On the defeat in Rojava ; Truth is objective, denial is subjective.
Developments in Northern Syria and subjective analyses focusing only the event itself not the historical, ideological and practical cause and affects of the events.
Most, if not all, articles on the subject are written as if the event did not have a
pre-history that brought about this conclusion due to ideological and practical
approaches. This approach is followed with articles in "leftist"
media written totally detached from its history, without any attempts to
draw lessons from the mistakes, or without any criticism of the ideology and practice thereupon behind
the mistakes. As always,
abstract, vague slogans "demanding" from imperialists and from
fascist states to "halt" their aggressions are dominating the
articles. This subjectivity divorced from the concrete realities are being
reinforced with subjectively created myths; in other words, continuation of
same old fantasies and delusions in different shapes and forms.
No one even tries to analyze the underlying theoretical and practical approaches. The attitude is "past is past" no need to analyze, "now is now" we focus on "the now" ; an attitude that carries within the same ideological and practical approaches that brought about the current defeat. No event is for itself and by itself but in direct connection with the developments and conflicts in the region specific and world in general.
Telling the truth is a
revolutionary act, concealing and spinning the truth is an opportunist, counter revolutionary act for it prevents
drawing lessons from the mistakes and opens the doors for the repetition of the
same mistakes at the expense of the lives of people.
Two years ago, I had noted that “Bundism
(Ethnic nationalism behind the mask of socialism) is largely
dominant in Turkiye. Liberalism, the worse kind of opportunism,
predominates the pens of so called ML writers. The attitude
is either “do not touch to that subject” we may alienate
some people, as if we do not talk about the question the question will
disappear by itself, or “talk about the subject in a favorable way so
that we do not alienate anyone “ approach. “ ….” (Neo-Cons) will cut
and run at one point with heavy losses if they remain, they will cause
the destruction of the Kurdish regions and of Kurdish people.” Will
the Kurds in Iraq and Syria fall in to a possible trap by the US-West?
Going back to history, I stated in 2018 that “ With the support of US, France, Germany and others, including İsrael, In Syria, the PKK- PYD, and it’s armed wing the YPG, was able to beat the ISIS attacks and occupied predominantly Kurdish areas in the north of Syria and started the " self-administered " Kurdish North. This was a success by all means for the Kurds. However, this was not a full success for the interests of US and the West whose interest were at the control of oil , gas fields, oil , gas roads , and without Assad in Syria.”
 |
| Updated Map as o January 23rd |
“The most important question
nowadays is, "being dizzy with success", how far the
PYD will go when the Syrian forces try to regain its territories from the US
invasion. Attacking the Syrian forces in alliance with the US and
West, will ultimately change the character of PYD, whatever left to be, from
just and progressive in to unjust and
reactionary. “
Stalin, in his work “foundation
of Leninism” stated that “support must be given to such national movements as
tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and
preserve it. Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of
the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view
of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as
shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism,
that is to say, “not in isolation, but on a world scale."
“Thus, the current
character of PYD in Afrin is a progressive one, but in Raqqa it has
reactionary features, and will be totally reactionary, if and
when it starts fighting against Syrian forces on the side of
USA. “ Sitting on bombs, ""Getting Dizzy with
Success" in Syria; PYD and TR
I had pointed out the same year
in another article that;
“If somehow the internal conflict
is prevented, and the government is formed with a majority of Turkish backed
HTS, it is highly likely that they will want to incorporate the oil and food
supply rich region which is currently under the control of SDF. That,
mainly for economic reasons, inevitably will be one of the primary goal and
target of the HTS dominated Syrian Government. That will beg the question
of “how the attitude of the new government
to the US-West”. Will the US back-stab the SDF and make an agreement
with Turkiye?” A Marxist Leninist
evaluation of the developments in Syria-winners and losers in the short term
On the follow up article, I had
stated that;
"Due to its economic problems, hunger, and lack of energy for
even the revival and survival of small enterprises, will force the (Syrian)
government to concentrate on “food and energy” supply in a country which is
rich in these resources but under the control and theft of the US backed SDF. That is why the North East issue will become a primary
and serious issue for the new government. ..We read and see from Western
Media and its extensions news stating that "HTS and SDF"
agreements are being made". These are the same fantasy and
fallacies based propaganda disseminated by the Western Media .."
"Proceeding from the fact
that HTS is nothing but largely a gang in the hands of Turkiye; speaking
about agreements between SDF and HTS has no validity and credibility. On
the Western and extension media, in the North East, defeats are presented as
"agreements", protests of people are presented as
"celebrations", desertions and splits of Arabs from the
regional power have never been mentioned. SNA, a big partner of HTS has
already attacked and grabbed Manbij.”
“This region will remain to be
the primary question and reason for the conflicts because of its food and
oil rich character and its occupied status.” Long
term implications of Syria's collapse ; a Marxist Leninist evaluation
On an article related to Syria I
had stated that;
“The relationship between US,
Israel and Turkiye is not as simple as these “writers” from Turkiye depict
to be. No relations can be taken by themselves only but in their
relations to other related countries and the concrete situation in world
general. We live in an era where economic, political, and strategic
partnerships are shattering on one side, developing and consolidating on the
other. Each country, including those who are politically dependent, taking
different economic and political steps fitting their own interests. To
claim that Turkiye and Israel conflicting in order to serve the US interests is
an ignorant claim at best or an oblivious one at worse case.”
“The fact is that Türkiye’s
strategy is to be the dominant military power in the Middle East and
North Africa. Having a border to Syria, with its presence in its large cities,
Turkiye is planning to bolster the new “Syrian Government’s” military
capabilities and enrich its own military industrial complex.”
“For the regional leadership and
hegemony in the region, using proxies against Israel is the best option
for Turkiye since a direct military conflict with Israel does not seem
plausible yet. Having said that, with the establishment of military bases, installation
of air defense systems in Syria may escalate the situation. They are both
trying to fill the void left from Iran as the new leader of
the region. Israel wants to keep and even extend its dominance in
the region through divisions and continuing internal conflicts, Turkiye
wants to unite them under its own wings as part of
its “Ottoman” dream.” ..” Turkiye will not hesitate getting into a conflict;
for one, war is the best way to distract the population from all the
economic hardship, injustice, corruption, oppression, and
exploitation going on within its borders.”
Emerging conflict between Israel and Turkiye ; how far it can go?
Looking at history, the
collaboration with the imperialists, extending their power beyond the
population of other ethnic groups, annexing them in the service of
the imperialists was a disaster to happen sooner or later. Especially if
these regions happened to be the main energy and food supply regions of
entire country, it was an inevitable
outcome someday because it was causing the starvation of the large
population.
Henry Kissinger is widely quoted saying, "To be an enemy of the United
States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal". This
phrase suggested that opposing the U.S. is risky, aligning with it can
ultimately lead to abandonment or destruction, as historically proven
numerous times. This historical reality has
been overlooked by getting dizzy with success after Rojava and extending its
territories and annexing other regions.
Recent events in Iran,
unfortunately assessed and carried out with the same subjectivity, proves the
fact that “no lessons have been drawn” from the history and from the
mistakes. Because no one seems to have
the courage to state the truth mostly due to opportunism and liberalism.
Democratic rights and the struggle of Kurdish people cannot be defended with subjective
slogans but through exposing and examining of the mistakes and drawing
lessons from them in order not to
repeat same. The trend seems to be the same which will bring similar results in different regions. It is saddening to see that even some “leftists”
using the typical nationalist rhetoric used by every countries chauvinists that
“ The only friends of Kurds are Kurds”. The historically proven fact of the matter is
the most dangerous enemies of a given people are the members of
that given people; meaning that “the most dangerous enemies of Kurds
are the Kurdish origin ones”. The question always comes down to the class
and class strata the individuals belong to; either ideologically
or through origin. Some sell their own people for a penny or for power, others die for them. It is ideology not
ethnicity that determines the character of a stand they take.
"Nations" and "nation-states" equally can be used as proxies. However, as the history has proven, in most cases the "nations" are preferably expendable more often than "nation-states".
Erdogan A
January 23, 2026
.jpg)
