- January 24, 2026
- 7:29 pm
- World News
On January 24, 2026, Israeli military analyst Yigal Levin formulated a thought that is rarely spoken aloud but is almost always confirmed in practice. States and quasi-state projects do not die at the moment of loud statements or at press conferences. They die earlier — when capital starts to leave them.
As a starting point, he recalled an episode from 2017–2018. At that time, one of the key economic officials of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria openly stated: the project is unviable. Not because the idea or the people are bad, but because there is no influx of Western investments. And without them, it is impossible to build either industry or sustainable production.
This concerns the territory that the Kurds call Rojava. A political experiment, a Kurdish core, supporters of the ideas of Abdullah Öcalan, plus Arab tribal areas. On paper — autonomy. In reality — a zone of chronic investment risk.
Why capital did not go there, Levin explains without diplomacy. Even if you set aside Assad, Russia, Iran, and the changing configurations of Syrian power, Turkey remains. For Ankara, any Apoist structures are territories considered hostile and subject to cleansing. Today or tomorrow — a matter of time, not principle.
In such a situation, a basic economic question arises. Who will invest money in a region that cannot protect assets and property? The answer is obvious. Large capital does not enter where there is no guarantee that tomorrow all this will not be destroyed or expropriated.
That is why the thesis of that very economic official turned out to be accurate. Without Western capital, such constructs do not survive. This is not a moral assessment or a political position — it is cold economic logic, which we observe today in the Syrian example.
Levin then transfers this logic to a broader context. He recalls the words of Danish military analyst Nielsen: while amateurs follow forums, negotiations, and statements, professionals look at only one thing — money. Who, how much, and under what conditions allocates resources.
Hence — an important marker. Understanding that Ukraine is “drained” will not be by rhetoric, but by the budget. At the moment when partners start saying the right words — “you are heroes,” “you bravely hold on,” — but at the same time, the amounts of aid become symbolic or disappear altogether. This is not happening yet. Therefore, the stake remains.
Often in response, the example of Afghanistan is cited. But here too, according to Levin’s logic, everything is read long before the finale. The political decision to withdraw was formalized in 2020, the withdrawal itself — in the summer of 2021. But the outflow of capital began back in 2015: investments were curtailed, national projects lost funding, long-term programs were closed. For those who looked at the numbers, the outcome was obvious years before the evacuation.
From this follows a harsh but universal conclusion. Anyone who dreams of building a state or a sustainable political project must understand: without large external capital — Western or, in extreme cases, Chinese — it will not survive. And capital only comes where there is strength.
By strength here is meant not a slogan or the charisma of a leader. Army, police, courts, a functioning legal system, the ability to guarantee the inviolability of private property and investments. Without this, the choice is always one of three: professional terrorism as a source of funding (example — Hamas), agrarian freedom with atamanship and chronic crisis, or retreat into gray economies — from drug trafficking to semi-wild survival.
That is why, Levin’s logic concludes, money always leaves first. Not because of emotions and not because of ideology, but because capital senses better than others the moment when a project ceases to be defensible. This signal should be read more attentively than any speeches — exactly as NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency does.
