The Money Ran Out, the Promise Vanished
The US–SDG relationship was never a full alliance. It appears that, from Washington's perspective, this relationship was, from the outset, a low-cost, temporary and conditional leasing model.
Turkey is a World Power, What Was the SDF Relying On?
Donald Trump's statement at his last press conference, ‘The Kurds were given a lot of money in exchange for oil; they did it for themselves, not for us,’ is a clear declaration that a chapter in the Syrian file has closed. This statement is not a diplomatic polemic; it is the final record of a relationship based on mutual interests.
The US-SDG relationship was never an alliance. From the outset, this relationship was a low-cost, temporary and conditional leasing model.
The US did not want to lose soldiers on the ground fighting ISIS; instead, it funded, equipped and used a local structure. However, it never provided any state guarantees.
The reality that Trump is now openly stating is this: Money was given, a quid pro quo was received, and the debt was settled.
Concurrent developments on the ground also corroborate these words.
The recapture of neighbourhoods controlled by the SDF/YPG in Aleppo and the shift in the balance along the Raqqa–Tabqa–Deir ez-Zor line indicate that the US protective shield is weakening.
The statement by Tom Barrack, US Ambassador to Ankara and Special Representative for Syria, that ‘This partnership was based on the fight against Daesh, but the conditions have changed’ has clarified Washington's position.
The US no longer wants to maintain the SDF as a separate entity and is encouraging its integration with Damascus.
The integration roadmap announced on 18 January indicates that the SDF will cease to exist as an institutional structure. Oil fields, dams and border gates will be transferred to central government control; the armed structure will be disbanded through individual integration. This process is not a gain, but a controlled liquidation.
Turkey, however, has approached this process from the outset with state wisdom rather than emotion. It has argued that name changes do not eliminate threats and that temporary partnerships do not produce permanent structures.
At this point, Turkey's approach is being confirmed on the ground and in diplomacy.
The conclusion is clear:
When the money runs out, the promises vanish.
When interests change, the partnership ends.
The state remains, the apparatus disperses.
