ISTANBUL – Prof. Şebnem Oğuz said the social model in Rojava, where peoples live together as equal political subjects, is being targeted, stating: “Today, Rojava is not only defending itself, but the possibility of another way of life; the internationalist response to this must be of the same scope and depth.”

 

Attacks on North and East Syria by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), ISIS and Turkey-backed paramilitary groups are continuing. Despite three ceasefires declared during the attacks, HTS and ISIS, with Turkey’s air support, have continued assaults particularly on Kobanê and its surroundings. As international powers remain silent, Kurds have declared a mobilisation and are resisting. Support for Rojava continues from many parts of Kurdistan under the mobilisation, while calls to halt the attacks are also being voiced by various groups.

 

Prof. Şebnem Oğuz shared her assessments regarding the attacks carried out by HTS, ISIS and Turkey-backed paramilitary groups.

 

‘THE OUTCOME DIRECTLY OVERLAPS WITH TURKEY’S STRATEGY’

 

Stating that the attacks on Rojava are not only directed at Kurds but also at the political and social order that enables Arabs, Assyrians, Yazidis and all peoples in the region to live together, Şebnem Oğuz said:

 

“Coexistence in this region has been concretely built over the past decade through local councils, multilingual public spaces, women’s liberation institutions and communal relations. What is being targeted today is precisely this material and institutional foundation. Recent attacks by HTS-linked armed groups aim not to dismantle this system through direct front-line warfare, but to erode it through hybrid methods such as siege, infrastructure disruptions, centralisation under the pretext of security, and political disempowerment. The goal is to dismantle, one by one, the nodes that sustain self-administration, rendering it de facto unsustainable and hollowing out autonomy. The resulting situation directly overlaps with Turkey’s long-standing strategy of eliminating Kurdish gains. However, the target is not only Kurds, but the social model in which peoples can live together as equal political subjects.”

 

‘THE EXISTENCE OF PEOPLES CANNOT BE REDUCED TO CULTURAL RIGHTS’

 

Emphasising the importance of keeping channels of contact open to protect civilians and prevent greater destruction, Şebnem Oğuz said a form of enforced surrender was being imposed under the name of “integration.” She stated:

 

“The Rojava issue is not a technical security matter. It is a political and structural question concerning Syria’s future. The existence of Kurds and the peoples of North and East Syria cannot be resolved by reducing it to the level of cultural rights alone. A table at which local councils, women’s institutions, and capacities for self-administration and self-defence are not recognised will result in the hollowing out of autonomy. Therefore, the issue is not whether to return to the table, but what the table recognises. If the table imposes the centralisation of security and infrastructure and severs decision-making authority from the local level, then ceasefires become a time-extended form of hybrid warfare. The frequently violated ceasefires today serve exactly this function. A genuine solution is only possible by accepting a pluralistic and locally organised reconstruction without turning the debate over Syria’s territorial integrity into a tool for denying Rojava’s political existence.”

 

U.S.–HTS RELATIONSHIP

 

Referring to the 2014–2015 siege of Kobanê, Şebnem Oğuz said the United States acted as the principal power responsible for global capitalism at the time, noting:

 

“The relationship established with the Kurds was an instrumental cooperation aimed at containing the threat posed by ISIS to this global order. Today, however, the U.S. no longer assumes this role. Explaining this shift solely through Trumpism would be misleading; Trumpism is not the cause but the result. As the response to the capitalist crisis has changed, the perspective of managing global capitalism has been withdrawn. The production of consent and the pursuit of long-term stability have been replaced by accumulation through coercion and fragmented interventions. The U.S. is now acting not as an order-building power, but through an imperial strategy that shifts burdens. The relationship established with HTS is therefore not a classical alliance, but a temporary arrangement aimed at managing power vacuums on the ground at low cost and rendering them functional for capital.”

 

‘U.S.–HTS PROXIMITY POINTS TO A FRAGILE ORDER’

 

Saying that Rojava stands apart from the new imperial perspective, Şebnem Oğuz continued:

 

“A women’s liberationist and self-administrative structure requires not only military but also political and social engagement, which is seen as a burden for today’s U.S. The U.S. turn toward HTS does not stem from Kurdish weakness, but from the transformed nature of imperialism. Ultimately, U.S.–HTS proximity points to a centralised, security-oriented and capital-friendly, yet fragile order in Syria. Energy and trade routes, Israel’s security and the narrowing of Iran’s regional room for manoeuvre are at the core of this calculation. On a Middle Eastern scale, this picture shows that the U.S. has become a power that manages disorder rather than one that builds order.”

 

‘THE MOBILISATION IS SOCIAL AND POLITICAL’

 

Describing the attacks on Rojava as a moment of existence and non-existence, Şebnem Oğuz said:

 

“However, this is not an exact repetition of the 2014 siege of Kobanê. There are two fundamental differences. First, the content of the struggle has changed. In 2014, there was a single, clear enemy: ISIS. At that time, the issue was physical survival. Today, what is at stake is also whether a social revolution built over more than a decade can be preserved. For this reason, the mobilisation is not only military, but social and political. Second, the character of the attack is different. In 2014, the threat took the form of an open military siege. Today, the attack is multi-layered: military pressure, infrastructure cuts, forced displacement, housing and health crises, communication shutdowns, security provocations and attempts at institutional liquidation under the name of ‘integration’ are being carried out simultaneously. The issue is no longer only war, but the rendering of life itself unsustainable.”

 

‘SOCIAL MOBILISATION IS DECISIVE’

 

Emphasising that Rojava’s main strength lies in its social organisation, Şebnem Oğuz concluded:

 

“If the aim is to hollow out self-administration, the response cannot be solely military. A social mobilisation that strengthens institutions, everyday solidarity networks, women’s leadership and the continuity of local councils is decisive. Under these conditions, the form of revolutionary internationalism must also change. Against hybrid warfare, a multi-dimensional and sustained line of solidarity is needed in the fields of infrastructure, housing, health, communication and international public opinion. Today, Rojava is not only defending itself, but the possibility of another way of life; the internationalist response to this must be of the same scope and depth.”

 

MA / Uğurcan Boztaş