Analysis of: Syrian and Kurdish forces agree to extend ceasefire as threat of war looms
The Guardian | January 24, 2026
TL;DR
Syria's government forces Kurdish militia to choose between dissolution or annihilation, while the US abandons its decade-long proxy after extracting strategic value. The collapse of Kurdish autonomy reveals how imperial powers discard local allies once resource control and geopolitical objectives are secured.
The ceasefire extension between Damascus and Kurdish SDF forces represents not a diplomatic breakthrough but a temporary pause in the liquidation of a failed imperial proxy project. For a decade, the United States armed and supported Kurdish forces as instruments of its Syria policy—first against ISIS, then as leverage against Damascus and its Russian-Iranian backers. Now, with ISIS prisoners being transferred out and strategic utility exhausted, Washington has explicitly blessed the Syrian government's campaign to reabsorb these territories, with US envoy Tom Barrack mediating what amounts to the SDF's unconditional surrender. The material stakes are stark: the SDF controlled nearly a third of Syrian territory, including vital oil fields, agricultural breadbasket regions, and key infrastructure. In two weeks, this collapsed to a few cities. The 14-point agreement demands complete dissolution—transforming a 100,000-strong armed force into a municipal police service. This represents the violent resolution of a fundamental contradiction: the impossibility of maintaining semi-autonomous ethnic enclaves within a centralized nation-state system backed by regional powers, when the imperial patron withdraws support. The humanitarian dimension reveals the class character of this conflict. Kurdish civilians arm themselves in fear, recalling massacres in Druze and Alawite regions. The SDF has built tunnel networks anticipating guerrilla warfare. Damascus understands that military victory could produce a PKK-style insurgency lasting decades. The working people of northeastern Syria—Kurdish, Arab, and others—face a choice imposed by forces far beyond their control: submit to a government that has demonstrated brutality, or face military assault. This is the predictable terminus of proxy warfare, where local populations bear the costs of great power competition.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Syrian state apparatus and military, Kurdish SDF leadership and fighters, Kurdish civilian population, Arab populations in contested territories, US imperial state and military, Turkish state, Regional powers (Iraq, Iran implied), ISIS prisoners as pawns in negotiation
Beneficiaries: Syrian central state seeking territorial consolidation, Damascus-aligned capital interests in oil and agriculture, Turkish state achieving weakening of Kurdish autonomy, US strategic interests (ISIS containment achieved at minimal ongoing cost), Regional states preferring centralized Syrian control over Kurdish precedent
Harmed Parties: Kurdish working class and civilians facing potential violence or displacement, SDF rank-and-file fighters losing livelihood and autonomy, Arab and minority civilians in contested zones, Working people across ethnic lines caught between armed forces
The power asymmetry is total. Damascus holds military superiority backed by Russia and tolerating Turkish interests. The US has explicitly transferred legitimacy to the Syrian state. Kurdish leadership retains only the threat of costly guerrilla resistance. The SDF's internal divisions—Abdi's pragmatic faction versus those refusing dissolution—reflect the impossible position of a force that built institutional power dependent on external patronage now withdrawn. Class power within Kurdish areas is also contested: the SDF's political project included elements of democratic confederalism that challenged both state centralization and capitalist property relations, now being forcibly terminated.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Control of Syrian oil fields in northeastern region, Agricultural production in Syria's breadbasket, Infrastructure and logistics networks, Military labor market (100,000 SDF fighters), US military aid and weapons flows, Reconstruction capital and access
The SDF-controlled region represented an alternative political economy with elements of cooperative and communal organization influenced by Öcalan's democratic confederalism. This experiment in modified production relations—never fully socialist but distinct from both Assad's state capitalism and neoliberal models—is being liquidated. The 'integration' into Syrian military structures means proletarianization of former fighters, transformation from armed political actors to state employees or unemployed. Control of oil extraction and agricultural surplus will shift from semi-autonomous administration to centralized state control, with implications for how surplus is extracted and distributed.
Resources at Stake: Northeastern Syrian oil reserves, Euphrates basin agricultural land, Water infrastructure and dam systems, Strategic transportation corridors, Human capital of trained military force, Political precedent regarding ethnic autonomy
Historical Context
Precedents: US abandonment of South Vietnamese allies (1975), US betrayal of Iraqi Kurds after 1991 uprising, Turkish suppression of Kurdish autonomy movements, Colonial powers' creation and abandonment of proxy forces, Sykes-Picot and artificial state boundaries creating permanent ethnic tensions
This follows the consistent imperial pattern of using ethnic minorities as proxy forces, then abandoning them when strategic calculus shifts. The Kurds have experienced this repeatedly—armed by the US against Saddam in 1991, then left to face his revenge; supported in Syria against ISIS, now handed to Damascus. The deeper pattern is the impossibility of genuine national self-determination within an imperialist world system. Kurdish aspirations for autonomy repeatedly crash against the interests of regional states (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria) who fear the precedent, and imperial powers who value state stability over minority rights. The current phase represents post-ISIS consolidation, where the US pivots to great power competition and regional states reassert sovereignty over territories fragmented during the civil war.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction between Kurdish national aspirations for self-determination and the imperatives of nation-state consolidation backed by imperial and regional powers. The SDF built material power (territory, resources, armed forces) on a foundation of US support that was always conditional and temporary, creating an unsustainable political formation.
Secondary: Contradiction between SDF leadership's pragmatic acceptance of dissolution and base's resistance to surrender, Damascus's contradiction between desire for quick victory and fear of long-term insurgency, US contradiction between stated values of democracy/human rights and strategic abandonment of allies, Regional contradiction between Turkish hostility to Kurdish autonomy and reluctance to see Syrian state fully consolidated
The immediate trajectory favors Damascus: military pressure, withdrawn US support, and regional alignment point toward SDF dissolution or destruction. However, the Kurdish national question cannot be permanently resolved through military force. The article notes Damascus fears creating 'a PKK-style insurgency for years to come.' The contradiction between state centralization and ethnic minority aspirations will persist, potentially re-emerging in different forms. The resolution imposed now—forced integration—plants seeds of future conflict, as forcibly incorporated populations rarely become loyal citizens.
Global Interconnections
This situation exemplifies how the post-Cold War 'War on Terror' framework is giving way to renewed great power competition, with local populations bearing the costs of transition. The US built the SDF as an anti-ISIS instrument, but ISIS was itself a product of the 2003 Iraq invasion and subsequent regional destabilization—imperial intervention generating threats requiring further intervention. Syria's conflict drew in Russia, Iran, Turkey, Gulf states, and the US, each pursuing distinct interests. The Kurdish question connects to similar struggles in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, where an estimated 30-40 million Kurds remain the world's largest stateless nation. The resource dimension is crucial: northeastern Syria contains the country's oil wealth and agricultural capacity. Post-war reconstruction will require these resources, and their control determines who captures the surplus. International capital, including Chinese infrastructure investment and Russian energy interests, awaits resolution of the conflict to access these resources. The SDF's alternative economic model—imperfect but distinct—represented an obstacle to full integration into circuits of global capital accumulation. Its elimination facilitates Syria's reintegration into regional and global markets on terms favorable to the reconstituted state and its backers.
Conclusion
The Kurdish situation in Syria demonstrates the limits of national liberation struggles dependent on imperial patronage. The SDF's decade of sacrifice against ISIS earned nothing but abandonment when US strategic priorities shifted. For workers and oppressed peoples globally, this confirms that genuine self-determination cannot be achieved through alliance with imperial powers whose support is always conditional and temporary. The coming weeks will likely see either SDF dissolution or bloody combat in Kurdish-majority areas—both outcomes imposed by forces indifferent to Kurdish working-class interests. The tunnel networks being prepared suggest some will fight regardless of leadership decisions, but without international solidarity and material support, resistance faces enormous odds. The broader lesson is that movements for liberation must build autonomous power bases and international working-class connections rather than relying on imperial sponsors who will inevitably betray them when convenient.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how imperial powers use and discard smaller nations as pawns directly illuminates the US-Kurdish relationship and the competition between regional powers over Syrian territory.
- The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon (1961) Fanon's examination of national liberation movements, the psychology of colonized peoples, and the limits of nationalist projects provides essential framework for understanding Kurdish aspirations and their suppression.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the state as instrument of class rule clarifies why Damascus cannot tolerate autonomous armed formations and why 'integration' means subordination to centralized state power.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's documentation of how crises enable the imposition of unfavorable terms on weakened populations parallels the SDF's forced acceptance of dissolution under military pressure and abandoned alliances.