What does a free Kurdistan mean?

A selfgoverning Kurdistan like that in Rojawa.

Why does every revolution have to happen twice?

Because for a revolution to be finalized it has to first revolt against the dominant class and then revolt against the entire form of production.

Can be seen in the case of both the french and russian revolution.

To quote Zizeks foreword to Revolution at the Gates which is a collection of texts written by Lenin in 1917.

This gap - a repetition of the gap between 1789 and 1793 in the French Revolution - is the very space of Lenin's unique intervention: the fundamen- tal lesson of revolutionary materialism is that revolution must strike twice, and for essential reasons. The gap is not simply the gap between form and content: what the "first revolution" misses is not the content, but the form itself - it remains stuck in the old form, thinking that freedom and justice can be accomplished if we simply put the existing state apparatus and its democratic mechanisms to use. What if the "good" party wins the free elections and "legally" implements socialist transformation? (The clearest expression of this illusion, bordering on the ridiculous, is Karl Kautsky's thesis, formulated in the 1920s, that the logical political form of the first stage of socialism, of the passage from capitalism to socialism, is the parliamentary coalition of bourgeois and proletarian parties.) Here there is a perfect parallel with the era of early modernity, in which opposition to the Church ideological hegemony first articulated itself in the very form of another religious ideology, as a heresy: along the same lines, the partisans of the "first revolution" want to subvert capitalist domination in the very political form of capitalist democracy. This is the Hegelian "negation of negation": first the old order is negated within its own ideologico-political form; then this form itself has to be negated. Those who oscillate, those who are afraid to take the second step of overcoming this form itself, are those who (to repeat Robespierre) want a "revolution without revolution" - and Lenin displays all the strength of his "hermeneutics of suspicion" in discerning the different forms of this retreat.