The dissolution of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the integration of its fighters into the Syrian army should not be interpreted simply as a victory for Damascus or a defeat for the Kurds. If implemented in good faith, it could mark the beginning of a new relationship between Syrian Kurds and the Syrian state — one that could serve the interests of Damascus, the Kurds, Turkiye and the wider region.

For more than a decade, Syria’s Kurdish question has been inseparable from the country’s broader fragmentation. The civil war created circumstances in which Kurdish forces established a powerful presence across large parts of northeastern Syria, developing their own military, political and administrative structures while becoming a key partner of the international coalition against Daesh. Although understandable during wartime, that arrangement was never likely to provide a sustainable long-term formula for a unified Syrian state.

The integration of SDF fighters into the Syrian army therefore represents a significant shift from parallel military structures toward a single national security framework. Damascus has regained authority over substantial territory and strategic assets, including border crossings and energy infrastructure. For the Syrian government, this represents an important restoration of sovereignty and a step toward rebuilding a state fragmented by years of conflict.

Historically, Syrian Kurds have faced serious grievances over citizenship, political recognition and cultural rights. The emerging settlement provides an opportunity to address those grievances within the Syrian state rather than through permanent confrontation with it. The Kurds are surrendering a degree of military and territorial autonomy, but in return they can gain something potentially more durable: recognized rights, political participation and a legitimate place within national institutions.

That distinction matters. Military autonomy can provide leverage but it can also generate insecurity, invite external intervention and encourage neighboring states to view Kurdish aspirations primarily through a security lens. Political influence exercised through national institutions offers a more sustainable path.

The Kurdish community should therefore view this moment not as the abandonment of its aspirations but as an opportunity to transform them. The future of Kurdish rights should be secured through constitutional guarantees, legislation and political representation — not indefinitely through an independent armed force.

This, however, places a major responsibility on Damascus. A unified Syria cannot mean a state that demands cultural uniformity from its citizens. National unity and cultural diversity are not contradictory. A strong state is one that is capable of accommodating legitimate differences while preventing those differences from becoming a justification for territorial fragmentation.

If Damascus wants the integration process to succeed, it must translate its political commitments into durable legal and constitutional guarantees. Kurdish cultural and linguistic rights, citizenship, political representation, local administration and equality before the law cannot depend solely on promises or the goodwill of individual leaders. They must be protected by institutions that survive changes of government.

This transformation could also serve Turkiye’s interests. Ankara has long viewed the presence of an armed Kurdish organization along its southern border, particularly one it associates with the PKK, as a major national security concern. The dissolution of the SDF as an independent military structure and the incorporation of its personnel into the Syrian state fundamentally changes that equation.

The appointment of Mazloum Abdi to a formal advisory role within the Syrian state is particularly significant.

Hani Hazaimeh

A unified Syrian security structure is far less threatening to Turkiye than a permanently autonomous armed entity operating along its border. This does not eliminate all Turkish security concerns but it creates a political framework through which they can be addressed without another cycle of military confrontation. For Ankara, a stable Syria capable of controlling its territory and guaranteeing the rights of its Kurdish citizens is ultimately a more sustainable outcome.

The international community also stands to benefit. The SDF played a critical role in the fight against Daesh but wartime arrangements cannot substitute indefinitely for functioning national institutions. Syria ultimately needs a state capable of assuming responsibility for its territory and security. Integrating former SDF personnel into national structures can help achieve that objective, provided the process preserves Syria’s capacity to combat terrorism.

The appointment of former SDF commander Mazloum Abdi to a formal advisory role within the Syrian state is particularly significant. It illustrates how a former military interlocutor can become a political partner. Such a transition could provide Syria with an opportunity to turn years of confrontation into cooperation.

There are, nevertheless, reasons for caution. Integration alone will not resolve decades of mistrust. The precise status of Kurdish rights, the integration of former SDF personnel and meaningful Kurdish political participation will remain tests of the agreement. If grievances are ignored, today’s settlement could become tomorrow’s crisis.

The emerging arrangement should therefore be understood as a potential win-win rather than a zero-sum outcome. Damascus gains sovereignty and territorial integrity. Syrian Kurds gain recognition, rights and a path to political participation. Turkiye gains greater security along its border. The international community gains a more coherent Syrian state capable of assuming responsibility for security and combating terrorism. Most importantly, ordinary Syrians gain an opportunity to move beyond the fragmented political and military realities created by the war.

The ultimate measure of success will not be whether one side believes it defeated the other. It will be whether both sides conclude that they have more to gain from cooperation than confrontation.

If Damascus delivers on its commitments and the Kurds successfully transform their former military leverage into political influence, the dissolution of the SDF may ultimately be remembered not as the end of the Kurdish role in Syria but as the beginning of a more sustainable one.

The real victory would be neither Damascus over the Kurds nor the Kurds over Damascus. It would be the emergence of a Syria in which Kurdish rights and Syrian sovereignty are no longer competing objectives but complementary pillars of a stable and united state.

• Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh