The attacks targeting Rojava over the past three weeks have marked the beginning of a new phase for the Kurds. Both the Kurdish people’s growing embrace of the demand for national unity and the resistance that has emerged in response to the scale of the attacks have demonstrated that Kurdish decisions must be taken into account in the new process unfolding in the Middle East.
In Turkey, the stance adopted by certain opposition circles during the attacks on Rojava, which in some cases escalated to open hostility, has also laid bare a rupture within Kurdish society.
Ibrahim Akın, an MP from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), spoke to ANF about the developments in Rojava and the emerging new phase.
HTS aimed at total annihilation
Ibrahim Akın said he views the attacks carried out by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) against Rojava as part of an effort to redesign the region and made the following assessment: “As is known, during the final two weeks of 2024, power in Syria changed hands rapidly, with HTS taking control with the support and approval of Western powers. In March 2025, a preliminary agreement was reached through the March 10 Agreement signed between Syria’s interim administration and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), covering issues ranging from Kurdish rights to the situation in Northern and Eastern Syria, with the end of 2025 set as the deadline for its implementation.
During this period, HTS made continuous efforts to completely eliminate the gains achieved by Kurds in Syria and to neutralize the democratic society that emerged in Rojava. HTS first turned toward the Sheikh Maqsoud (Şêx Maqsûd) and Ashrafiyeh (Eşrefiye) neighborhoods of Aleppo, aiming to eradicate the Kurdish presence through a massacre planned there. Reactions from global public opinion and actions carried out by Kurds across the world prevented the massacre and total annihilation that HTS intended.
Forces seeking to redesign the region continued their attempts, through HTS, to entirely dismantle the democratic administration that emerged in Rojava and sought to impose, on January 18, an agreement aimed at unconditional surrender. HTS failed in this attempt as well.
At this stage, the outcome achieved falls short of what Kurds wanted, aspired to, and rightfully deserved. Despite this, Kurds have once again demonstrated that they cannot be excluded from the equation, both in Syria and across the region. The reality is that, even if the current situation in Syria remains below Kurdish expectations, it is no longer possible to construct any equation in the Middle East without the Kurds. This is the greatest achievement.”
Power balances in the Middle East are highly fluid
Ibrahim Akın said that the agreements reached so far contain aspects that fall short of the desired gains, while also stressing that balances in the region can change rapidly.
Akın continued: “We have arrived today through a series of agreements. Each agreement brought certain gains, but also aspects that remained below what was aimed for. After HTS was brought to power in Syria, the March 10 Agreement signed with the SDF followed. This was followed by the April 1 Protocol covering two Kurdish neighborhoods in Aleppo, then the January 18 Agreement that was sought to be imposed but ultimately backfired and was not accepted, and finally the latest agreement signed on January 27 and entering into force on January 30.
One point must not be overlooked: power balances in the Middle East are highly fluid. This dynamism shows that political and military balances in the region can change within a very short time. In the face of possible shifts, every actor seeking to preserve its existence aims to maintain its place in the equation. With the latest agreement, Kurds not only prevented a mass massacre of Kurds, but also once again established that they cannot be pushed out of the equation in the Middle East.”
Excuses used to resist the process under the pretext of Syria have collapsed
Ibrahim Akın said the agreement is significant for Turkey and that the arguments put forward by certain circles to resist the process by citing Syria have lost their validity. Akın said: “In the face of steps toward achieving the peace and democratic society that Turkey itself needs, Syria and the SDF, long used by some as a pretext to obstruct progress, are no longer excuses. The organizations of Syrian Kurds, which never posed a threat to Turkey, are no longer a pretext either. Everyone must now turn their attention to Turkey’s internal need for peace and democratization. All these developments have stripped the forces opposed to peace of their remaining excuses.
A more favorable ground has emerged to strengthen peace and to develop a shared practice of coexistence among peoples. It is time to intensify efforts to establish the peace we need in Turkey and fraternity among peoples.”
Akın also said that Kurds in Syria, through struggle, have compelled the interim administration to recognize their rights, while in Turkey there remains an approach that seeks to render Kurds invisible and to absorb and dissolve them, an approach he said is unacceptable. He stressed that Kurds must be recognized as a political subject and added:
“In Syria, Kurds have secured certain rights they fully deserved by resisting and struggling, and they compelled the Syrian interim administration to accept these rights. This is a gain achieved through struggle. While this gain marks a better point than before, it may not be sufficient for the future. Kurds in Syria will, of course, continue their struggle to secure further gains and will carry on this struggle as an important part of the Middle East equation.”
The integration we mean in Turkey is not assimilation
Ibrahim Akın said, “What we emphasize is that the integration of Kurds and Kurdish politics in Turkey must not take the form of absorbing, dissolving, or rendering Kurds invisible. The integration we refer to should not be understood as another version of assimilation. Integration only becomes meaningful if it is seen as a process of mutual interaction. For this to be possible, Kurds must be able to continue influencing and contributing to the country’s politics as a political subject. A community that has been politically erased cannot shape the course of the process, even if it continues to exist physically.
For this reason, the struggle to remain part of a democratic society must continue through strong political actors and strong social forces. Integration should aim not only to be influenced, but also to influence others; not only to change, but also to bring about change. Only then does it become meaningful. Otherwise, an understanding of integration that carries expectations of assimilation, disappearance, or invisibility deepens the problem instead of resolving it.”
Most of the left in Turkey reacted against HTS attacks
Ibrahim Akın addressed Kurdish-hostile approaches among some left-wing and opposition circles in Turkey and offered the following assessment: “It would not be accurate to judge the opposition in this way. A large majority of leftist, socialist, and social democratic circles clearly stated that the attacks carried out against Kurds are unacceptable. Many parties, organizations, and civil society groups took a clear stance in this direction. In addition, the positive attitude we encountered during our meetings with the main opposition party was also reflected in statements to the press. In this sense, it is important to note that many leftist, socialist, and social democratic parties and institutions, first and foremost the main opposition party, adopted a positive position. With the latest agreement, this stance evolved into one that defends the presence and status of Kurds there. Just as we call out what is wrong as ‘wrong,’ we must also acknowledge what is right as ‘right.’
Alongside the small number of institutions that performed poorly on this issue and certain circles that reacted with nationalist and racist reflexes, we must also acknowledge the emergence of a significant and meaningful approach that exposed HTS and all the forces backing it. The negative atmosphere that initially prevailed has, to some extent, turned into a more positive one.
At the same time, there are, of course, institutions, individuals, and media outlets within both opposition and government circles that adopt an ultra-nationalist approach and oppose the process. These actors have ended up supporting HTS for the sake of eliminating Kurdish rights and status. Naturally, this has caused fractures within the Kurdish community, and this reality must also be recognized.
This attitude is not new. These circles have previously sought to assert themselves through policies hostile to Kurds and have consistently tried to obstruct every democratic step. The negativity they generate inevitably fuels anger, deepens fractures, and damages the climate of coexistence.”
The Kurdish people expect concrete steps, not words
Ibrahim Akın said, “They are also trying to organize this process in a way that amounts to an attack on both our paradigm of living together based on pluralism, multiple identities, and equal citizenship, and on the idea of Rojava itself. In the face of these attacks, it has become clear that the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) and the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) must take a much stronger stance.
Akın also said: “At this point, the Kurdish people expect concrete steps rather than words. They have no tolerance left for further stalling. They will not accept delays, evasions, or actions carried out only when convenient and according to others’ needs. Perhaps for the first time, the Kurdish people have shown a strong response at both international and national levels against attacks targeting their existence and rights. The idea of national unity among Kurds is higher than ever before. Everyone needs to recognize this reality and act with a genuine commitment to peace and fraternity.
In this chaotic period, there is no alternative but to expand and strengthen unified and common grounds of struggle. We will continue to do this together.”