pkk, daesh and imperialism (split from rojava newswire)

[Emmett Till]

Both hate Daesh. So fucking what. Damn near everyone's fighting Daesh too. I guess they should just sit back and get shot so internet leftists won't condemn them.Was everyone fighting the Anti-Comintern Alliance during WWII "US clients"? Are Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah US clients?

De Gaulle's bunch were, as were other bourgeois "resistance movements," like the Yugoslav monarchists Tito put down, more British than American puppets. And of course Chiang Kai Shek in China, just a US puppet then like later. Even the Brits damn near, they had to hand over much of their empire to the US in return for Roosevelt saving their bacon.

The Soviet Union? Hardly, the war in Europe was basically a war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in military terms. The Soviet Union unlike Rojava really did have a revolution after all in 1917. Working class came to power. Rojava doesn't really even have a working class.

BTW, what should the Kurds have done? Well, according to RT, Daesh offered the Syrian Kurds a nonagression pact in June 2014, which they turned down, preferring America as an ally. A big mistake, if what RT reported is accurate.

[QUOTE=Juan Moreno;2855908]The US is fighting alongside Hezbollah and Iran in Iraq to an even greater degree. Russia and the US have an agreement on coordinating airstrikes, and there's possibly an unspoken one with Syria.You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Well, yes, the USA now has a sort-of alliance with Iran in Syria and Iraq, that's what the nuclear treaty was all about. A very precarious affair between two countries still very hostile to each other everywhere else, that will probably come to an abrupt end when Obama leaves office, whether a Democrat or Republican is elected.

If you think that the US and Russia are now allies in Syria, you indeed have no clue. if you think that the US and Assad are allied, you are downright delusional.

But the Syrian Kurds and the US government are now best of friends, a totally different situation.


The fraternal party the PKK has long lobbied for support in Russia going back from the USSR days to even after the counterrevolution in 1991. They've long had widespread sympathy in Russia, way more than the US(which, like you, can't tell any of the Kurdish parties apart). Just this time all the contradictions have aligned in the PYD/YPG/YPJ's favor.Why do you keep trotting out Israel even if it has little to do with the main topic?

Israel is right next door. If you think Israel is irrelevant to what is going on in Syria, that is downright bizarre. Israel has always, always seen Syria as its only serious Arab enemy, and the destruction of Syria through civil war serves Israeli interests so thoroughly that it is hard to believe that Israel has not been taking actions to keep the pot boiling.

As for the PKK and Russia, sure. For that matter, until Ocalan's followers decided to throw in their lot with US imperialism, i.e. pretty recently, the Syrian Kurds were in a de facto alliance with Assad, and that Assad is very close with Putin is not exactly a secret.

But at this point the Kurds have to make a choice, either with Putin or Obama. Maybe not next week, but soon. I hope they make the better choice.

[The Feral Underclass]

It seems to me that Emmett has no problem with the Kurds making alliances with enemies, it's just that the Kurds chose the wrong enemies to ask for help. The idea that Daesh would make a more politically sound bed fellow than the US is just patently absurd. There are of course differences between US imperialism and the Islamist imperialism of Daesh, but not that much.

[John Nada]

De Gaulle's bunch were, as were other bourgeois "resistance movements" like the Yugoslav monarchists Tito put down, more British than American puppets. And of course Chiang Kai Shek in China, just a US puppet then like later. Even the Brits damn near, they had to hand over much of their empire to the US in return for Roosevelt saving their bacon.Yeah, and the US and UK reaped great super-profits from the Viet Minh, PLA, LANC, KVA, EAM, CLN, FTP, ect.:rolleyes: And poor Britain had to convert its colonies into neo-colonies:(
The Soviet Union? Hardly, the war in Europe was basically a war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in military terms. The Soviet Union unlike Rojava really did have a revolution after all in 1917. Working class came to power. Rojava doesn't really even have a working class.And they too took guns and supplies from the US and UK, as well as fought the same common enemy and even had a formal alliance.

Proletarian socialist revolutions aren't the only real revolutions. Democratic revolutions in oppressed nations are revolutions, which should be supported.
11) With regard to the more backward states and nations, in which feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate, it is particularly important to bear in mind:

first, that all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on;

second, the need for a struggle against the clergy and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries;

third, the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.;[In the proofs Lenin inserted a brace opposite points 2 and 3 and wrote “2 and 3 to be united”.—Editor.]

fourth, the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character by establishing the closest possible alliance between the West European communist proletariat and the revolutionary peasant movement in the East, in the colonies, and in the backward countries generally. It is particularly necessary to exert every effort to apply the basic principles of the Soviet system in countries where pre-capitalist relations predominate—by setting up “working people’s Soviets”, etc.;

fifth, the need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form;

sixth, the need constantly to explain and expose among the broadest working masses of all countries, and particularly of the backward countries, the deception systematically practised by the imperialist powers, which, under the guise of politically independent states, set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily. Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics.Bold mine: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm From Lenin's thoughts on democratic revolutions in oppressed nations:
1.The Arab, Turkmen, Syriac, and Kurdish nations are oppressed by imperialist like the US, UK, France, Russia, Germany, ect. Workers in the oppressor nations should support the liberation movements in these nations.
2. These liberation movements must struggle against backwards and reactionary elements like the clergy and such, which Daesh wants to base its entire state on.
3. They also must combat pan-Islamist, which seek to hijack the anti-imperialist struggle and strengthen the Sheiks, Mullahs, Emirs, landlords, warlords, ect. Pretty much describes Daesh. Their takfiri cult is not a nation(religions are not nations), but sectarian fascists attacking the oppressed nations, including both the Kurdish and Arab nations.
4.Workers must support revolutionary struggles of the peasantry against these feudalistic elements, even if there was no proletariat in Kurdistan and only peasantry(which I doubt, even if peasants were the majority in Kurdistan). Rojava is setting up something like soviets too, TEV-DEM, and they're fighting against patriarchal, petty-bourgeois prejudices, narrow-minded nationalism, parochialism, and Islamism. semi-feudalistic.
5. While bourgeois-democratic movements shouldn't just be painted over as communistic, temporary alliances between them and revolutionaries is possible so long as they're independent. the PKK, PYD, and YPG/YPJ maintained independence from bourgeois Kurdish parties such as the KDP and KNC. They have friendly relations with various Marxist and anarchist orgs, and the Rojava Revolution is open to a future proletarian movement. Daesh by contrast would kill any communist on site, would never gives the proletariat and poor peasantry opening for a future proletarian revolutionary movement under their rule and would never tolerate a Communist Party of the Islamic State.
6.It's entirely possible to support Rojava Revolution and oppose imperialism at the same time. It's entirely possible even to oppose the war but support the Rojava Revolution. It's entirely possible to support the liberation of Arab nations without wishing their conquest at the hands of Daesh. And you or them don't have to enter a popular front with the likes of Al-Nusra and Daesh to do it either!
BTW, what should the Kurds have done? Well, according to RT, Daesh offered the Syrian Kurds a nonagression pact in June 2014, which they turned down, preferring America as an ally. A big mistake, if what RT reported is accurate.RT is kind of hilarious, but almost as bad as Fox News. Still, this sounds like more shit you're making up.The YPG/YPJ and Daesh, as well as other Islamists, were already fighting years before, they were already being attacked in June 2014 as well as the months before. Daesh was already massacring Kurds. And not long afterwards they began their genocidal massacre against Yazidis and other minorities and launched the attack on Kobani. If it was an offer, it was clearly bullshit in preparation for a later offensive at best. A major offensive isn't just some impromptu plan.
Well, yes, the USA now has a sort-of alliance with Iran in Syria and Iraq, that's what the nuclear treaty was all about. A very precarious affair between two countries still very hostile to each other everywhere else, that will probably come to an abrupt end when Obama leaves office, whether a Democrat or Republican is elected.Probably. Iran does want to join NATO's rival imperialist alliance SCO. The US doesn't want that.
If you think that the US and Russia are now allies in Syria, you indeed have no clue. if you think that the US and Assad are allied, you are downright delusional.US and Russia have an agreement on airstrikes. It wasn't what the US or NATO wanted(at least publicly), but Russia made the move. This is a fact, an embarrassing one for the US(which naturally wants to downplay it). From a source you might find reliable: https://www.rt.com/news/319198-russia-us-syria-agreement/
But the Syrian Kurds and the US government are now best of friends, a totally different situation.Why are you referring to an ethnicity and not any organization in Rojava? I don't know why a minus needs to be put wherever the US puts a plus.
Israel is right next door. If you think Israel is irrelevant to what is going on in Syria, that is downright bizarre. Israel has always, always seen Syria as its only serious Arab enemy, and the destruction of Syria through civil war serves Israeli interests so thoroughly that it is hard to believe that Israel has not been taking actions to keep the pot boiling. Though the Israeli state is clearly involved(no reason why not), they're not the only driving force behind the "FSA", though they're opportunistically support groups like Al-Nusra. While Israel's oppression of Palestinians and support for other rebels no better than Daesh should be opposed and criticized, and I support the liberation of Palestine just like Kurdistan, it just sounds like you're trying to make this out to be a "Zionist conspiracy".
As for the PKK and Russia, sure. For that matter, until Ocalan's followers decided to throw in their lot with US imperialism, i.e. pretty recently, the Syrian Kurds were in a de facto alliance with Assad, and that Assad is very close with Putin is not exactly a secret.Please don't type anything if you don't know what you're talking about, like what's imperialism or basically anything to do with Kurdistan, or Syria for that matter.
But at this point the Kurds have to make a choice, either with Putin or Obama. Maybe not next week, but soon. I hope they make the better choice.Russian imperialism or US imperialism? Frankly I think the US is worse, but this is a rare instance where both are on the same page.

[The Feral Underclass]

Pan-Islamism is probably a better term than 'Islamist imperialism.'

[Sasha]

not much better, there is no "islam", in fact many of the people fighting Daesh and al-nusra etc the most are all muslim too, be it kurdish-suni or shia/alawi
you know, maybe use the perfectly acceptable terms already in general use; Salafism and Jihadist-Salafism

[Emmett Till]

It seems to me that Emmett has no problem with the Kurds making alliances with enemies, it's just that the Kurds chose the wrong enemies to ask for help. The idea that Daesh would make a more politically sound bed fellow than the US is just patently absurd. There are of course differences between US imperialism and the Islamist imperialism of Daesh, but not that much.

Islamic imperialism? What's that?

Imperialism isn't just a buzzword for bad behavior by governments. It's when one polity subjugates another, not just for the fun of it, but to systematically exploit another polity economically. Marxism is about economics you know.

Like the Roman Empire (through taxation), and the modern capitalist imperialism that Lenin defined, exporting capital to invest to make superprofits in the Third World through very low wages enforced brutally.

The Islamic fanatics of Daesh are even less like an imperial power in any meaningful sense than Russia.

Basically, all the foreign forces in Syria should leave without exception, but that ain't happening. The main task for radicals is to oppose the dominant imperial force murdering and exploiting the peoples of the Middle East, and that is America. Especially since the smaller scale imperialists like France and England are lined up behind America in lockstep, so you have a united imperialist front to oppose here.

[Emmett Till]

Yeah, and the US and UK reaped great super-profits from the Viet Minh, PLA, LANC, KVA, EAM, CLN, FTP, ect.:rolleyes: And poor Britain had to convert its colonies into neo-colonies:(And they too took guns and supplies from the US and UK, as well as fought the same common enemy and even had a formal alliance.

Into *American* neocolonies by and large, and had to turn over most of their foreign naval bases to the USA in return for the USA rescuing English imperialism from German imperialism.

No, Viet Minh, the PLA etc. were not in any way, shape or form subordinated to US or British imperialism--unlike Chiang Kai Shek etc. who were. That is simple fact, and if you don't understand that there was a *difference* between Ho and Mao on the one hand, and Chiang Kai Shek on the other hand, well, I don't know what to say.

Oh yes, and how about those nationalist movements that aligned themselves with the Nazis or the Japanese vs. British imperialism? Like the IRA, most of the Arab nationalists, or Subhas Chandra Bose in India? Should radicals have supported Churchill et.al. crushing them?

Because of the existence of the Soviet Union, a product of a genuine workers revolution, despite Stalinist degeneration, which as a result of WWII became the world's other "superpower," it used to be that petty bourgeois nationalist movements could align themselves with a working class power instead of one or another capitalist power. And sometimes even mimic the USSR themselves when in power, as in China, Cuba and Vietnam. Now the Soviet Union is gone, so that is no longer possible.




Proletarian socialist revolutions aren't the only real revolutions. Democratic revolutions in oppressed nations are revolutions, which should be supported.Bold mine: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm From Lenin's thoughts on democratic revolutions in oppressed nations:
1.The Arab, Turkmen, Syriac, and Kurdish nations are oppressed by imperialist like the US, UK, France, Russia, Germany, ect. Workers in the oppressor nations should support the liberation movements in these nations.
2. These liberation movements must struggle against backwards and reactionary elements like the clergy and such, which Daesh wants to base its entire state on.
3. They also must combat pan-Islamist, which seek to hijack the anti-imperialist struggle and strengthen the Sheiks, Mullahs, Emirs, landlords, warlords, ect. Pretty much describes Daesh. Their takfiri cult is not a nation(religions are not nations), but sectarian fascists attacking the oppressed nations, including both the Kurdish and Arab nations....

Murderous sectarians yes, fascists no, discussed that already no need to repeat.

Barring that, the above is all true enough, but not relevant (as are some of your Leninist platitudes included under 4 and 5). As Lenin clearly explained, yes national movements should be supported, indeed the Spartacists, the only real Marxists around, came out in support of the Kurds and called for a "socialist republic of united Kurdistan" 'way back in the 1980s, before the Kurdish struggle was popular with anybody but the Kurds themselves.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/workersvanguard/1984/0362_14_09_1984.pdf

Greetings from the Spartacists to a Kurdish conference they attended are on page 6.

But not when they subordinate themselves to imperialist powers, which is what Barzani etc. in Iraq did long, long ago and the PKK and its Syrian affiliate are doing now. The difference between the PKK and America's Iraqi pawns is only that the PKK is earlier on the same path.

You want precedent from Lenin? Well, Serbia was a brutally oppressed nation during WWI, Habsburg massacres, the whole nine yards, and Lenin *refused* to support the Serbians vs. the Habsburgs. And so did the Serbian Socialist Party! Why? Because the Serbian national struggle, which otherwise would have been totally supportable, was subordinate to Allied imperialism.


....RT is kind of hilarious, but almost as bad as Fox News. Still, this sounds like more shit you're making up.The YPG/YPJ and Daesh, as well as other Islamists, were already fighting years before, they were already being attacked in June 2014 as well as the months before. Daesh was already massacring Kurds. And not long afterwards they began their genocidal massacre against Yazidis and other minorities and launched the attack on Kobani. If it was an offer, it was clearly bullshit in preparation for a later offensive at best. A major offensive isn't just some impromptu plan.

Well, it's notorious that Daesh ruthlessly kills all their enemies, but they are Sunni fanatics, and most Kurds are Sunni, indeed there are Kurds among Daesh. So whereas Daesh murders Yazidis according to their genocidal sectarian "principles," Daesh has nothing in particular vs. Kurds as such. So there is no reason to believe that the Daesh offer wasn't genuine. After all, the Syrian Kurds have been the only really effective military opposition to Daesh except for the Shi'ite death squads in Iraq, so a ceasefire with the PYD and YPG would have been of immense military advantage to Daesh.

The forces Daesh used to invade Rojava could have easily been redeployed against Daesh's other enemies which are numerous and unlikely to disappear. So it's hard to imagine a situation where Daesh would be tempted to break it. That would be a big military blunder on their part.


Probably. Iran does want to join NATO's rival imperialist alliance SCO. The US doesn't want that.US and Russia have an agreement on airstrikes. It wasn't what the US or NATO wanted(at least publicly), but Russia made the move. This is a fact, an embarrassing one for the US(which naturally wants to downplay it). From a source you might find reliable: https://www.rt.com/news/319198-russia-us-syria-agreement/

You don't need to look at RT to know that the Russian intervention was a huge embarrassment for the US, in fact pretty much a disaster, queering America's pitch. For that, just read the American press.

And I'm not a supporter of Putin, Russia is just another capitalist power, no better or worse than Iran or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Assad's Syria. Ideally, they should all get out of Syria, and the world could do very nicely without Assad for that matter.

But Russia is not an empire, Russian troops are hardly in Syria due to greed for Syria's nonexistent oil, nor do Russian oligarchs have any plans to move in to Syria to exploit the Syrian working class, currently fleeing to Europe. The troops are simply there because Assad is Putin's only friend in the Middle East. If there is any exploitation in the Syrian/Russian relationship, it's Assad exploiting the Russians.



Why are you referring to an ethnicity and not any organization in Rojava? I don't know why a minus needs to be put wherever the US puts a plus.Though the Israeli state is clearly involved(no reason why not), they're not the only driving force behind the "FSA", though they're opportunistically support groups like Al-Nusra. While Israel's oppression of Palestinians and support for other rebels no better than Daesh should be opposed and criticized, and I support the liberation of Palestine just like Kurdistan, it just sounds like you're trying to make this out to be a "Zionist conspiracy".Please don't type anything if you don't know what you're talking about, like what's imperialism or basically anything to do with Kurdistan, or Syria for that matter.Russian imperialism or US imperialism? Frankly I think the US is worse, but this is a rare instance where both are on the same page.

Whatever the Israelis may be up to, it's not supporting the FSA, an American/French operation. Al Nusra i.e. Al Quaida? Wouldn't be surprised, after all Hamas came into existence with Israeli sponsorship. ISIS would make logical sense, but I don't think so as it would be too embarrassing if they were caught at it.

My guess is that Israeli agents in Syria, quite numerous no doubt, concentrate on getting all the different forces involved to fight and kill each other, without "favoring" any particular faction.

[The Feral Underclass]

not much better, there is no "islam", in fact many of the people fighting Daesh and al-nusra etc the most are all muslim too, be it kurdish-suni or shia/alawi

Right, but Islam is different to Islamism. Being a Muslim and being an Islamist are not the same thing.


you know, maybe use the perfectly acceptable terms already in general use; Salafism and Jihadist-Salafism

Does that adequately describe the conquestorial objectives of Daesh?

[The Feral Underclass]

Islamic imperialism? What's that?

I said Islamist not Islamic.

It's a clumsy term, but the point I'm alluding to is that Daesh have imperial objectives. They are attempting to build a global caliphate. Perhaps their objectives are not to create an Empire in the Western capitalist sense, making Pan-Islamism a better term, but you cannot deny their ambitions.


Imperialism isn't just a buzzword for bad behavior by governments. It's when one polity subjugates another, not just for the fun of it, but to systematically exploit another polity economically. Marxism is about economics you know.

And I'm sure you and your Marxist buddies are very happy about that. But I'm not objecting to what you're saying, which is why I doubted the term.


Basically, all the foreign forces in Syria should leave without exception, but that ain't happening. The main task for radicals is to oppose the dominant imperial force murdering and exploiting the peoples of the Middle East, and that is America. Especially since the smaller scale imperialists like France and England are lined up behind America in lockstep, so you have a united imperialist front to oppose here.

No, the task of "radicals" is to defend the Rojavan democratic socialist revolution. Siding with Daesh because they are fighting Americans is not an option...Not for anyone sane, that is.

[John Nada]

Into *American* neocolonies by and large, and had to turn over most of their foreign naval bases to the USA in return for the USA rescuing English imperialism from German imperialism.Those would be semi-colonies. Some are still officially colonized, like northern Ireland. A lot of the "independant" countries are ran by British comprador-bourgeoisie. The British borgeoisise just has to share a little more of the plunder. A lot are in debt to the UK, and Britain controls a lot of businesses in the "former" colonies. Imperialism isn't just militarism and expansionism. It's monopoly capitalism.
No, Viet Minh, the PLA etc. were not in any way, shape or form subordinated to US or British imperialism--unlike Chiang Kai Shek etc. who were. That is simple fact, and if you don't understand that there was a *difference* between Ho and Mao on the one hand, and Chiang Kai Shek on the other hand, well, I don't know what to say.What the fuck are you talking about? Can you read or are you just trying to be a smartass?
Oh yes, and how about those nationalist movements that aligned themselves with the Nazis or the Japanese vs. British imperialism? Like the IRA, most of the Arab nationalists, or Subhas Chandra Bose in India? Should radicals have supported Churchill et.al. crushing them?This is a false dichotomy. A binary strawperson you're creating. You can oppose both imperialism and fascism. The Viet Minh and the PLA fighting fascism, as opposed to capitulationism and getting shot, wasn't joining up with UK imperialism. It's possible for people in the oppressed nations and workers in oppressor nations to oppose imperialism without expecting workers in other struggles to give up and become martyrs less they look bad for internet leftists.
Because of the existence of the Soviet Union, a product of a genuine workers revolution, despite Stalinist degeneration, which as a result of WWII became the world's other "superpower,"; it used to be that petty bourgeois nationalist movements could align themselves with a working class power instead of one or another capitalist power. And sometimes even mimic the USSR themselves when in power, as in China, Cuba and Vietnam. Now the Soviet Union is gone, so that is no longer possible.Near as I can tell, most the PKK and YPG/YPJ are proletarians and poor peasantry. So contrary to Marxism, until there's a "real socialist" revolution that lives up to your fantasy, the proletariat and poor peasantry should just sit tight, look good till presumable leftists in the US get their shit together? No, this is what Social Democrats said about the October Revolution.
Murderous sectarians yes, fascists no, discussed that already no need to repeat.They're a petty-bourgeois reactionary movement backed by the big-bourgeoisie and also supported by lumpenproletarians. I don't give a fuck what it's called.
Barring that, the above is all true enough, but not relevant (as are some of your Leninist platitudes included under 4 and 5). As Lenin clearly explained, yes national movements should be supported, indeed the Spartacists, the only real Marxists around, came out in support of the Kurds and called for a"socialist republic of united Kurdistan" 'way back in the 1980s, before the Kurdish struggle was popular with anybody but the Kurds themselves.It's entirely built upon Lenin's writings that contradict your argument. And the PKK and the YPG/YPJ are actually fighting for it, as opposed to popping up as props to get street cred.
But not when they subordinate themselves to imperialist powers, which is what Barzani etc. in Iraq did long, long ago and the PKK and its Syrian affiliate are doing now. The difference between the PKK and America's Iraqi pawns is only that the PKK is earlier on the same path.You have no argument. You keep repeating that they're tailing US imperialism like it's just going to be true if you keep chanting it. It's the opposite, the US and Russia are opportunistically backing the winning horse after their would-be "moderate" Jihadist compradores turned on them and that half a billion dollar division of 50 soldiers deserted to JAN, and Russia compradore didn't live up to military expectations, and no alternatives were left.
You want precedent from Lenin? Well, Serbia was a brutally oppressed nation during WWI, Habsburg massacres, the whole nine yards, and Lenin *refused* to support the Serbians vs. the Habsburgs. And so did the Serbian Socialist Party! Why? Because the Serbian national struggle, which otherwise would have been totally supportable, was subordinate to Allied imperialism.It was also because it was propping up feudalistic elements and a sham, just a power grab. Had it been for a democratic revolution led by the workers and peasants he said he'd support it.
Well, it's notorious that Daesh ruthlessly kills all their enemies, but they are Sunni fanatics, and most Kurds are Sunni, indeed there are Kurds among Daesh. So whereas Daesh murders Yazidis according to their genocidal sectarian "principles" Daesh has nothing in particular vs. Kurds as such. So there is no reason to believe that the Daesh offer wasn't genuine. After all, the Syrian Kurds have been the only really effective military opposition to Daesh except for the Shi'ite death squads in Iraq, so a ceasefire with the PYD and YPG would have been of immense military advantage to Daesh.Daesh based on a different school of thought than most the Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds. Like saying Lutherans are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses because both are Protestant. And it's strange how you're willing to to give a reactionary, genocidial, semi-feudalist, petty-bourgeois cult that was the US's first pick at sticking it to SCO the benefit of the doubt.
The forces Daesh used to invade Rojava could have easily been redeployed against Daesh's other enemies which are numerous and unlikely to disappear. So it's hard to imagine a situation where Daesh would be tempted to break it. That would be a big military blunder on their part.They wanted to secure the Turkish border for logistics from Turkey(which has no problem backing them to get at the YPG/YPJ and the Syrian state for its expansionist aims). It was very strategically important.
You don't need to look at RT to know that the Russian intervention was a huge embarrassment for the US, in fact pretty much a disaster, queering America's pitch. For that, just read the American press.I know. It's really changed things. Not sure if for the better, but both the US and Russia are fucking wack.
And I'm not a supporter of Putin, Russia is just another capitalist power, no better or worse than Iran or Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Assad's Syria. Ideally, they should all get out of Syria, and the world could do very nicely without Assad for that matter.Agree, although...
But Russia is not an empire, Russian troops are hardly in Syria due to greed for Syria's nonexistent oil, nor do Russian oligarchs have any plans to move in to Syria to exploit the Syrian working class, currently fleeing to Europe. The troops are simply there because Assad is Putin's only friend in the Middle East. If there is any exploitation in the Syrian/Russian relationship, it's Assad exploiting the Russians.Syria, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are semi-colonies. Russia is imperialist. Iran has oil, and so does Iraq. This is inter-imperialist rivialrey between the US/NATO/GCC and SCO/"Axis of Resistance" imperialist blocs. It's not a "nice policy choice" by the Russian bourgeoisie(or the US for that matter) but a re-division of the world in process like Lenin described. The world makes far more sense if you factor in other imperialist, and semi-colonial and colonial bourgeoisis who have their own expansionist and even on day imperialist ambitions.(including ones that are allies, yet still have contradictions)
Whatever the Israelis may be up to, it's not supporting the FSA, an American/French operation. Al Nusra i.e. Al Quaida? Wouldn't be surprised, after all Hamas came into existence with Israeli sponsorship. ISIS would make logical sense, but I don't think so as it would be too embarrassing if they were caught at it.

My guess is that Israeli agents in Syria, quite numerous no doubt, concentrate on getting all the different forces involved to fight and kill each other, without "favoring" any particular faction.Israel has attacked Syrian and Hezbollah, and has given medical aid to JAN fighters. FSA is a clusterfuck of Jihadists that often side with JAN and Daesh.