Brian M Downing
The Middle East has few effective militaries. Army after army has shown little fighting spirit when it comes to foreign enemies or ISIL, preferring instead their primary and usually easy mission of internal repression. The Kurds, on the other hand, have 
demonstrated formidable military effectiveness. They have blunted ISIL offensives in Syria and Iraq and are grinding them down week after week. The ISIL caliphate is being reduced to a few ruined cities and desert wasteland.
Major powers want them on their side. Add in Cold War Two and we have the US and Russia vying for influence. The US has the upper hand with Iraqi Kurds. The contest is on for influence with those of fragmented Syria.
Syria
Though Kurdish statelets mean a diminution of Assad’s territory, Russian mediation would maintain a measure of cooperation between Damascus and the Kurds. The two seeming adversaries have not clashed extensively – Damascus for fear of strengthening the rebel side, the Kurds out of concern for the authoritarianism and intolerance of most rebel groups.
A practical though uneasy federation may come about, based on common opposition to ISIL and to the ambitions of Erdogan in Turkey. International support, as we shall see, will be there.
Turkey
Erdogan will object to the arrangement as there are ties between Syrian and Turkish Kurds. Turkey has fought to suppress their aspirations, and indeed has at times tried to extinguish their language and customs. Today a low-level insurgency is underway.
Turkey has no good options regarding the Syrian Kurds. Suppressing them would be long, costly, and probably inconclusive. It would worsen domestic discontent and civil-military relations. It would also damage relations with Russia.
Russia has gained an astonishing amount of influence in Turkey over the last two years. Confrontation has changed to cooperation. Moscow can convince Erdogan to accept Kurdish autonomy in Syria, especially with Russian assurances of limiting or closing off collaboration with Turkish Kurds.
Assurances aren’t always assuring in a volatile region. So Turkey is building an indigenous counterpoise to Syria’s Kurds. Its recent incursion into Syria, with the help of the Free Syrian Army (an Arab force), is forming a buffer state between two Kurdish regions, one in Syria’s northwest, the other in its north-central region. Turkey will likely recruit other proxies from Arab forces east of the buffer.
The United States
American foreign policy has supported the Syrian Kurds with arms, training, and air support. The current US president’s disposition is uncertain. He has spoken critically of recent foreign policy blunders but boasted of destroying ISIL. Doing nothing in Syria will not help make America great again, nor will it ease suspicions that he and his colleagues have some sort of understanding with Putin.
In recent weeks the president has sent an artillery unit to help Kurdish-Arab forces in the campaign for Reqqa. The artillery troops went into action this Wednesday. The US will probably further strengthen the Syrian Kurds to the east of the Turkish buffer.
There will be two Syrian Kurdish statelets: one in northwestern Syria under Russian influence, one in the north-central region under American. The two statelets will be separated by the Turkish-FSA buffer.
There are long-term problems for such a policy. American support requires reliable logistical routes. Presently, the US uses bases in Turkey. In coming months, routes through Iraq are possible. Neither, however, can be relied upon for an extended period. Turkey is run by a mercurial figure and Iraq is unstable, especially in the Sunni areas contiguous to Syria.
The Kurds of north-central Syria may look upon Russia as the more reliable long-term partner. Russian supplies come in through Mediterranean ports, and perhaps, as Russian-Turkish trust grows, one day through Turkey. Furthermore, Syrian Kurds might well deem Putin a more reliable guarantor than his counterpart in Washington, now or even four years into the future.
Copyright 2017 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.