As the civil war had unfolded in Syria, the country’s government troops had to withdraw from the country’s northern regions populated by the Kurds to strengthen the defense of Damascus and some other strategic regions. Over the short period of time, the Kurds managed to organize rather efficient self-government and self-defense forces in their territories. Initially, the leaders of Syria’s Kurds tried to exercise the policy of non-involvement in the inter-Arab armed conflict and preserve their neutrality, and they were open to negotiations and communication with the central authorities and the opposition. Until recently, the parties to the Syrian conflict, however, have been ignoring the proposals of the Kurdish minority shutting the Kurds out of the Geneva talks despite the Kurds demonstrated the entire world their heroic struggle against the radical Islamist groups like the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra. Ultimately, the Kurds stood at the forefront of the struggle against the international terrorism. The Kurds had been keeping up a fierce fight against jihadists for months managing not only to protect their regions from terrorists, but also take control of 800 km of the 900-kilometer Syrian-Turkish border.

Today, Rojava (Western Kurdistan)—an autonomous district established in the northern Syria—is claiming the status of a constituent entity in the future Syrian state. The authorities of the autonomous district invite all local ethnic groups (the Arabs, the Assyrians, the Armenians, etc.) to cooperation, and take steps to revive the regional economy (the agriculture, oil production, trade, etc.), shape a local legal base and enhance the unity of their ranks.

While intra-party misunderstandings and the development of an ideological and policy platform remain, so to say, an intra-Kurdish problem, the relations of Rojava with the adjacent regions and Damascus have recently emerged as a problem of a primary significance. It is quite obvious that today the Syria’s Kurdish autonomy is forming in a hostile environment, and that its future depends on the ability of the regional leadership to overcome external isolation, which can easily transform into a blockade.

Turkey discriminates against the Kurds most aggressively. The Turkish authorities are making every effort to discredit the Kurdish national movement. For example, Turkey identifies the Democratic Union Party (PYD), the leading political force of the Syrian Kurds, allied with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (KWP), banned in Turkey and a number of other countries, and classifies both organizations as terroristic. Using it as an excuse, Ankara regularly delivers airstrikes against the neighboring Syrian territory inhabited by Kurds and shells it. On August 22-24, 2016, Turkish army and tanks pushed into the northern Syria in an attempt to create the so-called “buffer zone.” Though R.T. Erdogan declared that the operation’s official objective was the struggle against Isis (organization outlawed in Russia), in reality strikes were delivered against the Kurdish militiamen and the frontier towns. Engaging the pro-Turkish Syrian opposition (the Sunni and the Syrian Turkmen) Turkish army managed to establish a foothold in northern Syria separating the Kurdish cantons Afrin and Kobani.

The Kurds also have rocky relations with the external and internal Syrian oppositions and their field commanders. The latter have been pursuing the policy of double standards allying with the Kurds to counter jihadist attacks, while seeking to expand areas they control by invading the Kurdish territories (though they receive an adequate rebuff). So far, leaders of the Syrian opposition have not given the Kurds an explicit answer to the question of what fate the Kurdish minority will have in the future Syrian state. The oppositionists of all sorts debating the future of Syria in five-star hotels in Riyadh, Doha, Ankara, London, Paris and Washington remain faithful to the idea of Arab nationalism and follow their patron’s guidelines. Neither the Arab, nor Turkish, nor other foreign puppeteers pulling the strings of the Syrian opposition think that the rights and freedoms of the Kurdish minority in Syria need to be expanded. They all seem to hold that the best solution to the Kurdish problem is no solution. None of them is willing to establish the Kurds’ rights in the new country’s constitution.

Washington could, of course, put pressure on Ankara to cut the number of innocent victims and persuade the sponsors of the armed opposition to include the Syrian Kurds in the negotiating process and in the future Syrian state, but does not do that. Apparently, the US administration is quite happy with the pending status of the Kurds, whom the transoceanic partners are using to pursue their selfish goals in Syria and the region. Quite predictably, the Syrian Kurds became “a bargaining chip” in the big drama staged by Washington in the Middle East. The US and their western allies will continue supporting the Kurds until the Syrian fate is decided. In fact, Americans are quite explicit in their desire to see Kurds in the ranks of al-Assad’s opposition.

The objective of the Democratic Alliance with participation of Sunnis, Christians and Kurds (established with the support of the US at the end of 2015) is not so much to fight jihadists as to ensure that the Syrian government troops do not expand the area they control in the northern part of the country. At the end of 2015, the troops of the Democratic Alliance liberated the dam and the Tishrin hydropower plant on the Euphrates River from jihadist militants. By the beginning of 2017, they are planning to push Isis militants from Al-Raqqah. By taking these steps, Washington is basically implementing its “Plan B” on the division of Syria into separate Sunni, Kurdish, pro-Turkish, and Alawite enclaves.

Since the so-called “moderate” opposition and its out-of-the-country sponsors are not looking to resolve the Kurdish issue in Syria taking into account vital interests of the Kurds, some Kurdish leaders are seriously deliberating the possibility of re-establishing the ties with Damascus. Today, Damascus is ultimately the only legitimate authority in Syria unlike different “opposition groups” supported by various foreign patrons and unable to come to an agreement with each other.

Undoubtedly, the reaction of the central authorities to such a move of the Kurdish leaders would make a big difference.

It seems that Russia could use this opportunity of mediating a dialog between the Kurds and the government of Bashar al Assad. Besides, today the Kurds cherish modest hopes: to have a guaranteed autonomy and equal rights with the Arab majority. The Iraqi Kurds have already been granted similar rights. The leaders of Rojava stress that they are neither separatists nor nationalists. They do not want to fight against Arabs and would be happy to be a part of the future Syrian state.

It appears that improvement in the relations between the Syrian Kurds and the central Syrian government could reduce the overall hostility and confrontation in this country. It would also seriously upset the plans of those making profit of the ethnic and religious tensions. Unlike the Syrian opposition, which is split into dozens of internal and external organizations and groups unable to reach a consensus, the Syrian Kurds have only two main political parties (PYD and Kurdish National Council), which makes it much easier to come to an agreement with them.

Stanislav Ivanov, leading research fellow of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IWEIR) and  the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, PhD, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

On September 17, 2016, air force of the US-led western coalition bombed Syrian army positions near the town of Deir ez-Zor along the Syrian-Iraqi border region. Four combat F-16 and A-10 aircraft carried out the air raid, in direct violation of the latest fragile cease-fire agreement between Damascus and the armed opposition. The aerial assault claimed the lives of 62 Syrian soldiers, leaving some 100 soldiers and civilians injured. The US Defense Department said that a “miscalculation” was to be blamed for the tragedy. The Pentagon also alleged that he Americans had been sure that they were launching strikes against ISIS forces (a terrorist organization outlawed in Russia).

However, one does not have to be a military expert to be skeptical of Washington’s version of the story. This is considering the fact that the US Air Force possess advanced reconnaissance systems, and that there had been no reports of the relocation of either the Syrian government troops or ISIS militants in this area prior to the attack. In addition, the trench warfare and the siege of the Syrian garrison and airfield in Deir ez-Zor have been going on for a couple of years. All this means that the probability of making an error when calculating targets should have been close to zero. In fact, this “error” resembles a deliberate provocation by Washington that is devised to resolve a range of military and political problems to the advantage of the US and its allies.

To start with, the US administration would be greatly satisfied if the Syrian peace process comes to a halt. This is because they strongly disagree with the prospects of Bashar al Assad remaining in power, participating in the activities of the transitional government and, subsequently, taking part in the restoration of the Syrian state.

Secondly, it would also be in the US interests for the government troops deployed in Deir ez-Zor to become emasculated. If that happens, the Americans will maintain control over the ISIS-infested area along the Syrian-Iraqi border, where ISIS militants are expected to soon be replaced by the forces of the so-called “moderate opposition.”

The third reason why the US launched an airstrike on September 17 was to make sure that Syria remains split into several enclaves, and that the country’s central government in Damascus, which controls the regions densely populated by Alawite Arabs, would be securely isolated from the rest of the country.

Fourthly, by launching an assault, Americans were trying to divert public attention from the real crisis spot of the Syrian conflict and the humanitarian disaster in Aleppo and the adjacent areas.

This is not the first act of state terrorism committed by Washington against Syrian government troops. Previously, the US Air Force and their allies had “erroneously” bombed Syrian military and civilian facilities, killing military personnel and civilians and destroying the country’s infrastructure. It is precisely due to such “mistakes” that today, the majority of Syrian towns are lying in ruins.

US allies in the region – Saudi Arabia and Turkey, were quick to adopt the unruly behavior of their “big brother” and senior NATO bloc partner. For example, Riyadh was not too scrupulous either when it inflicted airstrikes against the long-suffering Yemen. On August 22-24, 2016, Ankara grossly violated Syrian sovereignty by bombing and shelling the neighboring Syrian territories and ordering its armored and mechanized troops to cross the border of this sovereign state. Later, Turkish authorities invented a cover story stating that Recep Erdogan had endorsed the operation, as he had allegedly made up his mind to join the struggle against radical ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra Islamist groups (the US air forces used the same pretense when it launched its airstrikes against Deir ez-Zor). In reality, these areas had already been cleared of Islamists by the Kurdish militia, and the Turkish military machine was ultimately targeting the Syrian Kurds, who had been courageously fighting the jihadists for several years.

In justifying their aggression against the Syrian Kurds, Turkish authorities stress that the latter sympathize with the struggle of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (KWP) for their rights and freedoms. While labeling the Kurds from the neighboring country as terrorists, Turkish president Erdogan continues a punitive operation against the Turkish Kurds, while using intelligence agencies and Turkish Islamist groups as mediators in his negotiations with Syria and Iraqi-based jihadists. Even to this day, Turkey remains a transit corridor and conduit for radical Islamists looking to infiltrate Europe. In the course of his recent visit to Turkey, Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, Valeriy Gerasimov, warned his Turkish counterpart that the country’s armed forces are conducting illegitimate activities in Syria. He also stressed that Ankara would put itself at risk of military and political backlashes if it fails to cease the Euphrates Shield military campaign, or if it continues expanding its geography.

As can be seen from the above, it could be concluded that Washington, Riyadh and Ankara are using the “struggle against global terrorism” as an excuse to attain their selfish strategical and tactical objectives in the region. The allies are looking to either topple Bashar al Asad’s regime in Syria, or drive it into isolation. They are also pursuing other goals, the main among them being to neutralize the influence of Iran in Shia communities of Arab countries and suppress the Kurdish national movement in Turkey and Syria. And the administration headed by Barack Obama, a Noble Peace Prize winner and ‘peace advocate’, is setting the tone for this aggressive quest.

Stanislav Ivanov, a leading research fellow at IMEMO and the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Candidate of Historical Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

The US administration still relies on the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as the most organized, in its opinion, opposition force on the ground. At the same time, Washington is trying to enlist in its ranks as many smaller anti-government groups as it possibly can, including Turkomans, the Muslim Brotherhood and all sorts of the so-called “moderate Islamists”.

The recent success of the government forces in the fight against Islamists in the the Aleppo area along with the victories scored by the Kurdish militias near the towns of Manbij and Jarabulus raised concerns in Washington and provoked a veritable panic in Ankara. There was a real threat that Turkish authorities would lose control over a sixty miles long strip of the Turkish-Syrian border, stretching from Jarabulus to Azaz, that until recently was used by Turkey to provide assistance to a number of anti-government groups, including ISIS. This made Tayyip Erdogan suspicious that the two Kurdish communities in Afrin and Kobani may secure an autonomy along with the northern Syrian region of Rojava, thereby blocking the Syrian-Turkish border. This development could strengthen the positions of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Turkey, which is being regarded by both Ankara and Washington as a terrorist organization.

The recent failed military coup in Turkey has not just allowed Erdogan to launch a crackdown on all forms of internal dissent, but also allowed him to make decisive steps in the strengthening of Ankara’s positions in the border areas with Syria. Under the pretext of intensifying the fight against ISIS, Turkish Air Force on August 22 launched air strikes against the positions of Kurdish militias along the Syrian border. Two days later Turkey’s armed forces entered the town of Jarabulus. By that time the better part of ISIS militants has already fled the town, unable to resist the pressure of the Peshmerga units, but there’s possibly still that the terrorists reached an agreement with the Turkish authorities and left their positions to relocate to the south and east. Therefore, Turkish troops didn’t meet any Islamist resistance, however Kurdish militias didn’t take this intervention so lightly, since they were subjected to bombing and shelling and a number of Kurdish settlements was destroyed.

Judging by Washington’s response to this operation, one may safely assume that it was discussed and approved by the White House beforehand. The Pentagon has even tried to create some sort of a demarcation line between the Kurds and the Turkish army in order to avoid large-scale clashes between them, since the former have been considered US allies in the region.

To no surprise, Damascus described Turkey’s invasion as a violation of Syria’s state sovereignty. The Russian Foreign Ministry has also recommended Turkey to consult Syrian authorities before taking any steps in the Syrian conflict. But Ankara preferred to ignore those statements and carry on its military operation, which is widely believed to be s part of the practical implementation of the American plan B on Syria. A sixty mile long section of the Turkish-Syrian border is now in control of the Turkish troops that have been deployed 25 miles deep in Syria’s territory. This area is to be controlled now by the above describe pro-Turkish opposition groups. The Turkish expeditionary corps has brought around 1,500 Syrian fighters along with it, that were trained by American and Turkish instructors in military camps on the territory of Turkey. Thus, on top of the already existing and potentially neutral Kurdish enclaves in the north of Syria, we’ve witnessed the creation of a pro-Turkish enclave.

The US is trying to establish communication between these enclaves and all opposition groups, in particular, between the troops of the Free Syrian Army, Turkomans and Kurdish troops. At the beginning of 2016, Washington managed to bring together a so-called Democratic Alliance in the areas of Kobani, Al-Hasakah, Al-Qamishli that managed to recapture a number of town with the extensive amount of support from the US Air Force and Special Forces, along with taking the strategically important dam on the Euphrates River, which supplied electricity to the city and the province of Aleppo.

Obviously, Washington and its regional allies are beginning to realize the futility of any attempts to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad with the help of radical Islamists. Therefore it is possible that Islamists will be pushed out of Syria and Iraq till the end of this year, with the cities of Mosul and Raqqa being finally liberated. In this situation, it can be expected that a part of the radical Islamists will try to pretend to be “moderate” in a bid to carry on their operations. For example, it has recently been declared that a major ISIS competitor, the well-known terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra has been transformed in Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. Allegedly, the new group has already broken all ties with the Al-Qaeda and is now “moderate”. Obviously, Kerry and Lavrov will have a hard time negotiating the list of terrorist groups.

The essence of the American plan B for Syria is the distribution of its regions into enclaves and the consequent isolation of the central authorities. While Bashar Assad remains in power, Washington and its allies will be promoting separatist sentiments across Syria to sabotage any attempts to transfer the Syrian conflict into the peaceful reconciliation process.

Stanislav Ivanov, a leading research fellow at IMEMO and the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Candidate of Historical Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

The roots and causes of the collapse of this practically failed state, lie back in distant 1921, when the United Kingdom mandated by the League of Nations created Iraq on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Three, Ottoman provinces (Basra, Baghdad and Mosul), previously independent of each other, were forcibly and artificially conflated into Iraq. The first decades of this country were characterized by the dominance of Sunni Arabs, since it was them who the British administration relied on in their policies. Naturally, the interests of the Shiite Arabs, Kurds and other ethnic and religious minorities were ignored by Baghdad in every way, and during the rule of the Baath regime large-scale punitive and military operations with elements of genocide (the use of chemical weapons in Halabdzha, 1988) were carried out against them.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 gave some hope for the equalization of rights among all the groups of the Iraqi population, but this period was short-lived. Even during the country’s occupation by US troops and their allies (2003-2011) representatives of the Arab-Shiite majority in power launched an extensive purge of Sunni Arabs. The formal pretext for these actions was the widely publicized ‘De-Baathing’ campaign within the country, when first it was supporters of Saddam Hussein who were subjected to repression, then the Baath Party functionaries, senior officials of the state apparatus and the security forces. However, subsequently, judicial and extrajudicial persecution spread to tens of thousands of Sunni Arabs from the middle and lower ranks of the army, police, intelligence services, officials of municipalities, etc. Many Sunnis and their families were forced to emigrate, some went underground and fought the occupation and the central authorities with weapons or using terror. Sunni Arabs who officially received positions in the state apparatus and new seats in Parliament mostly abandoned them. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi fled abroad and was sentenced to death in absentia. Sunnis’ protests and demonstrations were dispersed by the police and the military. Uprisings were suppressed with the help of the US occupation forces, the most prominent of those was suppressed with heavy losses on both sides in El-Fallujah in 2004. It was precisely during this period, in the so-called “Sunni Triangle”, when the Islamic State (Daesh) was created on the basis of one of the cells of Al-Qaeda; the country saw a breakout of a major terrorist war. The Sunni terror was returned with terrorist attacks by Shiite “death squads”: the Sunni mosques were bombed and the Sunni activists killed.

Despite the fact that the Kurds were not openly persecuted by the central authorities, and even formally received the status of a federal unit in the new Iraqi state, Baghdad nonetheless failed to deliver on most of its obligations to them (article 140 of the constitution on the “disputed territories”, the adoption of a new law on hydrocarbons, supplies for Kurdish brigades “Peshmerga”, etc.). The 17% of the state budget assigned by the federal law for the development of the Kurdish region, was chronically underpaid. During the invasion of Daesh combatants from Syria, the Iraqi regular army hastily put together by American instructors fled, abandoning modern types of heavy weapons and military equipment on the battlefields and in warehouses. Kurdish militias had to defend their areas of compact residence in the unequal battles on their own, only relying on air support from Air Force of the international coalition led by the United States. Thus, the Kurds’ hopes for a government in Baghdad that would treat them fairly and for peaceful coexistence with the Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs were not justified. Amidst the actual breakdown of the country into warring enclaves and the ongoing Shiite-Sunni civil war, President of Iraqi Kurdistan Massoud Barzani was compelled to initiate a regional referendum on the independence of the Iraqi Kurds. It is expected that it may take place before the end of 2016.

It should be noted that the country has not yet recovered from the effects of the previous war in 2003. Ineffective economic policies of the Maliki and Abadi governments and the high level of corruption in the upper echelons of power have left a significant part of the population of one of the richest countries in the world in terms of oil export revenues below the poverty line. Interruptions in the electricity and drinking water supplies, the severe shortage of housing, schools, hospitals – all this has become a typical phenomenon for Iraq. The fall in world oil prices and the creation of the Islamic caliphate on a third of the Iraqi territory exacerbated existing financial and economic difficulties. Long due government and economic reforms, and the recovery of the regular army anticipated by the Iraqi people have been unduly delayed. The possibility of liberation of the strategically important Mosul from Daesh militants remains in doubt. The recent clashes in northern Iraq between the Shiite militia troops and Kurdish “Peshmerga” demonstrated a lack of a united front against Daesh in the country. In these circumstances, even the main partners of the Baghdad regime in Washington and Tehran are in no hurry to invest in its salvation. Representatives of the US administration openly say that the precondition for emergency financial and military aid to Baghdad is its ability to build relationships with its Arab-Sunni minority and to form an effective coalition government.

In the continuing crisis phenomena and the paralysis of the central government, protests have started growing even among Shiite Arabs. Reuters reported that, on April 30, 2016 hundreds of supporters of the influential Shiite religious leader Muqtada al-Sadr broke into the heavily guarded government “green zone” in Baghdad and entered the parliament building. They demanded an immediate change of government and the dissolution of parliament. M. al-Sadr offered his candidates for key positions in the new government. To leave the authorities in no doubt about the seriousness of the opposition’s intentions, the radical Shiite leaders have mobilized over 200 thousand of their supporters in the seven provinces of the country and brought them to the capital. The government crisis in Iraq was accompanied by a new series of attacks in Baghdad, the responsibility for which was claimed by Daesh.

Thus, the post-Saddam period has proven no less dramatic and bloody in the political life of Iraq, than the previous period under the rule of the Baathist regime. Experts have a reason to believe that even if Daesh militants are ousted from the country, the resistance of the population of Sunni provinces to the central government will, in all likelihood, continue. Baghdad is unlikely to succeed in restoring loyalty of the Sunni provinces using force. The divide in the Arab-Shiite bloc could also grow. And the leaders of the Iraqi Kurds, having held a regional referendum and having gained the support of their people, are now able to begin to implement the people’s will. The result of such a referendum is quite predictable, since the vast majority of the Kurds vouch in favor of self-determination in the form of an independent state at the level of the age-old dream and the national idea.

Because of the sectarian politics of the Arab-Shiite elite in power and its high level of corruption, most of Iraq has once again plunged into an atmosphere of chaos and terror. The situation is aggravated by active foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the country: Tehran supports radical Shiite groups and the Shiite militia, and Riyadh, Doha and Ankara – the Arab-Sunni Islamist and military-political groups. Washington does not forget its Iraqi protégé either. So, on April 28 US Vice President Joseph Biden was urgently flown to Baghdad. Over the past two weeks Iraq has been visited by the Secretary of State, John Kerry, head of Pentagon Ashton Carter, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford. The US Consul General in Basra, visited the wounded Shiite militiamen in the local hospital, where he said that “victory over the Daesh terrorists is inevitable due to two factors – the valor of the Iraqi army and Shiite militias, as well as the support of the United States”. The reliance of Americans on the loyalty of Shiites was not justified: al-Sadr called the US consulate “hostile to Islam”, the consul – a “terrorist” and his visit – “an evil attempt to get on the bandwagon of the holy war”. The Shiite leader stressed that Washington creates and uses terrorist groups in the interests of world domination, and cautioned the US against further intervention in Iraqi affairs

Stanislav Ivanov, a leading research fellow at IMEMO and the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Candidate of Historical Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.

It was quite predictable that temporary truce between the government troops and armed opposition would not stop the war with radical Islamist organizations like Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra and others. A fierce fighting for the strategically important Aleppo and for the control over the Syrian-Turkish border continues, while military is planning operations on liberation of Raqqa and other cities controlled by jihadists.

The Kurdish People’s Protection Units, which successfully countered jihadists in Kurdish enclaves in the north and liberated a score of adjacent Arab territories, are also participating in the struggle against Islamists. Despite Turkey’s continued artillery bombardments and military provocations, the Kurds managed to regain control over a 700 km of 800 km stretch of the Syrian-Turkish border hindering the transport connection between Turkey and the Islamic Caliphate.

Now that the Kurds were not invited to participate in the Geneva peace talks on Syria, and neither Damascus nor the opposition guarantees the Kurds equal rights and freedoms with the Arabs, the Kurds are compelled to reinforce their self-defense troops and build their own system of regional and municipal government.

In terms of quantity, Syrian Kurds are the second largest ethnic group in Syria (with the Arabs being number one). Prior to the civil war, about 3 million Kurds lived in the country (over 10% of the country’s population). Historically, the Syrian Kurds were mainly settling in three enclaves in the northern parts of the country along the Syrian-Turkish border, close to the Iraqi border, but there are also Kurdish communities in Aleppo, Damascus and other Syrian towns. During the 2011-2016 civil war, the Kurdish population shrank to 2.5 mln, as many Kurds were forced to flee from the country. Several thousands of Kurds died in the combat operations against militants of the Islamic State (Daesh), Jabhat al-Nusra and other Islamist groups. Majority of Syrian Kurds were fleeing to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraqi Kurdistan, where they received shelter in refugee camps. Several thousands of Kurds managed to emigrate to the EU.

As for their religious believes, vast majority of the Syrian Kurds (about 70%) are Sunni Muslims, about 20% are Shiites, approximately one percent are Yazidis and a small fraction of Kurds are Christians. The Syrian Kurds predominantly speak the Kurmanji dialect. The Syrian Kurds, like the Kurds living in other countries, are known for their ethnic and religious tolerance. They support benevolent relations with all ethnic and religious groups living in Syria and in the neighboring countries.

Although at the inception of the “Arab Spring” in 2011, the Kurds were actively protesting the regime of Bashar al Assad and were even persecuted by the central authorities, later they reconsidered their position avoiding participation in the civil war and maintaining neutrality. They chose not to fight on the side of the government or the armed opposition. The Kurds did not support or sympathize with the radical Islamist groups either. On the other hand, the Kurds were willing to participate in the forums and negotiations deciding the structure of the future Syrian state.

Leaders of the Syrian Kurds repeatedly stressed that they were not seeking independence and were willing to remain a part of the Syrian state as long as their rights and freedoms would be spelled out in the new Syrian constitution. By that, they meant the establishment of an autonomous Kurdish region or inclusion of the Syrian Kurdistan in the composition of the future Syrian state as a constituent entity. They also implied the right to represent the Kurds in the central government on the pro rata basis as well as for the Kurdish language to acquire the status of the second state language or the language of regional communication, etc. Because the Kurds maintained neutrality during the civil war, they were allowed to create civil society institutions and bodies of local government back in the summer of 2012, after the government troops were pulled out of the Kurdish enclaves. The People’s Council of West Kurdistan was formed from representatives of cities and districts of the Syrian Kurdistan that had proclaimed self-governing. This body tasked itself with the drafting and approval of new regional laws. Among the first laws adopted by the new authorities was the law prohibiting discrimination based on nationality, language, gender, religion or social class. The People’s Council of West Kurdistan also passed laws regulating family relations, prohibiting forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, payments of bride price, etc. A new law of inheritance stipulating equal rights for male and female heirs was also passed.

There were some changes introduced in the security domain as well: the People’s Protection Units handed their public safety and protection of law authorities to a new body, the Asayish (a cross of police and special service forces). The Kurds started forming village, district and city councils charged with bringing the local public life to order. A program of elementary general education in Kurdish language was approved, and teachers are now in training. The Kurdish culture and art are now being actively developed.

By the end of 2012, when the military and political situation was still tough, the Kurds managed to create rather effective regulatory bodies and People’s Protection Units with participation of all ethnic and religious groups present in the region (the Arabs, the Armenians, the Turkomans, the Assyrians, the Circassians, the Yazidis, etc.). Volunteers of Turkish, Iraqi and Iran descent as well as Kurdish women and youth under 18 have fought in the ranks of the Kurdish militia. When jihadists besieged the city of Kobani, several peshmerga brigades came to the rescue of their fellow tribesmen from the Iraqi Kurdistan.

On March 17, 2016, the creation of Rojava (which means “West” in Kurdish)—the Federation of Northern Syria—was proclaimed at the convention held in Rumeila (Syria’s Al-Hasakah province) by over 30 political parties representing districts of the Syrian north. More than 200 delegates were present at the forum held under the motto “Democratic Federal Syria is a guarantee of coexistence and brotherhood of peoples.” Leaders of the Kurds emphasize that the system of federal administration will be introduced only in the regions controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD). They also stress that the regional authorities will assert the interests of all the ethnic and religious groups present in the self-governing districts. Rojava authorities will manage economic, defense and security issues. According to the determinations of the convention, the region will soon hold elections for the Constituent Assembly. The federation will be governed by the Supreme Council.

Official Damascus did not recognize the Federation of Northern Syria as valid. The Syrian Foreign Ministry said that the government “warns against any attempts to undermine Syria’s unity and territorial integrity, no matter what names such attempts might be disguised under.” The Syrian opposition did not support the creation of the Kurdistan region either. In fact, Turkey in general opposes introduction of new territorial and administrative arrangements in Syria.

However, despite open rejection of federalism in Syria, ongoing attacks and the threats of the Turkish authorities and attempts of radical Islamists to invade the Kurdish enclaves, an autonomous administrative district – Rojava—was set up in the Syrian northern and northeastern regions. Rojava, also known as Western Kurdistan, is divided into three administrative districts (cantons): Jazira, Kobani and Afrin separated from each other by predominantly Arab lands.

The regime of democratic self-governing introduced in the Kurdish regions of Syria was both a protective measure and an ideological response to radical Islamists striving to invade the Kurdish enclaves in the circumstances when Damascus and the Syrian opposition kept ignoring the interests of millions of Kurds. It seems that the Kurds set a good example that can be used for peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict and reconciliation of major confessional groups (Sunnis and Alawites).

From the very beginning, Russia supported equitable participation of the Kurds in the Syrian peace talks in Geneva. Opening of a representation of the Syrian Kurdistan (the Democratic Union Party) in Moscow in February of 2016 facilitated a direct communication of the Syrian Kurds with the Russian state as well as its public organizations, parties, mass media, scientific community, Kurd communities in the Russian Federation and the countries of the CIS. It also serves as a channel providing the first-hand information about the situation in the northern Syria. The first Rojava representation abroad was opened in Iraqi Kurdistan, in 2015. It is on the short-term agenda to open representative offices in Prague, Washington, London, Berlin and the capitals of some Arab countries.

It seems that it would be in the interest of the current Syrian authorities and opposition to support the Kurds and the Rojava population, as a whole, in their striving for peace and order in the region, and include the concept of federalism in the future Syrian constitution. In doing so, the government would prevent new conflicts and blood shedding in the multiethnic and multiconfessional Syria, promoting unification of the Syrian peoples in their struggle against the common evil—radical Islamist forces. This could also be a solution facilitating preservation of the Syrian state in its current borders.

Stanislav Ivanov, leading research fellow of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IWEIR) and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, PhD, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” 

Slumping of Turkey’s international reputation does not seem to sober Erdogan as he continues an active intervention in the Syrian conflict, supporting radical nationalist and Islamist groups in the country and abroad and fights an undeclared war against Kurdish population of Turkey. The leading world powers—the US and Russia—identified Turkey as a country in a high-risk terrorism status, advising their citizens to refrain from traveling to this country. Washington even had to evacuate members of the families of American diplomats and soldiers stationed in Turkey. A formal warning says that southeastern provinces of Turkey (where Turkey continues punitive operations against the Kurds) as well as regions bordering on Syria are the areas with the highest risk.

Leadership of the European Union frightened by a large influx of new migrants entering the Schengen Area and brutal acts of terrorism that struck France and Belgium had to make a deal with Erdogan. They promised to provide Ankara with a considerable financial aid to support migrants living in the refugee camps in Turkey provided that all illegal immigrants residing in Europe would return back. Once all illegal migrants leave the EU, it will officially admit Syrian refugees in the number equal to the number of deported illegal migrants. At first, experts thought of the deal as of something disadvantageous in terms of its implementation and benefit for Europe. Most of them regarded it as a mere Brussels’ concession to Erdogan’s provocations and threats.

Today it is evident that Ankara’s direct interference in the Syrian civil war is among the major causes of mass exodus of Syrians from their country. Erdogan continues supporting armed opposition, radical Islamist groups like Daesh, Jabhat al-Nusra and armed gangs of Syrian Turkmen. The facts that Turkey supplies armaments, ammunition, explosives, uniforms, military equipment, food, medicines and transfers new militants-jihadists from Turkey to Syria, that Turkish citizens and power structures directly participate in combat operations in the northern Syria, that Turkish middlemen buy smuggled oil and museum artifacts from militants, and that Turkey has other relations and contacts with international terrorists are well-known and acknowledged by everybody, except Erdogan himself. Some time ago, representatives of Turkish security forces and Turkish journalists released some revealing evidence and were subjected to a persecution. In May 2015, American special forces destroyed Daesh ‘finance minister’ Abu Saleh and found evidence that Turkish intelligence agency MIT supported illicit transactions between Daesh and Turkish companies. Just recently reporters of the New Russia Today agency also released documents found in the city of al-Shaddadah freed from Islamists attesting that Turkish authorities and private individuals had traded oil and other commodities with terrorists. Documents include photos of militants taken first in Istanbul and then (of the same individuals, but holding weapons) in Syria. Captured militants confirmed close ties between Turkish authorities and Daesh. They claimed that Ankara was still cherishing hopes of derailing the Syrian peace talks, overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad and suppressing the national movement of the Syrian Kurds with help of Daesh and similar groups.

Erdogan masterfully exploits the problem of refugees and illegal migrants—the problem that surfaced not without his input. Millions of peaceful Syrian citizens were forced to flee for life to the neighboring countries (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq) throughout the years of the civil unrest. Some of them later relocating from Turkey to Europe. Unlike other countries (for example, Lebanon—a small country with a population of 4.4 ml people that gave refuge to nearly 1.5 million Syrians), Turkey, a much larger country with a population of over 77 million people that provided shelter to only about 2.5 million Syrian refugees, immediately demanded from Brussels an urgent financial aid. Apparently, Turkish leadership is intending to keep wheedling big money out of Brussels threatening it to remove barriers restricting the flow of migrants infiltrated with Daesh militants. It was no accident that in January 2016, at a private meeting with American politicians dedicated to the problems of international security, King of Jordan Abdullah II (former Turkish ally) harshly criticized Ankara for contributing to the infiltration of terrorists to Europe and promoting the “radical Islam solution” for the Middle East.

It is also the case that only about 75% of refugees currently staying in Turkey live in the refugee camps. The rest of them are spread through the country’s territory, and usually live in poverty on the outskirts of Turkish towns.

As is known, Washington and Brussels initially declined Erdogan’s idea to create a buffer zone along the borderline with Syria where Turkish authorities could supervise the establishment of new refugee and displaced persons camps. The reason being—a significant portion of the Syrian-Turkish border is already controlled by the Syrian Kurds who proved to be a main military force opposing Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra in these areas. As it turned out, however, the US was not interested in curbing the Kurd national movement in Syria because it deems the Kurds as its prospective ally in the future Syria. Stepping in the military actions of the Russian aerospace forces totally upset Erdogan’s plans to occupy at least a part of the Syrian territory. Nevertheless, Turkey launched a construction of several refugee camps with the total capacity of approximately 35 thousand people along the Turkish-Syrian border (on the 98-km-long section of the total 800+ km border) it still controlled, intending the camps predominantly for the refugees from Aleppo and the neighboring areas. This is how Turkish authorities are intending to cope with the new wave of refugees accumulated on the Syrian border. Director of Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia program John Dalhuisen report the facts of mass forced deportation of refugees from Turkey back to Syria. He said that in his opinion, it emphasizes “significant deficiencies in the previously reached agreement between Turkey and the EU.” The British newspaper The Times reported with reference to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that Turkish border patrol had repeatedly used firearms against Syrian refugees. At least 16 migrants, including children, attempting to cross Syrian-Turkish border, were killed in the last four months.

Illegal migration of refugees from Syria and other countries via Turkey to Europe turned into one more branch of lucrative local shady business engaging Turkish authorities of various levels. At an earlier stage, they had developed and honed delivery routes and techniques for illegal trade in oil, drugs, armaments, ammunition, museum artifacts, and human organs. They developed and perfected a scheme of transfer of jihadists from other countries to Syria and Iraq “expanding” their “transfer program” with stops for rest and rehabilitation in Turkish medical facilities.

Under Erdogan’s rule, Turkey is gradually turning into a criminal state threatening the security of not only Europe, but of the entire world community. In addition, by either initiating or supporting the conception and development of extreme nationalist and Islamist groups like the Gray Wolves, the Lions of Allah, Kurdistan Freedom Hawks, the Grandsons of Saladin and dozens of other dangerous radical organizations, Turkish authorities are pumping up the level of terrorist threat in the country. An official statement released by the Foreign Ministry of Russia reflects the overall deteriorating situation in Turkey: “It must be acknowledged that it is unsafe to stay in Turkey at the moment as the situation in this country is indeed very tense. Since the beginning of this year, four major acts of terrorism were committed there. A bloody armed standoff between the government forces and the Kurds is continuing in the country’s southeast. Alarming reports are coming in from the Turkish-Syrian border.”

Stanislav Ivanov, leading research fellow of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IWEIR) and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, PhD, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” 

The breakdown of Turkey’s aggressive plans directed against Syria, Ankara’s fault in the strong aggravation of the Russian-Turkish relations, the complication of Turkey’s domestic security issues and its emerging isolation in the international arena, are forcing Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to seek new allies and partners in the region.

Thus, at the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, Turkey significantly increased its political, military and military and technical cooperation with Riyadh, Doha, Kiev, Tbilisi and Baku.

Turkish President Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu have both made urgent visits by way of ‘shuttle diplomacy’ and signed a number of new agreements with the aforesaid countries, including, in particular, on establishing mutual military bases in their own country and in their partners’ countries.

Simultaneously, special attention was paid to Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and contacts.

As it is well known, “The Agreement on Strategic Partnership and Mutual Support” between Azerbaijan and Turkey, concluded back in 2010, serves as the legal basis for bilateral cooperation between Ankara and Baku.

In accordance with it, Azerbaijan has purchased various artillery rocket systems, armoured vehicles and other heavy weaponry in Turkey for its armed forces; and the joint production of a range of the aforementioned military equipment has been established.

These include:

107 and 122 mm multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), Kasirga large-caliber 300-mm MLRS T-300 (a licensed version of the Chinese WS-1B system with a maximum firing range of up to 100 km) and more than 100 armoured personnel carriers and Cobra armoured vehicles produced by the Turkish company Otokar.

It is planned to deliver the TASMUS tactical area communications system, produced by Aselsan, and 2 batalions (36 SP howitzers) of Firtina 155 mm self-propelled howitzers (a licensed version of the South Korean self-propelled howitzers) and some other modern types of weapons and military equipment made in Turkey.

With Turkey’s help, Azerbaijan hopes to acquire night vision systems, radio and electronic sensor systems, radars, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, etc. It may be noted that, in general, Turkish-Azerbaijani military and military and technical cooperation has been steadily growing and already covers the following areas:

- Delivery of Turkish and NATO weapons and the establishment of the joint production of them with Baku;

- Training of Azerbaijani military personnel with the participation of Turkish advisers and trainers on site, as well as training in military academies and training centres in Turkey;

- The advisory participation of Turkish high-ranking officers in activities of the General Staff and the Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan;

- Acquisition and joint analysis of intelligence data;

- Joint exercises and manoeuvres of all branches of the armed forces (Army, Navy and Air Forces);

- Promotion of structural change and upgrading of the Azerbaijani army according to NATO standards.

In the period of March 7-25, 2016, joint Turkish-Azerbaijani planned exercises were held at the airbase in the Turkish city of Konya, in which 3 combat aircraft MiG-29, 3 combat aircraft Su-25 and 3 military transport aircraft IL-76 of Azerbaijani Air Force took part.

These were the second joint exercises of this kind, held by the two countries.

In 2015, Turkish and Azerbaijani soldiers held both land and air military exercises.

Ankara has repeatedly stated that “Turkish-Azerbaijani brotherhood continues to develop in line with:

one nation – two states”.

In fact, this slogan means that Erdoğan is going to draw Azerbaijan, other Turkic-speaking, Muslim and other States once a part of the Ottoman Empire into the circle of his political and military influence.

His compulsive idea is to revive the Ottoman Empire on a new basis:

with the help of Pan-Turkism slogans, Salafi-Sunni Islam, and trade and economic, cultural and other ties.

One of the most important areas of cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan is the design and construction of newer and newer strategic communications (oil and gas pipelines, roads and railways), i.e., revival of the so-called ‘Silk Road’ Beijing – London, bypassing Russia.

In contacts with representatives of Baku the Turkish leadership strongly emphasizes the need to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based on the principle of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, even including the use of military force.

At the same time Ankara ignores the absolutely equivalent principle of international law of ‘the right of nations (peoples) to self-determination’.

The Turkish authorities have repeatedly expressed their willingness to support the side of Azerbaijan in this regional conflict.

Erdoğan, with his provocative statements, in fact, pushes and provokes Ilham Heydar oghlu Aliyev to new acts of aggression against the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and Armenia.

It was no coincidence that, overnight on April 2, 2016 the Azerbaijani armed forces again undertook a massive bombardment and launched an offensive on the position of Nagorno Karabakh rebels and Armenia’s military forces.

According to reports from Baku, Azerbaijani troops allegedly managed to capture several strategic passes and ‘liberate’ a number of settlements.

There were reports of dozens of dead and wounded on both sides.

Members of the OSCE Minsk Group, the CSTO secretariat, Russia and other concerned countries have launched an appeal to all parties to the conflict to immediately cease fire and reinstate compliance with the ceasefire in accordance with the Bishkek Protocol of 1994.

On the matter Erdoğan announced the following:

“We pray our Azerbaijani brothers will prevail in these clashes with a minimum of casualties.

We will support Azerbaijan to the very end”.

Thus, adventurism, aggression, provocation, blackmail, close ties with radical Islamist groups, international terrorists and criminals are increasingly the main components of Turkey’s current domestic and foreign policy.

Erdoğan’s imperial ambitions do not only create the preconditions for Turkey’s further isolation in the international arena, but also for the aggravation of the situation in the Turkish Republic itself and the region as a whole.

Unfortunately, Erdoğan’s clearly populist and provocative policy is finding support in the Trans-Caucasus region and in Baku.

Stanislav Ivanov, leading research fellow at the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, PhD in History, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

The number of news releases in the Turkish and international mass media accusing the Kurdistan Freedom Hawks (Falcons) (also known as “TAK”) of the involvement in brutal acts of terrorism in Turkey has been on the rise lately. It is alleged that the organization is a brainchild of a group of radical Kurdish activists who split from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (KWP) in the early 2000s. Turkish authorities classify TAK as a terrorist group being a youth extremist wing of KWP and thus do not differentiate between KWP and TAK. Meanwhile, members of KWP and the “hawks’ deny their alleged “kinship.” Moreover, TAK militants make it clear that they are not affiliated with Kurdish parties, whose leaders (they believe) betrayed the interests of the Kurdish people. Several extremist Kurdish organizations (e.g. Falcons of the East, Avengers) sprang to life after KWP adopted a resolution to temporary cease combat operations at its 7th extraordinary convention in 2000. TAK, however, tops the list in terms of the number of crime reports it has been mentioned in.

For example, this group claimed responsibility for the March 13, 2016 Ankara bombing that killed 37 and left more than 120 people injured. Militants said that they wanted “to bring to justice the Turkish government led by the Justice and Development Party (JDP) for the genocide of the Kurdish population in the southeastern Turkey, where Turkish troops continue a punitive operation against the Kurds.” This group also claimed responsibility for the February 17 act of terrorism near the building of the General Staff in Ankara that claimed lives of 28 people, mostly military personnel.

The list of the TAK’s “acts of heroism” also boasts a mortar attack at an Istanbul’s airport at the end of December 2015, in which five aircraft were damaged, with two female janitors who happened to be near one of the jets being injured (later one of them died), and many other terrorist acts.

Assessment of this terrorist group’s activities leads to an inevitable conclusion—they discredit the national movement of Kurds and aggravate Turkish authorities inciting them to initiate new large-scale punitive operations against the Kurds.

While KWP consistently engages all available methods in its struggle for rights and freedoms of the Kurds, including cessation of hostilities with Ankara, and strives to spare lives of peaceful civilians even at the times of military conflicts, TAK, on the contrary, targets not only military facilities and their staff (or police forces), but public places and tourist centers using suicide bombers and cars stuffed with explosives to carry out their acts of violence. The methods TAK’s militants use resemble those radical Islamists and international terrorists opt for.

So far, little information has been released on whether Turkish authorities managed to apprehend any activists and militants of this group or not. Nobody knows the location of the group’s HQ, its structure, composition, charter or program. What is the source of such a generous financial support the “hawks” enjoy? Ultimately, to execute a large-scale terrorist act similar to the explosion in the Ankara’s government quarter near the General Staff and parliament, militants had to undergo an extensive training, possess powerful explosives and have a considerable amount of funds as well as a reliable cover. The clear-cut plan, boldness and effectiveness of this bombing that obviously exceeds the capabilities of the “hawks” makes one wonder whether this group indeed acts on its own. Two possible answers to this question come to mind: either TAK is a well disguised, hard-to-detect group with mysterious sponsors, or it has patrons in the Turkish special services.

The fact that TAK strikes exactly when the authorities need it the most is also noteworthy. For example, Erdogan’s plan to earn enough votes for his party to transform the government into a presidential republic during June 2015 parliamentary election did not work out. At the same time the pro-Kurdish opposition party HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party) received 13.1% of votes and, consequently, 80 seats in the parliament. Immediately a snap election was set for November 1, 2015. And shortly, (on July 20 to be exact) the town of Suruc in Turkish Kurdistan fell victim to a terrorist bombing with 32 Kurdish activists killed and 104 injured. Kurdish extremists from TAK retaliated by killing two police officers violating the truce achieved between KWP with Ankara and sparking a new wave of military and police operations against the Kurds. A campaign of repressions was launched not only against KWP, but also against the legitimate parliamentary HDP. Despite a new anti-Kurdish campaign, HDP still managed to cross the 10% barrier in the November’s early parliamentary election, but got only 59 seats in the parliament (21 fewer than in June).

Another peculiar coincidence: the inter-Syrian negotiations were resumed in Geneva on March 14, 2016, and the participation of the Syrian Kurds in the talks was deliberated at the top level. At that time, Erdogan tried to convince the UN and its Western allies that not only Turkish KWP, but also Syrian Democratic Union Party (PYD) were involved in the recent acts of terrorism committed in Turkey and demanded to restrict the Syrian Kurds from participation in the Geneva talks. Apparently, the prospective of the Syrian Kurds gaining autonomy (in any form) scares Erdogan to death as it might trigger a chain reaction pushing Turkey toward federalism.

The hastiness with which Turkish authorities make statements accusing TAK and the Kurds (as a whole) of the involvement in the recent acts of terrorism is also noteworthy. Usually it works like that: even before conclusions have been made in the preliminary investigation, and even before the responsibility for the act of violence has been claimed, mass media puts out information confirming that the suicide bomber was Kurdish. Immediately (within a day) air raids are launched against KWP camps in Qandil mountains of Iraq, or shelling of the Syrian Kurdistan begins, or a martial law and a curfew are enforced in the Turkey’s southeast.

There is also a possibility, however, that the secretive organization of Kurdish “hawks” was devised by the Turkish special services or acts in compliance with their prompts. In tsarist Russia security department used to create terrorist organizations with an objective to discredit the revolutionary movement.

Turkish special services have a profound experience in the arrangement of such groups as well. Take, for example, the Asadulla—a newly created in the Kurdish regions of Turkey Islamist nationalist group. Although the ethnicity or party and religious affiliations of its members have not been identified yet, the fact that its members serve in the government bodies and in Turkish army suggests that this organization was established by MIT—a Turkish special service—and is its subordinate. Recently, some evidence was made available proving that Turkish intelligence was recruiting members of ISIS and other radical Islamist groups for a new anti-Kurdish combat organization. It is quite possible that the high-profile act of terrorism in Suruc was carried out by a Turkish citizen–an Asadulla agent.

Another widely known fact is that Turkish special services have connections and contacts with the Grey Wolves (an ultra-right extremist Turkish organization), whom they also deploy to execute “special tasks,” including acts of aggression against the Syrian and Turkish Kurds in the borderline regions of Syria.

A well-known Russian political expert Alexey Malashenko argues that allegations of TAK’s possible affiliation with Turkish special services have to be backed up with some solid evidence, which is not available as of today. But then he also proposes his own, rather similar vision of the situation. According to Alexey Malashenko, Erdogan drove himself into a corner. “Lately, he has been making one mistake after another. He fell out with Moscow over the Russian combat aircraft that had been shot down. His inflexibility in relations with Turkey’s western allies marred his relations with the US. He masterminded a major confrontation with the Kurds in Turkey and Syria. He lost the Syrian campaign from a military point of view. The impudent March 13 bombing in Ankara is a blow to the image of the Turkish President, who initially managed to consolidate the nation, but now is incapable of asserting its integrity and security. It could be the case that people from Erdogan’s entourage, who want to dismiss him from the post of the president, devised this act of terrorism. The Turkish leader was the mastermind behind the creation of a multitude of nationalist and Islamist groups, which get out of hand and threaten the Turkish leadership from time to time,” says the expert.

Thus, no matter who is pulling the strings, the fact is that the terrorist group Kurdistan Freedom Hawks throws a shadow on the Kurd national movement and stymies Kurd’s achievements in their struggle for national rights and freedoms.

Stanislav Ivanov, leading research fellow of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IWEIR) and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, PhD, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”