From MedyaNews
December 5, 2024

International anarchist and leftist groups rally behind the Syrian Democratic Forces as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and Turkish-backed factions escalate their offensives, deepening the region’s humanitarian crisis.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have received significant support from international groups, as they face a renewed offensive by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and Turkish-backed forces. This conflict, characterised by widespread displacement and suffering, has increased instability in the region and drawn international condemnation.

The Syrian conflict has escalated as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), alongside Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) forces, launched a major offensive in northern Syria, seizing parts of Aleppo and deepening the humanitarian crisis. More than 200,000 people have been displaced, with many taking refuge in improvised shelters along the Euphrates River. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have mobilised reinforcements to protect key areas, particularly Kurdish neighbourhoods in Aleppo and refugee camps in the Shahba region.

The offensive, coordinated between HTS and SNA forces, comes amid wider regional instability. The International League of Peoples’ Struggle and the anarchist group Tekoşina Anarşist (Anarchist Struggle) have expressed strong support for the SDF. Both groups condemned the offensive, with the League criticising what it called a “genocidal war” waged by imperialist forces. Tekoşina Anarşist warned of a possible resurgence of ISIS-style atrocities, highlighting HTS alliance with former jihadist fighters and urging international solidarity with the SDF.

“We, as anarchists and as internationalists in Rojava, will play our role in these challenging times. We will fight alongside the SDF to defend and spread the revolutionary project, building a stateless society where the principles of democratic confederalism, pluralism and women’s revolution prevail. We call for all anarchist and other revolutionary forces, now more than ever, to defend Rojava!”, wrote Tekoşina Anarşist.

“This renewed aggression targets the same communities displaced by Turkey’s 2018 invasion of Afrin,” an SDF spokesman said, highlighting the dire humanitarian conditions,” they wrote.

Meanwhile, ILPF accused the US, Turkey and Israel of pursuing imperialist agendas, noting that Turkey’s support for HTS aims to exploit regional chaos for its own geopolitical gain.

The escalation of the conflict also affects Syria’s geopolitical alliances. Israel’s ongoing conflict with Hezbollah and the violence in Gaza have strained Iran’s ability to support Syria, while Russia, preoccupied with the war in Ukraine, has scaled back its ground operations, focusing instead on heavy airstrikes on Idlib and Aleppo. Western media have been criticised for portraying HTS as a ‘revolutionary opposition’, while critics point to the group’s extremist roots and ambitions to establish a hardline Islamic state.

Despite these challenges, the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria remains steadfast. “The Rojava revolution is a beacon of hope for a democratic, stateless society,” wrote Tekoşina Anarşist, urging global support for the SDF’s efforts. Both groups have called for international solidarity to counter what they see as a genocidal onslaught that threatens the future of the region.

As the Syrian Democratic Forces continue to resist the HTS and Turkish-backed offensive, international support from internationalist and anarchist movements underlines the wider ideological struggle unfolding in Syria. The outcome of this conflict could reshape the political landscape of the region, with implications beyond Syria’s borders.

Comments

anon (not verified) Sat, 12/07/2024 - 11:12

Remarkable how neither the history of the PKK nor the present of SDF & AANES detention/concentration camps for presumed Daesh supporters don't put so many anarchists off from supporting them. It would be less remarkable if they didn't claim the same justifications for not supporting Palestinian, Haitian, & Maghrebi armed anticolonialists…

https://types.mataroa.blog/blog/ojaland/

Remember the Final Straw interview with those people who were like "yeah, gotta have camps for all the ISIS kids, sucks"?

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/08/2024 - 05:31

In reply to by RT (not verified)

Well actually, some people laugh at there being neo- liberal anarchists, and socialist-anarchist libertarians, yet on closer examination nazis were nationalist socialists, and in the very nationalist European nations oozing with parochial strains of xenophobia, AND the fact that Ukrainians united against the USSR during WWII, even the anarchists there have a strong fascist seething for anything leaning left. Yes, one could say that there does exist in Ukraine an influencial streak of an anarcho-nazi tendency, compared to the USA, with their strong wild anarcho-individualist irreverence to anything supportive of nationalist border conflicts and Statist aspirations.

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/08/2024 - 14:52

In reply to by anon (not verified)

They were not "Ukrainians" tho, but Russkies. "Ukrainian" was a national construct of foreign imperialism the Hapsburg & German Empire in WW1 and the Third Reich in WW2. Some morons seem to forget the UK and Soviet Russia were not the only imperialisms in Europe.

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/08/2024 - 21:39

In reply to by anon (not verified)

I'm looking beyond national constructs at the seething Slavic DNA which causes all the misery and slaughter in that region of the Earth. It's the climate me thinks. Actually General Tito had the right idea ( though I'm not a commie ;)) , if you can't live together in harmony, I WILL COME DOWN ON YOU LIKE A TON OF BRICKS! When he died, that was when the nationalist Yugo' thugs let loose, rEmEmbER?
You gotta gotta be an ignorant moron to even consider nationalist identity States, just ask my friend Stirner, I'm waaAaay ahead of yous all, muhwuhahahaaahaaaa.

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/08/2024 - 21:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Ukrainian dialect is Old Russian, the Rusdians don't even speak it, IT'S THAT OLD, It hasn't evolved in 500 years, the western Russukrainians haven't evolved either. No Chekov, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky types coming out of Ukraine, THEY ARE NARROWMINDED BIGOTED RETARDED XENOPHOBIC PAROCHIAL PEASANT THUGS, that's why. When the war started 3 years ago, they wouldn't let the few black exchange students studying there onto the trains. They sent them to the back of the que until all TEH WHITE PEOPLE got onto the train FIRST! Would you fight and die for these CRYPTO-NAZIS?!

anon (not verified) Mon, 12/09/2024 - 14:53

In reply to by anon (not verified)

DuUde, this is not accurate and bigotry taints your otherwise sound critique of European culture and its inherently xenophobic tendencies , which comes down to borders, linguistic fascism, propaganda, and the innate fear of exclusion and dispossession of traditional tribalistic self-confidence. The latter are what politicians aim to encourage and inflame to gain power and prestige.
If you temper your anger and take a lesson from the intellectual writers you mentioned, one day you mAY write comments which enlighten the reader, rather than inflaming a seething ressentiment towards the lost and uneducated masses you so vehemently dislike.

GiggyMantis Tue, 12/10/2024 - 12:52

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Ukrainian is more divergent than Russian is from Proto-Ruthenian (the hypothetical dialect of Old Slavonic that gave rise to Ukrainian, Russian, Belarussian, and Ruthenian). I mean, look at all of the vowel changes! The pronunciation of ge to he!

I mean this is a fucking hilarious take. My autism detectors are going haywire and I can't decide whether this is satire or not.
Anyways, languages are not ethno-cultural groups, remember that. You can argue all you want about Ukrainians being ethnically the same thing as being Russian, and you may be right, but Ukrainian is a distinct language. Ethno-cultural groups are all societal constructs, but languages are something measurable and distinguishable. Yes, there is scholarly disagreement on whether Ukrainian is a distinct language-- but no actual linguist would ever say it's "Old Russian." At the very most, they would argue Ukrainian, Russian, Ruthenian, and Belarussian are all dialects of one language, usually called "East Slavic."

anon (not verified) Tue, 12/10/2024 - 19:32

In reply to by GiggyMantis

"Ruthenian" is the archaic latinized version of "Russian". As in "ruth" = "roth", or "rus" depending on who's talking and in what dialect or language, with means "red". It is often assumed that's due to former Nordic settlers in the regiln being known as red-haired, or at least their.aristocracy was.

So yes, the Duchy of Kiev was the original Rus people and their.language. Then you had the Duchy of Moscow.later on.

"Ucrainia" was only a geographic designation in Russian for.the region at the frontier, or border region, or the Frontier (with the Ottoman Empire). That never existed politically until.that Hapsburg-German puppet state attempt at the end of WW1.

anon (not verified) Tue, 12/10/2024 - 21:32

In reply to by anon (not verified)

That you're just rehashing racist, delusional narrative maintained by a handful of crass "historians" of Ukraine, heavily supported by Western academia, aimed at doing just what nationalist bigots always do; i.e. creating or exacerbating divides among cultural and/or ethnic lines, as well as erasing the Person; so that, later on, the super-wealthy can profit from them killing each other (read: Ukraine since 2014). Also that Ukrainian is a dialect, not a separate language from Russian.

Welcome to my anarchist bolo, where we value living beings FIRST... long before all this nationalist bullshit.

anon (not verified) Wed, 12/11/2024 - 15:27

In reply to by anon (not verified)

A language is just a dialect with an army … I’m not the other person, btw, and I don’t support nationalism in any form. Just genuinely wondering what’s your point (still unclear). I was the person who pointed out that many more Ukrainians (or, okay, people from the Ukrainian SSR, who care) fought against fascism than for it in WWII. I still don’t know why you would deny that. Ukrainians aren’t real but Russians are - that’s your “anti-nationalist” stance?

Le Way, (not verified) Wed, 12/11/2024 - 20:51

In reply to by anon (not verified)

It's the tribalism of language, the cerebral spook that infects everyone, unless you become the silent individualist, using sign and body language for a truly subversive methodology! For the layman, action speaks louder than dialects!

GiggyMantis Fri, 12/13/2024 - 05:54

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yes but there is also the Ruthenian language, distinct from both the Ukrainian language and the Russian language. In the context of "Old Ruthenian," it is indeed referring to Russians and related groups before anyone made that distinction. But there is a demonstrable existence of multiple distinct East Slavic languages. What we choose to call them is entirely based on nationalism and socially-created ethnic groups, as are ALL language names.

anon (not verified) Fri, 12/13/2024 - 08:28

In reply to by GiggyMantis

*facepalm* Yes... ye Old English from England is different from the sassy, pricky contemporary Londonian speech. What is your point? Mine was that the term "Ruthenia" itself is only an externally-rooted designation of "Russian", wrongfully held by shitty "experts" as something distinct where even with a little Wiki & web search you'll find out that it's not. Like saying the Franks are a different people than the French. They of course are different... like any fucking Medieval peoples are distinct from contemporary people, even when it's their far descendants.

...and that's because language and culture keeps evolving!

anon (not verified) Wed, 12/11/2024 - 05:17

In reply to by GiggyMantis

I'm going to go further back then, my satire failed to amuse you obvipusly,,, I'M GOING BACK TO THE RED BEARDED WAR-MONGERING IMPERIALISTIC SLAVO-MONGOL HORDES!
They haven't changed, nOne oF tHem, stIll blOwiNg aNd bUtchErinG tEh nEigHborS rEgaRdlEss oF sOcIal aNd cUltUraL cOnStrUcts,,,,aNd vOWeLs iN tEh dIAleCtS.
THAT'S COS IT'S IN TEH GENES, TEH DNA!

Le Way, (not verified) Wed, 12/11/2024 - 15:00

In reply to by anon (not verified)

Yep angry dude, the word MONGER derives from MONGOL, coined by Marco Polo and then translated from Italian to English.
Etymology---Believe it or not, it sounds the same

anon (not verified) Sun, 12/08/2024 - 09:40

In reply to by anon (not verified)

"Remember the Final Straw interview with those people who were like "yeah, gotta have camps for all the ISIS kids, sucks"?"

*shaking head*

Before you fart off your brain and out of your corner at the Starbucks perhaps you could be intelligent and consider how it's like to be in a position of dealing with hordes of Salafist thugs who previously been raping and abducting women as slaves and beheading anyone they just feel like.

But that's irrelevant, now, as your "freedom fighters" got all got out of jail and finally achieved their "anarchist" insurrection in Syria, establishing their own theocracy to the benefit of the Israeli state, so they'll likely exact their revenge on all those SDF commies...

GiggyMantis Tue, 12/10/2024 - 12:55

> The Rojava revolution is a beacon of hope for a democratic, stateless society,
A democratic society cannot be stateless. A stateless society cannot be democratic. Anarchism is not democracy. I mean, in the most literal sense, it is, because democracy means "ruling of the people," but that's really an etymological fallacy. Like a theocracy is not literally run by God, it is run by people claiming to be Her representatives. A democracy is not really run by the people, but rather by just some people, specifically the majority (or plurality if that's your poison).

Wayne Price (not verified) Tue, 12/10/2024 - 13:13

In reply to by GiggyMantis

So there cannot be such a thing as a "democratic, stateless, society?" Would you feel better if we referred to "self-management," "self-governing," "autogestion," "free collective decision-making," or some other term meaning the same as participatory, direct, democracy?

sads (not verified) Wed, 12/11/2024 - 13:33

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

no, we're not more happy because you change euphemisms. Democracy is not what anarchists want, and the other anarchists are confused.

Wayne Price (not verified) Fri, 12/13/2024 - 17:13

In reply to by sads (not verified)

So Sads does not want "self-government," "self-management," or any other "euphemism" for radical, participatory, democracy. "Democracy is not what anarchists want and the other anarchists are confused," writes Sads. What do "anarchists want"? Groups of free people deciding collectively and cooperatively on joint issues, when in communities or workshops. Isn't this what anarchists want? Of course this does not apply to individual decisions on individual topics (food, art, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) but to collective decisions: shall our commune build a new barn? shall our workshop make a new style of shoes?

Such cooperative, free, decisions are usually called "democracy," but I don't care if you prefer another term (for fear of confusing a free commune with capitalist "representative democracy"). But if you reject *any* kind of collective self-management then I have no idea how you expect to have a society.

BTW, some U.S. anarchists who, according to Sads, were "confused" because they advocated extreme, decentralized, democracy were David Graeber, Paul Goodman, Kevin Carson, Murray Bookchin, Benjamin Tucker, and Cindy Milstein, and also me and many others.

anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 05:32

In reply to by Wayne Price (not verified)

Graeber & Bookchin's advocacy of "democracy" was ultimately pro-colonial, reproducing the anarchist defense of European civilization that led revolutionaries deported from Paris to side with their captors against the anti-colonial Kanak insurrection in the 19th century. This is exemplified in Graeber's white populist positions regarding Occupy followed by his drift to supporting the UK Labour Party. Bookchin's Zionism, rosy view of non-elite u.s./British colonists in Abya Yala, & the terms of his departure from anarchism demonstrate this as well.

It's unclear why you would only choose white anglos as your preferred examples of u.s. anarchists, but even among that group there are many who support "collective self-management" but oppose democracy, like Peter Gelderloos.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
W
b
U
b
L
b
!
A
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.