Whats turkey role in Syria? why they attack Kurds?
Executive summary
Turkey has played an active, often interventionist role in the Syrian conflict: seeking to secure its border, prevent the emergence of a contiguous Kurdish-controlled zone, back anti‑Assad opposition forces and project influence in northern Syria — actions that have included repeated airstrikes, cross‑border incursions and long‑term occupation of parts of the frontier [1] [2] [3]. Ankara’s strikes and operations against Kurdish forces are driven primarily by its long-standing fight with the PKK and by the Turkish government’s contention that Syrian Kurdish militias (notably the YPG) are linked to that terrorist organization, a position that is disputed by some Western partners and flatly denied by Kurdish groups [4] [5] [6].
1. Turkey’s strategic objectives in Syria: buffer zones, proxies and regional leverage
Ankara’s Syria policy has evolved from diplomacy and sanctions to direct military engagement aimed at creating security buffer zones along the border, establishing Turkish-backed administration in parts of northwest Syria, and using proxy forces such as the Syrian National Army to hold territory and provide local governance functions — including post offices and the lira — in areas Ankara controls [7] [3] [1]. Turkish leaders have said these moves are designed to stop threats reaching Turkish soil, manage refugee flows domestically, and expand Ankara’s regional influence in a post‑Assad Syria where Moscow and Tehran are principal backers of Damascus [8] [9] [7].
2. Why Ankara targets Kurdish forces: the PKK link and domestic politics
The central rationale Ankara gives for striking Kurdish forces in Syria is that the YPG and related groups are extensions or affiliates of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the armed group that has waged an insurgency inside Turkey for decades; Turkey classifies those groups as terrorists and argues their territorial consolidation in northern Syria would empower Kurdish separatism that threatens Turkey’s internal security [4] [6]. President Erdoğan and Turkish officials have repeatedly framed operations as counter‑terrorism and self‑defense, pointing to attacks attributed to the PKK as justification for airstrikes and cross‑border offensives [5] [10].
3. How Turkey fights in Syria: airstrikes, ground incursions and proxy forces
Since 2016 Ankara has launched several major incursions and sustained a pattern of air and drone strikes into northern Syria and adjacent parts of Iraq, alongside deploying Turkish forces and supporting Syrian opposition militias to administer occupied zones — a campaign that Reuters’ analysis shows intensified sharply in 2022 with thousands of airstrikes reported in Kurdish areas [1] [10] [3]. Turkey’s operations have been described by human rights monitors and NGOs as causing civilian casualties and displacement, and Human Rights Watch has repeatedly warned that new offensives risk exacerbating humanitarian crises in the region [4] [2].
4. Geopolitical consequences: strained alliances and shifting balances
Turkey’s assault on Kurdish forces fractured erstwhile alignments: the U.S. backed YPG units against ISIS while Turkey denounced them as terrorists, creating diplomatic friction within NATO and complicating American-Turkish cooperation; meanwhile Moscow and Damascus have offered leverage to Ankara in talks over Syria even as Russia’s intervention preserved Assad’s rule and limited Turkish ambitions toward Damascus [2] [8] [9]. Analysts note Ankara’s territorial gains and administrative foothold in northwest Syria have increased its regional clout, even as allies express unease over human rights and the long‑term stability of Turkish occupation [7] [3].
5. Competing narratives, denials and the limits of attribution
Kurdish groups and some international observers deny responsibility for attacks Turkey cites as pretexts for strikes, and the status of the YPG vis‑à‑vis the PKK remains contested between Ankara and partners such as Washington; Turkish authorities often cite self‑defense under the UN charter when conducting operations, while Kurdish officials and human‑rights groups highlight civilian harm and challenge the proportionality and legality of strikes [5] [2] [4]. Reporting and datasets (ACLED, Reuters analysis) document large numbers of Turkish strikes and significant casualties, but exact death tolls and the full chain of command for specific incidents are hard to verify from open sources [10].
6. What reporting doesn’t settle
Open reporting offers a clear account of Turkey’s motives as Ankara presents them and of the observable methods Turkey uses, but it cannot definitively adjudicate every specific allegation of terrorist linkage, or fully quantify long‑term demographic and political effects of occupation; where sources disagree — Turkey’s security claims versus Kurdish denials and Western caveats — the public record documents the dispute without a conclusive independent adjudication [4] [5] [10].