What Reuters has revealed cannot be treated as a passing news item or a mere journalistic leak. It must be read in a deeper context, as part of the operating logic of international politics when major powers decide to rearrange geography at the expense of weaker peoples. We are facing a scene in which events are not driven by the logic of declared alliances, but by shifting balances of interest, where tools are replaced at the first turn, and allies are abandoned without any moral or political embarrassment.

What stands out is not only the content of the meetings, but the way they were managed: multiple capitals, overlapping roles, and a distribution of responsibilities designed to ensure that no one bears the burden of the final decision. Paris, Baghdad, Damascus—each was a station on a single path aimed at managing time against the regions of Rojava, pushing the Kurds into a state of waiting and political dependency, in preparation for the moment when the balance would be broken and facts imposed by force.

The talk of encouraging the Kurds to delay an agreement with Damascus clearly reveals that the issue was never about seeking a solution, but about deliberately obstructing any potential one. Delay here was not a negotiating tactic, but an instrument of political exhaustion, used to strip the Kurdish position of any room for maneuver and leave it exposed to simultaneous military and political pressure. When time is managed from the outside, local decision-making is reduced to a secondary detail with no real weight.

The American position, as reported by Reuters, is the most brazen in this context. When the leader of an allied force is told that Washington’s interests are no longer aligned with him, this practically signals the end of one phase and the beginning of another—without apology and without alternatives. More dangerous still is that this shift was not presented as a political debate, but imposed as a fait accompli, accompanied by clear signals demanding withdrawal and the pullback of forces, as if the Kurdish presence had become a burden to be discarded rather than a partner that helped shape realities on the ground over many years.

Turkey, for its part, played the role of the executor, confident in the existence of international cover. It did not wait for an official announcement, nor did it seek written guarantees; it was enough for the green light to be conveyed for Ankara to begin translating it on the ground. As for the condition of “protecting civilians,” it is nothing more than a cosmetic phrase used to reduce media costs, not to prevent the political and military crime itself.

Conversely, Israeli denials do nothing to change the essence of the picture. Participation in sensitive meetings and the absence of any objection place Israel in the position of a silent partner rather than a neutral party. In the logic of politics, silence at the moment of decision does not mean neutrality; it constitutes a form of tacit, deferred consent.

What is happening in Rojava cannot be reduced to targeting a military force alone; it is, above all, a direct assault on a political experiment that sought to move beyond rigid nationalist models and offered a different form of governance, representation, and partnership among components. This is precisely what made it an undesirable experiment regionally and internationally—because it is not easily controlled, nor can it be reduced to a temporary card to be used and then discarded.

The most dangerous aspect of this scene is that the Kurds, once again, have been placed outside the equation of final decision-making. They are asked to be patient at times, to make concessions at others, and to withdraw under the banner of political realism, while their fate is decided behind closed doors, through a double discourse that neither says what it does nor does what it declares.

Behind this news lies not merely a potential agreement or a passing attack, but a harsh political message: international politics does not recognize victims, nor does it offer guarantees to those who lack independent elements of power. It is a true moment of testing—not only for Rojava, but for everyone who still believes that major alliances are built on ethics rather than interests.