its political and social components.
Within this context, the Kurds are entering a new phase in their political history in Syria — one whose central feature is the transition from the exceptional conditions produced by war toward the search for political and constitutional stability within a state that is itself still in the process of being formed.
Between these two phases lies a vast space of transformations that will determine not only the future of the Kurds, but also the future of Syria itself.
Syria today is witnessing one of the most sensitive and complex phases in its modern history. The ongoing transformations are no longer merely an extension of the conflict that began in 2011; rather, they have become closer to a comprehensive process of restructuring the Syrian state itself, redefining the position of the actors within it, and redrawing the boundaries of power and influence for every party involved.
In this transitional phase, the dynamics of open warfare are gradually giving way to regional understandings and the redistribution of influence, as the interests of multiple powers — most notably Turkey, Damascus, and international actors — intersect in shaping the contours of a “post-conflict Syria.”
Within this context, the Kurds find themselves facing a new turning point, one that concerns not only the future of the Autonomous Administration experience, but also the future of their political and constitutional position within a state that is itself being redefined.
From State Vacuum to the Emergence of Kurdish Agency
The Kurdish presence in northern and eastern Syria over the past decade was not merely the result of a fully developed internal political project. Rather, it emerged primarily as a consequence of the gradual collapse of central state authority and the appearance of vast security and administrative vacuums after 2011.
This vacuum enabled the rise of an unprecedented political and administrative experience in modern Syrian history, represented by the “Autonomous Administration” and its military forces, which played a central role in confronting ISIS. This granted them practical legitimacy at the international level and opened a wide margin for political and military maneuvering.
However, despite its importance, this legitimacy remained largely tied to the security and military function of these forces more than to a stable political and constitutional recognition within the structure of the Syrian state.
Naturally, the decline in the intensity of the war contributed to a reassessment by regional and international powers of the Syrian situation, including efforts to end the consequences of the civil war through the unification of forces within a military and political institution that reproduces the previous centralized model.
Here, it is important to point to the role played by Turkey in ending the military status of the SDF forces through their integration with the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham movement, which assumed power in Damascus. The negotiations between the Turkish state and Mr. Öcalan had a direct impact on producing and achieving this outcome.
The Turkish Presence: From the Logic of War to Engineering Syria According to Its Standards
Turkey approaches the Syrian file from a direct strategic security perspective, considering any form of armed Kurdish entity along its southern border an existential threat that must either be contained, dismantled, or reintegrated within new political arrangements.
What is noticeable in the current phase, however, is the shift in Turkish policy from the logic of direct military intervention toward a more complex strategy based on “engineering the Syrian political environment” in a manner that prevents the emergence of any independent or semi-independent Kurdish entity in the long term.
This transformation reflects an evolution in Turkish strategy from managing military operations to managing political outcomes — in other words, attempting to reshape the nature of the future Syrian state in a way that minimizes the chances of the emergence of independent Kurdish centers of power outside the central authority.
In this sense, Turkey is not only operating within the battlefield itself, but also within the broader process of redefining the Syrian state.
International Transformations and the Redefinition of Local Allies’ Roles
In recent years, the nature of the international role in Syria has undergone a gradual transformation, particularly the American role, which shifted from direct and comprehensive military support toward managing a limited presence aimed more at preventing the return of chaos than at reshaping the political system.
This transformation does not mean a complete withdrawal from the Syrian scene, but rather a change in the role of the international actor — from a maker of realities to a manager of balances.
Within this new context, all local forces that emerged during the years of war, including Kurdish forces, are being reassessed according to a new standard based on their ability to integrate into post-conflict arrangements, rather than solely on their ability to achieve territorial control.
This transformation imposes upon all parties the necessity of redefining their political tools, the limits of their influence, and the nature of their future alliances.
The Internal Kurdish Dilemma Between Plurality and Representation
Alongside external transformations, the Kurdish reality in Syria faces an internal challenge of no lesser importance: the absence of a unified Kurdish political framework capable of formulating a collective vision for the future of Kurdish existence within the Syrian state.
The multiplicity of political references, the divergence of visions among Kurdish forces, and the absence of an agreed-upon Syrian-Kurdish national project have all made it difficult to transform the gains achieved during the years of war into a sustainable political project.
Moreover, the predominance of the military dimension over the civil and political dimension during the war contributed to slowing the process of building political and civil institutions capable of conducting long-term negotiations over constitutional rights.
One of the most significant challenges in the coming phase therefore lies in “transitioning from managing reality to shaping the future.”
In addition, the contradictory nature of the various Kurdish political projects deepens the crisis. The Autonomous Administration does not adopt a specifically Kurdish nationalist project; rather, it promotes the idea of general democracy and coexistence among peoples within a single framework, a model that in many ways resembles an internationalist approach stripped of specific national demands.
Meanwhile, other Kurdish political actors possess dozens of different projects, yet in practical terms they lack the unifying tools necessary to build and lead a coherent political project. At most, what becomes visible are narrow partisan disputes that contribute to obstructing any meaningful development of the Kurdish issue.
As a result, a fragmented Kurdish reality emerges, opening the door for Damascus and Turkey to manipulate the Kurdish arena internally by supporting certain actors at the expense of others.
From the Question of Existence to the Question of Position
The discourse surrounding the “end of the Kurdish role” in Syria does not accurately reflect the nature of the ongoing transformations as much as it reflects a transformation in the nature of that role itself.
The Kurdish issue in Syria is no longer linked solely to the question of existence; it has become fundamentally tied to the question of “position” within the future Syrian state.
In other words, the question is no longer: “Do the Kurds have a political existence in Syria?”
Rather, the question has become: “What form will this existence take? What are its limits? What are its instruments? And how can it be constitutionally secured?”
This transformation from the question of existence to the question of position represents the essence of the current transitional phase. It requires the Kurds to produce unity in their political stance, end internal conflicts, and strengthen the internal Kurdish house through unifying demands and pursuing them through appropriate peaceful means.
Within this context, efforts can be directed toward strengthening grassroots and political action in order to constitutionally secure rights. The future Syrian equation will not be decided solely through territorial control or military balances, but through a long and complex political and constitutional process related to the nature of the state, the form of governance, the level of decentralization, and the distribution of power between the center and the peripheries.
This means that the fundamental challenge facing the Kurds is the transition from the logic of military power — which was a historical necessity during the war — to the logic of political and constitutional consolidation within the state.
This requires a redefinition of political priorities, including: Unifying Kurdish political representation, Building a unified negotiating discourse, Strengthening civil and administrative institutions, Opening toward other Syrian components.
Working to secure cultural, linguistic, and constitutional rights within the framework of the state
Conclusion
What Syria is witnessing today cannot be understood as the end of a project or the beginning of a collapse, but rather as a profound transitional phase in which the Syrian state is reshaping itself and redefining the roles of all its political and social components.
Within this context, the Kurds are entering a new phase in their political history in Syria — one whose central feature is the transition from the exceptional conditions produced by war toward the search for political and constitutional stability within a state that is itself still in the process of being formed.
Between these two phases lies a vast space of transformations that will determine not only the future of the Kurds, but also the future of Syria itself.
