Garbis Altinoglu's comment on the PKK and PYD's stand

Garbis Altinoglu's comment on the PKK and PYD's stand , March 27, 2019

Ultimately, criticism of national liberation forces should be more limited because they defend the interests of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation; however, this does not mean condoning their non-revolutionary or reactionary tactics. For example, immediately before and during the Second World War, there were movements that acted in concert with the countries in the fascist bloc. One example was the German population in the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. The national movement of these Germans, who wanted to unite with Germany, was supported by the Hitler clique; however, this movement would have allowed Nazi Germany to swallow up all of Czechoslovakia, thus strengthening the position of the Hitler clique and enabling it to pursue a more aggressive policy, and therefore, Soviet Russia opposed the Sudeten Germans' efforts to "determine their own destiny" at that historical turning point.

A similar observation can be made about the INA (Indian National Army), formed by Japanese militarists in India, then a British colony, and which fought alongside the Japanese army.

Criticisms directed at organizations like the PKK and PYD stem from concerns that they may find themselves in a similar position, and that this could lead to a much worse situation in relations between the Kurdish people and other Middle Eastern peoples.

Today's world stage bears partial resemblance to the Second World War era. Neither the powerful socialist state of that time (Soviet Russia) nor the strong communist parties that existed then, at least in European countries, are present. However, today, the primary threat/main enemy for the world's working class and peoples is an imperialist state, the United States.

We are talking about a United States with nearly 1000 military bases spread across the globe, which has systematically intervened in/attacked Asian, African, and Latin American countries, particularly since the late 1940s, and which, despite its decline, remains the world's leading military and economic power. Russia, which is only on par with the US in the field of nuclear weapons and whose military and economic power is far behind that of the US, is merely a second-class imperialist state. Yes, there is a state in Russia that defends the interests of the monopolistic bourgeoisie. But the Putin regime's Middle East policy is an obstacle to the further strengthening and unstoppable rise of the reactionary political Islamist movements that the US directly or indirectly supports, and to the US's efforts to spread the war throughout the region. As for the Putin clique's stance of maintaining good relations with aggressive regional states such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, this is not at all surprising and is consistent with the imperialist nature of his policy.

Syria has objectively played/is playing a revolutionary role and is paying a heavy price for it, both by supporting the resistance movements in Palestine and Lebanon against Israeli aggression – albeit not in a very consistent manner – and by challenging the aggression of reactionary political Islamist movements, and by being a serious obstacle to the extension of US aggression into Iran and beyond.

As for the Kurdish national movement, it would be far more appropriate for it to maintain close contact with the Syrian government rather than trying to cooperate with states like the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. This movement should prioritize fighting against the main aggressors in Syria – namely the US, Israel (behind the scenes), Turkey, and reactionary Islamist political groups. In this struggle, it should establish better relations with the Syrian people and government, secure the political and moral support of Russia to defend the rights of Syrian Kurds, and avoid engaging in any conflict with the Syrian army unless absolutely necessary.

Neither the Kurdish national movement being under the control of any imperialist state is acceptable, nor should Turkish revolutionary groups be dragged into such a position. These Turkish revolutionary groups, who boast about their marginal and symbolic role in Northern Syria, should focus their attention on advancing the struggle for democracy, revolution, and socialism in their own country.

In my opinion, their presence there contributes nothing to the liberation or resistance of the Turkish, Kurdish, or Syrian peoples. In terms of intervening in what was happening in Syria, what they could and should do was to mobilize the Turkish people, or their politically advanced segments, against the expansionist, neo-Ottoman, and aggressive policies of the Erdoğan clique.