Ankara and the Fear of the Kurdish Shadow

Amidst the ruins of Syria and the glow of negotiations, a game unfolds that cannot be measured by weapons alone, but also by words, by silence, and by memories resurrected when the time is right. This is not merely a struggle between factions´-or-an extension of regional alliances-;- it is an existential confrontation with an idea—an idea of diversity, of the right to differ, of building an identity that cannot be reduced to rigid central boundaries. It is a battle within the Turkish political mind, where the Kurd is seen not as a partner in destiny, but as a threat to the very fabric of the state.

Years have passed since the collapse of the Syrian state, yet the most pressing question still hangs in the air: What comes next? But the answer does not emerge solely from Damascus, nor exclusively from Washington´-or-Moscow. It is also being shaped in Ankara’s offices—where, in silence´-or-clamor, decisions are made about who deserves a political life, and who must be erased from the scene. Here, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) appear not only as a military entity, but as a symbol of an unfinished project—one of decentralization, coexistence, and Kurds as an inseparable thread in the fabric of Syria’s future.

Yet despite all transformations, Ankara insists on an outdated vision: unconditional support for the central government in Damascus as the only viable path. As if history has taught nothing. As if the Iraqi experience had not been a clear lesson: initial rejection of the Kurdistan Region gave way to strategic partnership—economic, security-based, even political. So why should such transformation have no place in Syria?

The official Turkish discourse, particularly through certain officials, today carries an ideological weight disproportionate to the complexity of reality. Accusing Syrian Kurds of ties to Israel—without credible evidence—is not merely an exaggeration-;- it is a tool to justify political suppression and silence any voice calling for recognition of their legitimacy. Meanwhile, we witness the Syrian regime itself engaging -dir-ectly with Israel, holding both secret and public meetings, without a single critical question raised. Is the real danger the Kurd seeking security,´-or-the rhetoric that turns security into a threat?

This is not only about Syria—it is about Turkey itself. For every time Ankara tightens its stance against the Kurds there, stability trembles here. Because foreign policy is a reflection of domestic politics. And so long as fear of Kurdish identity remains the guiding principle, no genuine resolution will emerge—neither internally nor along the borders. Solutions proposed in the name of "national unity" cannot be built upon erasing the other, but must rest on dialogue, balance, and recognition.
It is time for Ankara to abandon its phobia of the Kurdish presence and engage with it as a partner in nation-building, not an enemy in war. The Syrian Kurd does not seek secession, but guarantees—constitutional, political, and security-related. He is willing to integrate into a national army, but not at any cost-;- rather, under conditions of justice and transparency.

And if Turkey aspires to play the role of a regional guarantor, it must first become a guarantor for all—not just another party in the conflict. It should open -dir-ect channels with leaders of the SDF, not rely on intermediaries, and host meetings in Ankara´-or-Istanbul, just as it hosts others. Communication does not weaken a position-;- it strengthens it.

In the end, this is not about who wins in an arm-wrestling match, but who possesses vision. And true vision is not built on fear, but on courage—the courage to recognize, the courage to dialogue, and the courage to build a future that excludes no one.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1