several reports in arab-funded papers are claiming the kurds were defeated by the syrian army. these reports replace the usual pictures of female fighters, which western media has liked to print, with very unkurdish appearing bearded men, following islamic dress codes. this looks to me like it's islamist propaganda, which the western press has a tendency to fall for, and it's not clear if there's any value to it at all, or if it's distorting reality and contains some truth hidden in it.
it does seem to be clear that there has been a kurdish withdrawal from what are historically armenian and assyrian regions that arabs have been occupying since they were settled there by the ottomans after the armenian genocide.
the kurds have claimed that they never intended to occupy these "arab" areas but were holding them to prevent isis from returning to them and were waiting for the proper conditions to withdraw. what we're seeing are not conditions that would be considered acceptable, as they amount to a functional isis victory, and it's clear there was a retreat from a surprise attack. but, it's important to understand that they were only there to hold the area, in the first place. the kurds would not be expected to put up much of a fight in these areas.
i certainly oppose a return of isis, but it seems as though the americans are in support of an isis takeover of the syrian state, under apparent saudi pressure. the kurds have a fight on their hand if that's the case.
the kurds should be able to defend themselves against random isis terrorist cells and against the syrian army, if they have to. the part of the narrative in western media, which is funded with arab money, that's not making sense is the idea that the syrian army defeated the kurds and drove them out. that's laughable. the kurds will beat the shit out of the syrian army, which is no better than a terrorist cell, if they have to. the kurds can fight the iraqis if they have to, too. they can also put up a good fight against the iranians.
the kurds cannot fight the turks and the kurds cannot fight the americans. if the kurds were legitimately defeated, that would suggest either the turks or americans are responsible.
but, that is what isn't clear.
i have read some reports in kurdish media that are stating that the syrian state has agreed to stay out of rojava, which is smaller than the area you've been seeing on maps for several years. i would not trust the fascists that have just taken over syria. however, i have yet to see claims that the syrians have moved into rojava.
if the kurds can hold rojava proper with minimal interference from the nazis in damascus, they will maintain their sovereignty. i certainly would not expect the syrian army, run by terrorists, to be able to succeed in dislodging the kurds from their actual homeland, or have any say in how they choose to govern themselves. it will be a dangerous relationship for the kurds to navigate, and time will tell if it is sustainable. the new regime in syria is not like the government in iraq, or even the government in turkey, which are nominally democratic. it's more like the government in iran. i would suspect it isn't.
but one would expect the kurds to withdraw, analyze and wait rather than stand and fight and that seems to be what they're doing.
claims that rojava is on the brink of destruction would be reliant on what the turks are up to, and that doesn't seem to be a serious threat at this point. it seems to just be saudi propaganda.