According to Kurdpress, the newly announced security agreement between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has been described by officials as a turning point in one of the most sensitive periods after the start of the Syrian war. This agreement includes the establishment of a comprehensive ceasefire, the reorganization of forces and the integration of full units of the SDF in the Syrian army. An action that is evaluated far beyond the limited and tactical understandings of the past years. However, at the same time as this agreement was announced, a wave of doubts and concerns about the fate of Kurdish rights, the security of minorities, the real division of power and the durability of this new mechanism has been formed.

Previous understandings between Damascus and the SDF were mostly limited to temporary ceasefires, management of contact lines or security coordination, and none of them turned into a sustainable framework. Many of these agreements were gradually worn out or ineffective under the pressure of regional developments, the competition of foreign actors and the deep distrust between the parties.

According to the provisions under discussion, the Syrian army forces are supposed to refrain from stationing in the main centers of cities such as Hasakah and Qamishlo, and the responsibility of internal security will be handed over to the local forces, in coordination with the SDF. The stated goal of this model is to reduce friction and create short-term stability for residents. But this same mechanism raises basic questions: which institution will be the final decision-maker in practice? How is influence balance defined? And can this hybrid structure survive in a field that continues to be influenced by foreign actors, internal rivalries and unresolved wounds?

All in all, northeast Syria is at a crucial point. The reduction of America's role is not the result of the military defeat of the SDF, but the result of changing political priorities. However, without international guarantees, accountability mechanisms, and a comprehensive political solution, this change could make the post-ISIS phase even more unstable than the war itself. The future of this agreement depends not only on military integration, but on the ability of local and international actors to preserve human dignity, guarantee equal rights and prevent the cycle of violence from repeating.