After Aleppo: Breaking the game and 'hebûn' û 'nebûn'The events in Sheikh Maqsoud, Ashrafieh, and beyond in Aleppo can no longer be viewed as merely a military attack or a local conflict. It is now clear that this attack was a multi-layered plan of elimination imposed on the Kurds, both on the ground and in the ideological sphere. Initially, the aim might seem to be to control a specific area, paralyze Kurdish political will, and transform the negotiating table into a platform for surrender. However, interpretations, particularly following the January 18th Hewlêr meeting, have undeniably revealed that the ultimate target of this attack concept is the whole of Kurdistan, and the main actor is the colonialist Republic of Turkey.
Therefore, the events in Aleppo and afterwards are not an end in themselves, but the beginning of a new threshold. The real question is no longer "what happened?", but "how will we position ourselves at this threshold?"
<WHAT IS DISRUPTING THE GAME, AND WHAT ISN'T?The calls made after Aleppo were often misinterpreted as "overturning the table." However, the radical decision referred to here was not to abandon negotiations entirely. It was about disrupting the game, rejecting the established tables, the imposed frameworks, and the manipulative headings aimed at drawing the Kurds into submission. The real problem is not the negotiation itself, but the siege regime established under the guise of negotiation, progressing simultaneously with military pressure on the ground.
The negotiation process, particularly in the context of Syria, should not be deliberately intertwined with other historical and political issues. What is at stake here is a concrete negotiating framework progressing in sync with the military timetable in the Syrian arena. Attributing broader, abstract, or different contexts to this framework is a diversion aimed at obscuring the concept of aggression.
It is precisely at this point that the statecraft of the Republic of Turkey comes into play; the language of negotiation and military encirclement are operated as two complementary tools of the same strategy. Therefore, Turkey is not outside, on the sidelines, or in a mediating position in this process; it is one of the founding and directing elements of the attack concept itself.
<PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE OPERATIONPost too long. Click here to view the full text.