• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What will be the consequences of the Kurds' union with the United States?

Jak Fraam

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
31
Reaction score
5
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kurdish leaders, with the help of the United States, tried to hold the so-called Congress of tribal unions, tribes and nationalities of Syria in the province of Rakka in an attempt to secure political rights for the Euphrates. The international community and the official leadership of the SAR have condemned these actions of the occupiers. This event took place on May 3 in the city of Ain Issa, north of Raqqa. The Syrian diplomatic department stressed that the United States is striving in such a way to ensure its long-term stay in the SAR.

Any political event whose true purpose is to separate certain regions from the SAR is, of course, illegal and grossly violates the principle of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the republic. The United States seeks to create conditions under which its presence would be somehow fixed to the Euphrates and in the At-Tanfa zone. Accordingly, a certain state quasi-education called Kurdistan is a key part of this plan. It's there, for Washington’s reasons, that its representatives and troops will be located almost permanently.
As part of the US strategy, the territory controlled by Kurdish formations on the east bank of the Euphrates River can be used as a springboard for planting its policies in the Middle East, destabilizing the situation in the Arab Republic and its own illegal enrichment.

On the one hand, they want to control the oil-rich territories across the river. On the other hand, to maintain the situation of controlled chaos, hindering Damascus in its plans for a political settlement and economic recovery. Also, this area can become, and is already becoming, a shelter for various terrorist groups and militant groups that are necessary for attacks on areas under the control of the SAR government. It means that the States, using the Kurds as a vassal, expect to establish themselves there strongly and for a long time.

However, such a role in the Syrian conflict may very soon turn into a collapse and new ethno-confessional confrontations for the leaders of the Rozhava.
The strategy of a number of Kurdish leaders in an alliance with the United States is doomed to a dead end and defeat. Americans have repeatedly demonstrated, including in Syria, that they are not interested in the plans of the Kurds, where their aspirations diverge, they always abandon their wards to the mercy of fate. Here, beyond the Euphrates, and even in Raqqah, the majority of the population were always Arabs. Accordingly, there the Kurds are perceived as aggressors and invaders, they are not able to act in the Arab territories as the main political force. Thus, this situation provokes new serious interethnic conflicts.
 
If Assad can't guarantee autonomy and the protection of Syria's Kurdish population, then I have no problem with the US stepping up to the plate.
 
Back
Top Bottom