Dr Regine Schwab
“Armed group constellations as emergent relational structures mediate between micro-level
interactions and macro-level conflict outcomes, filling a crucial gap in how we understand the social
processes of (multiparty) civil wars”
In late November 2024, Syrian rebel groups launched a military operation that evolved from a limited response to recurring government bombardments into the stunning overthrow of the Assad regime. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led this lighting campaign, but success required substantial cooperation among Syria’s oldest and most important rebel groups: Ahrar al-Sham, Faylaq al-Sham, Suqour al-Sham, the Levant Front, and others.
How did a fragmented opposition with hundreds of groups—groups that often fought each other as
fiercely as they fought the regime—ultimately succeed after almost 14 years of war? The answer
lies in understanding the unique constellation that emerged between HTS and other actors within the broader network of armed groups: not simple alliance, but a complex configuration involving cooperation, conflict, and conflict management.
Existing approaches to understanding relations between rebels rely on a basic cooperation-versus-conflict binary. But this misses the surprising diversity in how armed groups relate to each other. Some cooperate across military, governance, and political domains despite periodic violence, whilst others engage only in short-term tactical arrangements. There’s also enormous variation in institutional depth—from informal coordination to joint governance bodies and unified command structures.
My forthcoming book, based on extensive fieldwork on the Syrian conflict and comparative analysis across Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Myanmar, discusses four distinct types of armed group constellations that illuminates this complexity.
Four Constellation Types
Armed group constellations emerge from different combinations of four key similarities between
groups—conflict goals, ideology, tactical interests, and personal ties – that intersect with territorial
control. They vary along two observable dimensions: territorial scope (local versus expansive) and
content (single-domain versus multi-domain cooperation).
Local single-domain Constellations emerge between groups fighting for different conflict goals. Sharing only tactical interests, group interactions remain limited to a single domain within a specific geographic space. While groups often primarily coordinate military activities, these constellations can also revolve around economic interests. The constellation that emerged between the Kurdish Partiya Yekîtiya Demokrat (PYD) and its affiliated forces, on the one hand, and Free Syrian Army (FSA) groups, on the other, in two Aleppo neighbourhoods in the conflict’s early period exemplifies this particular type of constellation.
Local Multi-domain Constellations develop when single-domain cooperation expands due to territorial control. Groups coordinate across security, governance, or economic domains not because they share visions, but because territorial proximity creates operational necessities. Since interaction occurs repeatedly, local intermediaries become central in managing relations through tacit deals. The PYD-FSA constellation in Aleppo evolved this way temporarily as groups developed overlapping control, creating parallel institutions while dividing authority.
Expansive Single-domain Constellations form between groups sharing conflict goals but lacking ideological proximity. Cooperation spans multiple territories but remains limited to one domain – typically military. Ties between top leaders play a crucial role in starting such extensive collaboration, but their significance decreases over time. The fragile constellation that emerged between ISIS and diverse Islamist groups across Syria is an example of such a constellation. Because of only partial overlaps in conflict goals and ideology, this constellation was marred by infighting before dissolving into enduring enmity in 2014.
Expansive Multi-domain Constellations emerge between groups with shared conflict goals and ideological proximity. These commonalities create complex patterns – geographically widespread and institutionalized cooperation across multiple domains, but also intense competition when groups control territory. Strong personal connections between groups, combined with ties to external mediators, create robust mechanisms for managing recurring conflicts. Ideologically proximate groups that serve as core nodes may draw in other actors that are more ideologically distant, creating heterogeneous but cohesive constellations.
The HTS-Led Constellation
The constellation that toppled Assad exemplifies this final type. HTS built extensive connections with other Islamist groups and – through bridging actors such as Ahrar al-Sham – FSA factions across Syria, creating military coalitions with various command structures and joint governance bodies. Institutionalised conflict resolution mechanisms frequently prevented escalation into enmity and facilitated the gradual, though not always voluntary, integration of groups with HTS. However, this constellation also exhibited the paradoxical dynamics typical of expansive multi-domain arrangements. The same ideological proximity that enabled cooperation also generated intense competition over different visions in governance once groups controlled territory.
What made this constellation ultimately successful was its ability to enable consolidation through both competitive and cooperative means. Unlike existing literature’s focus on zero-sum conflict, this constellation fostered unification through mergers and umbrella organisations alongside more coercive measures. The Military Council in Idlib gradually became the dominant institution as member groups lost their independence, leading to the unification of the remaining rebel groups in Northwest Syria under HTS leadership.
A Relational Framework for Understanding Civil War Dynamics
My framework advances relational approaches to civil war by emphasising the dynamic, evolving nature of inter-group relations. Constellations have life cycles—they emerge, evolve, and dissolve through ongoing interactions, creating relatively predictable patterns even as specific interactions change.
Armed group constellations as emergent relational structures mediate between micro-level interactions and macro-level conflict outcomes, filling a crucial gap in how we understand the social processes of (multiparty) civil wars.
Importantly, these patterns aren’t unique to Syria. The framework applies across diverse contexts—different organisational forms, ideologies, and conflict settings. By considering strategic factors alongside personal ties and organisational dynamics, it explains important variations that existing theories cannot account for – including why some groups continue to cooperate despite violence while others create fleeting arrangements at best; why some constellations are associated with relatively peaceful consolidation processes, while others lead to the less sustainable rise of a dominant group through violent means alone; and how rebels can achieve victory even against seemingly stronger incumbents.
As Syria now transitions to post-Assad governance, understanding these same constellation dynamics will be crucial for understanding whether existing relations will contribute to peaceful contention or renewed violence.
