Actual news is that the Syrian elite forces, the Tiger forces, are moving toward East Syria. With the quite obvious aim to clear the territory East of the Euphrat from the IS remains.
China is still in transition - the State owns the land and other major resource pools, for example.
Which is not in conflict with the classification as corporatism. The state may be a very powerful economic actor in corporatism too.
Regardless, empty categories like "corporatism" we can dismiss - and the rise of fascism in the US and former USSR (but not, yet, China) becomes visible.
Ok, feel free to dismiss corporatism completely. That's not my problem. It is your argumentation which has the problem. Here: "With the perspective that some of these businessmen - like Trump - want that Washington to be run by them. It's called "fascism", and you never see it coming."
Corporatism means that the society is ruled by big business in cooperation with the state. So, some of the businessmen (big ones, small business plays no role) in corporatism want to rule the state completely, almost by definition. That holds in China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Obama time US too. In Russia, some seven bankers ruled the state. Now the state has taken the power in Russia, but there are nonetheless oligarchs there, and they would certainly like to rule the state again. So, this is a quite general situation, nothing special of Trump rule.
So the Kurds suffer badly, the bad news regimes in Turkey and Syria consolidate their hold, and Putin has another notch in his belt.
The interesting times will come if these surrounding countries - Turkey, Iran, Iraq - see opportunity for their own ambitions.
The "bad news" for you is peace in the region, not? Given that peace always means that the winning sides in the war "consolidate their hold", you can always use that phrase to whine about the peace. Once there will be some peace, with the former territories remaining unchanged (which is what formally, officially all of them accept), who cares about ambitions?
Ok, the US may try to motivate Erdogan to try to occupy some Syrian territory forever. And Erdogan would, of course, like to do such things. So, this idea is not completely without any base in reality.
The question facing Americans - and possibly the Kurds - is which bad guy has the more powerful hold on Trump: Erdogan or Putin.
That's a question for propaganda victims.
I see it differently. The unipolar world order has failed, the multipolar world is emerging. There are always two possibilities for such a transition: War and peace. I would prefer peace. But this means that the empire has to give up its former power over the world to the other players. These other players are, of course, bad guys, at least in the propaganda of the war faction of the empire. And, given that a peaceful ruler will be attacked by the war faction propaganda, he will be painted like a puppet of these bad guys.
The timing of this supposed withdrawal suggests Erdogan called it (there was a phone call, literally) - with Flynn under pressure for his dealings with Turkey while teamed with Trump, Trump probably cannot afford to lose Erdogan's discretion. But Erdogan and Putin have conflicting interests in Syria, and through Syria in Iraq, and regarding Iran. Trump may be in a bit of a trap here.
And with him, in his trap, is the US military.
That the decision to support the Kurds has trapped the US in Syria was obvious from the start. And Putin and Erdogan have used this in full cooperation. Instead of Russia openly starting to fight the US troops in Syria (they used only some formally independent even of Assad partizan movement) open confrontation was left to Erdogan, so that the US had to choose - NATO partner Erdogan or the Kurds.
It seems, this game is over, with the US preferring Erdogan.