BATI – PYD/YPG İLİŞKİSİNİN BÖLGESEL VE KÜRESEL GÜVENLİK DİNAMİKLERİ ÜZERİNE ETKİSİ: ASİMETRİK SAVAŞ VE DEVLET DIŞI SİLAHLI AKTÖRLER PERSPEKTİFİNDEN BİR İNCELEME

Öz

Bu çalışma, ABD şemsiyesi altında Batı tarafından siyasi, askeri ve ekonomik olarak desteklenen PYD/YPG’yi merkeze alarak, bu ilişkiyi uluslararası hukuk ve güvenlik dinamikleri bağlamında analiz etmektedir. Bu amaçla ilgili literatür, saha verileri ve açık kaynaklardan erişilebilen istihbarat raporlarından yararlanılmıştır. Bulgular örgütün, ABD ve AB ülkeleri tarafından bölgesel çıkarlar doğrultusunda kullanıldığını göstermektedir. Asimetrik savaş stratejisini benimsemiş olan örgüt, Batı’dan aldığı destekle ve onlar adına Suriye’de vekâlet savaşları yürütmektedir. Öte yandan Avrupa başta olmak üzere Batı’da rahatça örgütlenmekte ve faaliyetlerini sürdürmektedir. Bu faaliyetler lobicilik, finans, propaganda ve militan temini gibi geniş bir zemine yayılmaktadır. Batı medyası ise örgütü DEAŞ’a karşı mücadele gerekçesiyle özgürlük ve demokrasi savaşçısı olarak konumlandırmakta ve örgüt lehine kamuoyu oluşmasına aracılık etmektedir. Bununla birlikte örgütün NATO üyesi olan Türkiye’yi de hedef alan terör eylemleri, PKK ile ilişkisi ve sebep olduğu kitlesel göçler ise göz ardı edilmektedir. Batı tarafından sağlanan desteği haklı göstermek amacıyla örgütün meşrulaştırılmaya çalışıldığı ve bu durumun uluslararası hukuku ve düzeni aşındırdığı anlaşılmaktadır. Örgüte sağlanan destek, bölgesel istikrarsızlık ve çatışmaları derinleştirirken kitlesel göçler, yabancı savaşçılar ve organize suç şebekeleriyle işbirlikleri dolayısıyla bölgesel ve küresel güvenlik mimarisi olumsuz etkilenmektedir. Ayrıca, bu ilişki Batı ittifakı ve NATO içerisinde stratejik uyumsuzluklara ve güven bunalımlarına neden olmakta, müttefiklik ilişkilerini zedeleyerek işbirliklerini zorlaştırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asimetrik Savaş
• Terörizm
• Devlet Dışı Aktörler
• Vekâlet Savaşları
• Hibrit Savaş

Proje Numarası

Proje Kapsamında Değildir

THE IMPACT OF THE WEST–PYD/YPG RELATIONSHIP ON REGIONAL AND GLOBAL SECURITY DYNAMICS: AN ANALYSIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ASYMMETRIC WARFARE AND NON-STATE ARMED ACTORS

Öz

This study analyzes this relationship in the context of international law and security dynamics by focusing on the PYD/YPG, which is supported politically, militarily, and economically by the West under the US umbrella. For this purpose, relevant literature, field data, and intelligence reports available from open sources were utilized. The findings show that Türkiye and EU countries use the organization in line with regional interests. The organization, which has adopted an asymmetric warfare strategy, is waging proxy wars in Syria with the support of the West and acting on its behalf. On the other hand, it easily organizes and continues its activities in the West, especially in Europe. These activities cover a wide range of areas such as lobbying, finance, propaganda, and the recruitment of militants. The Western media, on the other hand, positions the organization as a fighter for freedom and democracy on the grounds of the fight against DAESH and mediates the formation of public opinion in its favor. However, the organization's terrorist acts targeting NATO member Türkiye, its relationship with the PKK, and the mass migrations it causes are ignored. It is understood that the West tries to legitimize the organization to justify its support, which erodes international law and order. While the support provided to the organization deepens regional instability and conflicts, the regional and global security architecture is negatively affected by mass migration, foreign fighters, and cooperation with organized crime networks. Moreover, this relationship causes strategic incompatibilities and trust crises within the Western and NATO alliance, damaging alliance relations and making collaboration difficult.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asymmetric Warfare
• Terrorism
• Non-State Actors
• Proxy War
• Hybrid Warfare

Destekleyen Kurum

destekleyen kurum bulunmamaktadır

Proje Numarası

Proje Kapsamında Değildir

Etik Beyan

Çalışma bilimsel etik kurallarına uygun olarak kaleme alınmıştır.

Kaynakça

1. Abrahms, M. (2006). Why terrorism does not work. International security, 31(2), 42–78.
2. Acun, C. & Keskin B. (2017). The PKK’s branch in northern syria, PYD-YPG. Seta Report. https://www.setav.org/en/assets/uploads/2017/05/PYD_YPG_En.pdf
3. Akartuna, E. A., & Thornton, A. E. (2021). The kurdistan worker’s party (PKK) in london: countering overseas terrorist financing and support with “nudge” and situational approaches. Terrorism and Political Violence, 35(2), 470–496.
4. Amnesty. (2021). The state of the world’s human rights. Amnesty International Report 2020/21. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/English.pdf
5. Arreguín-Toft, I. (2005). How the weak win wars: a theory of asymmetric conflict. International security, 30(1), 93-128.
6. Berkowitz, L., & Mügge, L. (2014). Transnational diaspora lobbying: europeanization and the kurdish question. Intercultural studies, 35(1), 74-90.
7. Bremmer, I. (2012). Every nation for ıtself: winners and losers in a g-zero world. Harvard Business Review.
8. Byman, D. L. (2011). A high price: the triumphs and failures of hezbollah. Oxford University Press.

9. Byman, D. L., & Wittes, T. C. (2016). Proxy wars: the future of conflict. Brookings Institution Press.
10. Byman, D., Chalk, P., Hoffman, B., Rosenau, W., & Taylor, E. (2001). Trends in Outside Support for Insurgent Movements. RAND Corporation.
11. Cantenar, Ö. F. & Tümlü, F. (2016). PKK terör örgütünün eylemlerinin güvenlik güçleri zayiati açisindan analizi. Science journal of turkish military Academy, 26(1)1, 1-22.
12. Cassese, A. (2005). International law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
13. Chaliand, G., & Blin, A. (2016). The history of terrorism: from antiquity to isis (updated edition). University of California Press.
14. Chomsky, N. (1997). Media control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda. Seven Stories Press.
15. Clausewitz, C. von. (1976). On war (M. Howard & P. Paret, Eds. & Trans.). Princeton University Press.
16. Crawford, J. (2013). Brownlie's principles of public international law (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
17. Crisis Group. (2025). Grafik ve haritalarla türkiye'deki pkk çatışması. https://www.crisisgroup.org/tr/content/grafik-ve-haritalarla-Türkiyedeki-pkk-catismasi
18. Cronin, A. K. (2009). How terrorism ends: understanding the decline and demise of terrorist campaigns. Princeton University Press.
19. Çelik, M. (2022). Türkiye’nin terörle mücadelesinde kamu diplomasisi: pkk örneği. Seta Yayınları.
20. Dalay, B. (2021). PKK'nın değişen stratejileri. Orsam Raporu.
21. Demir, E. (2021). The reasons and outcomes of the Turkish Armed Forces’ cross-border operations in syria in the context of the republic of Türkiye’s policy towards syria. Bölgesel araştırmalar dergisi, 5(2), 541-588.
22. Demir, T. (2024). Is the PYG a contınuatıon of the PKK an ideological analysis of the concepts of democratic confederalism and democratic autonomy. Terörizm ve radikalleşme araştırmaları dergisi, 3(2), 239-272.
23. Derviş, K. M., & Demir, F. (2016). The european union’s approach to the kurdistan workers’ party (PKK). Perspectives on terrorism, 10(5), 2-17.
24. Erdoğan, M.M.; Kirişçi, K. & Uysal, G. (2021). Improving Syrian Refugee Inclusion in the Turkish Economy. World Refugee & Migration Council Research Report.
25. Europol (2022). European union terrorism situation and trend report. Publications Office Of The European Union, Luxembourg. https://www.europol.europa.eu/publication-events/main-reports/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2022-te-sat
26. Fayganoğlu, K. & Fayganoğlu, P. (2021). Hibrit savaş ve öğrenen örgütler: IIC’nin Suriye faaliyetler. International social sciences studies journal, 89(7), 4416-4443
27. Gerasimov, V. (2013). The value of science is in the foresight: new challenges demand rethinking the forms and methods of carrying out combat operations. Military review, 93(1), 23-29.
28. Gerges, F. A. (2016). ISIS: a history. Princeton University Press.
29. Gordon, J. (2018). The Syrian War: Spillover effects on regional and global security. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 29(3), 475–497.
30. Gunter, M. M. (2014). Out of nowhere: the kurds of syria in peace and war. Hurst Publishers.
31. Gunter, M. M. (2019). The kurds: a modern history. Bloomsbury Publishing.
32. Gürbüz, M. (2016). Sınır ötesi terörizm ve Türkiye’nin güvenlik politikaları. Nobel Yayınları
33. Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. The New York Times Book Review.
34. Hoffman, B. R. (2006). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press.
35. Hoffman, F. (2007). Conflict in the 21st century: the rise of hybrid wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
36. Hoffman, F. G. (2009). Hybrid warfare and challenges. Joint Force Quarterly, 52, 34–39.
37. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
38. Kalyvas, S. N. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge University Press.
39. Karaağaç, Y. & Acar, H.(2020). Güncel gelişmeler ışığında Türkiye’nin suriye politikası ve pkk-pyd ilişkisi bağlamında yeni askeri stratejisi. Barış araştırmaları ve çatışma çözümleri dergisi 8(2),76-101.
40. Knights, M. (2016). The kurdish question in ıraq. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/iraqi-kurdish-question
41. Kürkçü, S. ve Erendor, M.E. (2022). Terrorist actions on ınternet and social media: PKK case. Journal of Terrorism and Radicalization Studies, 1(2), 367-396.
42. Kydd, A. H. & Walter, B. F. (2006). The strategies of terrorism. International security, 31(1), 49-80.
43. Lake, D. A. (2010). Why “democracies” lose civil wars. Journal of conflict resolution, 54(1), 3-29.
44. Larrabee, F. S. (2009). Troubled partnership U.S.-Turkish relations in an era of global geopolitical chang. Rand Corporation.
45. Mack, A. (1975). Why big nations lose small wars: the politics of asymmetric conflict. World politics. 27(2), 175-200.
46. Marcus, A. (2007). Blood and belief: the PKK and the kurdish fight for independence. New York University Press.
47. Metz, S. (2007). Iraq and the evolution of American strategy. Potomac Books.
48. Metz, S., & Johnson, D. V. (2001). Asymmetry and U.S. military strategy: definition, background, and strategic concepts. U.S. Army War College Press.
49. Mumford, A. (2013). Proxy warfare. Polity Press.
50. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2002). The paradox of American power: why the world's only superpower cannot go it alone. Oxford University Press.
51. Orton, K. (2018). The secular foreign fighters of the West in Syria. Insight Türkiye, 20(3), 157–178.
52. Outzen, R. (2024). Costly incrementalism: U.S. PKK policy and relations with Türkiye. All azimuth. 14(1), 20-41.
53. Özer, Y. (2018). Savaşin değişen karakteri: teori ve uygulamada hibrit savaş. Güvenlik bilimleri dergisi, 7(1), 29-56.
54. Özkızılcık, Ö. & Görücü, K. (2021). The logic of YPG car bomb attacks in Syria a strategy of chaos and disorder. Seta. https://www.setav.org/en/assets/uploads/2021/10/R184-YPG-Car-Bomb.pdf
55. Phillips, D. L. (2016). The kurdish spring: geopolitical ımplications of the syrian kurds. Transaction Publishers.
56. Renz, B., & Seuring, J. N. (2017). Russia and hybrid warfare: Going beyond the label. Contemporary security policy, 38(3), 341-361.
57. Roth, M. P., & Sever, M. (2007). The kurdish workers party (PKK) as criminal syndicate: funding terrorism through organized crime, a case study. Studies in conflict & terrorism, 30(10), 901–920.
58. Salehyan, I. (2010). No friends but the mountains: rebels, resources, and third-party intervention in civil wars. International security, 35(1), 112-142.
59. Salehyan, I. (2010). The delegation of war to rebel organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(3), 493–515.
60. Schmitt, M. N. (2010). Military necessity and humanity in ınternational humanitarian law: preserving the delicate balance. Virginia journal of international law, 50(4), 795-837.
61. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
62. Stanicek, B. (2019). Türkiye's military operation in syria and its ımpact on relations with the EU. EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service) Report. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-642284-Türkiyes-military-operation-Syria-FINAL.pdf
63. Staniland, P. (2012). States, insurgents, and civil war. International organization, 66(4), 757-789.
64. Staniland, P. (2014). Networks of rebellion: explaining ınsurgent cohesion. Cornell University Press.
65. Stein, A. & Foley, M. (2016). The YPG-PKK connection. Atlantic Council https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-ypg-pkk-connection/
66. Stein, A. (2017). Partner or proxy? U.S. Support for the ypg. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/discussion-with-aaron-stein-on-the-decision-to-arm-the-ypg/
67. Şahin, Y. & İrdem, İ. (2017). YPG-PKK: the PKK in Syria. Journal of Security Studies, 5(8), 21-45.
68. Talmon, S. (2004). Responsibility of outside powers for acts of civil war participants. Israel Law Review, 37(1), 3-30.
69. Tax, M. (2016). A road unforeseen: women fight the islamic state. Bellevue Literary Press.
70. Tınas, M. & Demirden, A. (2020). Foreign terrorist fighters in YPG-PKK in Syria: violent extremism backfires. Turkish National Police Academy Printing and Publishing.
71. Van Dijk, A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of political ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
72. Walt, S. M. (2005). Taming American power. Council of foreign affairs, 84(5), 105-120.
73. Walter, B. F. (1997). The critical barrier to civil war settlement. International organization, 51(3), 335-364.
74. Watts, C. H. (2004). Meeting the enemy: the challenge of terrorist groups. U.S. Army War College.
75. Watts, N. F. (2010). Activists in office: kurdish politics and protest in Türkiye. University of Washington Press.
76. Weber, C. (2013). International relations theory: a critical ıntroduction. Routledge.
77. Weissmann, M. (2019). Hybrid warfare and hybrid thereats today and tomorrow: towards an analytical framework. Journal of baltic security, 5(1), 17-26.
78. White House (2019). The united states and Türkiye agree to ceasefire in northeast syria. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/united-states-Türkiye-agree- ceasefire-northeast-syria/
79. Yıldız, M. (2022). Pkk'nın avrupa yapılanması ve avrupa'daki kürt diasporası. İnsamer Analiz. https://www.insamer.com/tr/uploads/pdf/pkknin-avrupa-yapilanmasi-ve-avrupadaki-kurt-diasporasi_1.pdf
80. Yılmaz, M. L., & Tetik, Ü. (2020). Ortadoğu’yu terörize eden pyd/pkk’nın seçilmiş AB ülkelerindeki finansman kaynakları. Liberal düşünce dergisi, 25(97), 109-130.
81. Yüksel, E. (2019). Strategies of Turkish proxy warfare in northern syria. Clingendael. https://www.clingendael.org/pub/2019/strategies-of-turkish-proxy-warfare-in-northern-syria/introduction/
82. SETA. (2024). Navigating securıty in flux counterıng the PKK in 2023. SETA Publications.
83. Duran, B., & Yeşiltaş, M. (2023). The UN reform: New approaches and Türkiye's perspective. SETA Publications.
84. Sarı Ertem, H. (2024). Uluslararası ilişkilerde taşeron savaş ve patron-klient ilişkisi: ABD-PYD/YPG iş birliği örneği. İnsan & Toplum, 14(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.12658/M0725
85. ACLED. (2025a, September 15). Middle East overview: September 2025. https://acleddata.com/
86. Al Jazeera. (2025a, March 1). PKK declares ceasefire in 40-year conflict with Türkiye. https://www.aljazeera.com/
87. OHCHR. (2025, April 11). UN experts welcome Kurdish Workers’ Party ceasefire with Türkiye and urge a just and sustainable peace. https://www.ohchr.org/
88. Reuters. (2025b, May 15). Turkey says it expects Syrian Kurdish militia to fulfil Damascus deal [On NATO FMs mtg.; integration timeline and assets transfer]. https://www.reuters.com/
89. Al Jazeera. (2025b, June 4). Mapping Israel’s expanding air attacks across Syria. https://www.aljazeera.com/
90. ACLED. (2025a, July 4). Middle East overview: July 2025. https://acleddata.com/
91. Reuters. (2025a, July 12). PKK disarmament opens new page for Turkey, Erdoğan says. https://www.reuters.com/
92. Reuters. (2025b, July 23). Turkey wants SDF to show it abides deal with Damascus, source says. https://www.reuters.com/
93. ACLED. (2025b, August 8). Middle East overview: August 2025. https://acleddata.com/
94. Daily Sabah. (2025a, August 7). Erdoğan assures no concessions to PKK in terror-free Türkiye initiative. https://www.dailysabah.com/
95. Al-Monitor. (2025, August 13). Syrian Kurdish YPG should stop delaying Syria integration, Turkey says. https://www.al-monitor.com/
96. Reuters. (2025a, August 13). Syrian Kurdish YPG should stop delaying Syria integration, Turkey says. https://www.reuters.com/
97. Reuters. (2025c, August 13). Syrian Kurdish YPG should stop delaying Syria integration, Turkey says. https://www.reuters.com/
98. Daily Sabah. (2025b, September 7). ‘Terror-free Türkiye’ a strategic, correct step…. https://www.dailysabah.com/
99. Zakaria, F. (2011). The post american world 2.0. WW. Norton Company.