PKK ringleader Ocalan’s letter a turning point or tactical move?

Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned ringleader of the PKK, the terrorist organization responsible for decades and decades of armed insurgency against Türkiye, issued a statement that could mark a historic shift in the region.

The PKK, now primarily based in the mountainous regions of northern Iraq, previously in southeastern Türkiye, is designated as a terrorist organization by Türkiye, the United States, and the European Union.

The terrorist group has been engaged in violent conflict since the 1980s, causing immense human and economic losses.

Since its foundation, more than 40,000 people have lost their lives because of PKK terrorism. In his written message on Feb. 27, Ocalan called on the PKK to convene a congress and formally disband, urging its members to lay down their arms and cease all militant activities.

His letter was more than just a call for disarmament. It was a direct and clear challenge to the ideological foundations—revolutionary socialism and Marxism—Leninism with nationalism, seeking the foundation of an independent Kurdistan by seizing territories from Türkiye, as well as from Iraq and Iran, and possibly others—of the PKK.

In his letter, Ocalan rejected the long-standing aspirations for federalism, autonomy, or an independent Kurdish state, stating unequivocally that these concepts do not provide real solutions. He emphasized that Türkiye’s unity and territorial integrity must be upheld and that the only viable path forward for Turkish citizens of Kurdish descent lies within a democratic Türkiye.

This statement stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric that has sustained the PKK’s armed campaign for decades.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Ocalan’s message was his acknowledgment that the PKK’s mission has lost its relevance. He admitted that historical grievances, which once fueled the conflict, have been largely addressed and that armed struggle has become an outdated and counterproductive approach.

This aligns with Türkiye’s long-standing position: the nation’s issue has never been with its citizens of Kurdish descent but with “terrorism” disguised as an ethnic struggle.

Genuine change or strategic ploy?

Despite the weight of Ocalan’s statement, skepticism persists. Many analysts question whether this is a sincere ideological shift or a calculated effort to reposition himself and his followers in a changing political landscape. Given that Türkiye’s military operations have severely weakened the PKK, some see this move as an attempt to secure political or legal concessions.

The response from the PKK’s leadership in the Qandil Mountains will be crucial in determining whether the organization will comply. Its figures like Cemil Bayik and Murat Karayilan have historically resisted any moves toward disarmament, and their reaction—or lack thereof—will indicate the level of internal alignment with Ocalan’s directive. Additionally, the YPG, the PKK’s Syrian branch, immediately distanced itself from Ocalan’s call, insisting that his message did not apply to them.

This highlighted an internal fracture within the PKK-linked network, revealing that not all factions are willing to abandon the militant struggle.

External factors also complicate matters. The United States, which has backed the YPG under the guise of fighting Daesh, may not be eager to see its strategic ally in Syria dissolve.

Reports suggest that YPG leaders have sought continued support from foreign powers, including Israel, further underscoring their geopolitical calculations. If external actors continue to aid the YPG, the dissolution of the PKK in its traditional form may not necessarily lead to a full-scale reduction in regional instability.

Legal, political implications

Ocalan’s statement also raises significant legal questions. Under Turkish law, membership in a designated terrorist organization is a criminal offense, and the disbanding of the PKK does not automatically translate into amnesty for its members.

Any reintegration efforts will have to be managed within Türkiye’s legal framework, ensuring accountability while also providing an exit strategy for those willing to abandon terrorism.

From an international law perspective, Türkiye’s counterterrorism measures have been reinforced by U.N. Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreements with various countries regarding the extradition of PKK-affiliated individuals.

The European Court of Human Rights, which is the top court in Europe, has repeatedly upheld states’ rights to take decisive action against terrorism, reinforcing Türkiye’s legal standing in handling this transition.

If the PKK does indeed dissolve, the broader implications extend beyond Türkiye’s borders. The PKK has established networks in Iraq, Syria, and Iran that continue militant activities.

Even though all the branches of the terrorist PKK accept Ocalan as their top leader, the question remains whether these affiliated groups will also disband or attempt to reorganize under different names.

Role of YPG and external influences

One of the most revealing aspects of this development is the YPG’s reaction. Although structurally and ideologically linked to the PKK, the YPG initially resisted Ocalan’s call.

Their leadership, particularly figures like Mazlum Abdi, has been openly engaging with external actors such as the United States and Israel.

Reports indicate that YPG leaders have reached out to Israel for support, particularly in response to concerns that the U.S. may reduce its military presence in Syria.

This reluctance to comply with Ocalan’s directive suggests a clear divergence in strategic priorities. While Ocalan and elements of the terrorist PKK leadership may see disbandment as inevitable, the terrorist YPG appears determined to maintain its position as a key player in Syria, leveraging international alliances to sustain its operations.

This further raises the concern that even if the PKK dissolves, its offshoots may persist under different names, adapting to shifting geopolitical realities.

Türkiye’s strategic gains

Türkiye’s counterterrorism efforts have reached a turning point. Years of military operations, intelligence coordination, and diplomatic pressure have forced the PKK into a position where its founding leader now calls for its dissolution.

This is not merely a victory on the battlefield, but also a testament to Türkiye’s ability to shape the narrative and reality of the conflict.

The security benefits of the PKK’s potential dissolution cannot be overstated. A Türkiye free from PKK terrorism would allow for increased economic investment in southeastern regions, fostering greater stability and development. Moreover, it would eliminate a major source of tension in Türkiye’s foreign relations, particularly with Iraq and Syria.

Additionally, the weakening of the PKK disrupts a long-standing element of Western-backed strategies in the region. Türkiye has long argued that the U.S. and some European states have used the PKK and its affiliates as instruments of influence in the Middle East.

The group’s dissolution would fundamentally alter power dynamics, forcing these external actors to reconsider their regional strategies.

Path forward

While terrorist leader Ocalan’s call for disarmament is a momentous declaration, its implementation remains uncertain. The coming months will reveal whether the PKK leadership complies or fractures into different factions. Türkiye’s vigilance will be crucial in ensuring that remnants of the terrorist organization do not attempt to rebrand under different identities.

At the same time, the role of foreign actors will be pivotal. If external powers continue to support elements of the PKK network, particularly in Syria, the risk of continued instability remains.

Türkiye’s diplomatic and military strategies will need to adapt accordingly to counter any efforts to sustain PKK-linked entities.

Ultimately, the fate of the PKK will be determined not just by Ocalan’s words but by the actions of its remaining leadership, Türkiye’s counterterrorism strategy, and the geopolitical interests of external powers.

If this dissolution takes full effect, it will mark the end of one of the longest-running insurgencies in modern history. If not, it will signal yet another adaptation by a militant network seeking to survive in a changing landscape.

The next steps are crucial. Will the PKK’s leadership heed Ocalan’s call, or will external influences keep parts of the organization alive? The answer will shape Türkiye’s security trajectory for years to come.

---

About the author: Ceren Harputlu is an analyst specializing in international relations. She occasionally contributes as a freelance writer.