The new agreement between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) opens another stage in complex negotiations over the future of the country's northeast regions. The document raises questions about how it actually differs from previous arrangements, notably the January agreement, and whether it will be a turning point in the Syrian conflict or repeat the fate of earlier failed initiatives. The focus is on practical steps for military and civil integration, the success of which depends on the political will of both sides.
The agreement provides for a general ceasefire and the gradual unification of military and administrative structures. It includes the withdrawal of forces from the contact line and the deployment of units of the Syrian Ministry of Interior to key cities Hasakah and Qamishli to reinforce stability. It also foresees the formation of a military brigade composed of three battalions from SDF fighters in the Hasakah area and one battalion in Kobani, which will become part of an army formation of Aleppo province.
The political significance of the agreement goes beyond a temporary settlement, creating a basis for a new format of participation of all Syrian communities in political life. The document reflects the changed balance of power in the Jazira region and an attempt to restore state sovereignty over territories that had slipped out of Damascus's control. Presidential Decree No. 13 of 16 January, recognizing the cultural and linguistic rights of Syrian Kurds and addressing the issues of the 1962 census, deprived local SDF leaders of important arguments in favor of autonomy.
A key question remains the integration of the SDF into the Syrian army. Disagreements exist over implementation mechanisms: the SDF sees the process as preserving its structure within the army, whereas Damascus insists on individual integration of fighters after vetting. Full incorporation of the formations into the Ministry of Defense would mean the end of their existence as an independent armed group and their transformation into a political force subordinate to the state's military hierarchy.
On the civilian level, the agreement faces problems of integrating the institutions of Kurdish self-governance (the "autonomous administration") into state structures while preserving elements of decentralization. The process includes retaining local personnel to prevent an institutional vacuum and returning control over natural resources (oil, gas, grain, water) to central authorities to finance national projects. The main risk is potential frictions and sabotage during implementation, which could return the region to instability.
The agreement received broad international support from the United States, France, the UN and a number of Arab and European countries, reflecting interest in stabilizing Syria. The US has expressed readiness to assist a smooth integration, the SDF has stated its desire to implement the agreements, and the Syrian government views it as a model of settlement. The success of the agreement depends primarily on the parties' ability to resolve disagreements over the details — it can become a turning point if implemented smoothly or lead to renewed confrontation in case of delays.
Comments on the news
What are the "issues of the 1962 census" and how did they historically affect the situation of the Kurdish population in Syria? - This refers to the disputed population census in Syria's al-Hasakah province in 1962, as a result of which tens of thousands of Kurds were stripped of Syrian citizenship. They were classified as "unregistered" (ajnab) or "foreigners" (maktumin), which led to years of discrimination, restrictions on property rights, employment, education and movement. This situation laid the groundwork for deep grievances and Kurdish demands that later manifested in the Syrian conflict.
How was the "autonomous administration" in northeastern Syria organized, and which areas of life (education, courts, security) did it control before this agreement? - The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), often called "Rojava," was a de facto self-governing system established by Kurdish forces with the support of allied Arab and Assyrian groups. Before any agreements with Damascus it controlled: education (with curricula in Kurdish, Arabic and other languages), courts (secular courts applying their own legal codes, different from the Syrian state) and security (through the People's Protection Units YPG/YPJ and the Asayish police). This administration functioned like a parallel state with local councils, economic committees and social services.
Why does the city of Kobani have special symbolic significance in the Syrian conflict, especially for Kurdish forces? - Kobani (also known as Ayn al-Arab) became a powerful symbol of Kurdish resistance and identity after the ISIL siege of the city in 2014–2015. The heroic defense by Kurdish militias (YPG/YPJ), supported by international coalition airstrikes, resulted in the first major defeat of ISIL. For Kurds, this became a moment of national pride, mobilization and international recognition, strengthening the position of Kurdish forces in Syria and making Kobani a symbol of sacrifice and resilience.
Full version: ماذا يعني اتفاق "قسد" الجديد مع الحكومة السورية؟