PKK-Turkey Ceasefire: A Turning Point or Temporary Pause in a Decades-Long Conflict?
Alex Blackburn | 20 March 2025
Summary
Leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, called for a ceasefire between the armed group and Turkish forces, but Türkiye rejects peace talks and demands unilateral disarmament.
The ceasefire raises questions about its impact on Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq, particularly the SDF, both in terms of their military position and political standing. It could weaken the SDF’s regional influence by giving Türkiye a stronger mandate to continue its operations against Kurdish groups under the pretext of counterterrorism, further destabilising northern Syria.
The lack of institutional guarantees between Türkiye and the PKK and continued military operations against Kurdish elements in Syria cast doubt on whether this ceasefire will lead to a lasting resolution or simply serve as a temporary pause in an ongoing cycle of conflict.
On 27 February 2025, Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), issued a written call for the group to lay down arms and dissolve. His message, delivered from Imrali Prison in Türkiye, was soon followed by a 3 March announcement from the PKK declaring a ceasefire.
This development signifies a significant shift in a conflict that has endured for over 40 years, claiming more than 40,000 lives across Türkiye, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. The PKK, designated a terrorist organisation by Türkiye, the US, and the UK, has engaged in armed resistance against the Turkish state, advocating for Kurdish autonomy and rights. The last major peace effort, which took place between 2013 and 2015, abruptly collapsed amid rising tensions in the broader region between the two parties, resulting in renewed violence. Since 2015, an estimated 7,152 individuals have died in clashes and attacks, including 646 civilians, 1,494 Turkish security personnel, and 4,786 PKK fighters.
Despite the proclaimed ceasefire, uncertainty looms. The Turkish government has rejected suggestions of formal peace talks, instead favouring a unilateral cessation of hostilities from the PKK. Meanwhile, Kurdish political groups, particularly the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) party, continue to face repression, with 10 senior officials, including a deputy mayor, being arrested over alleged ties to Kurdish militants.
Implications for the region
The ceasefire has immediate and broader geopolitical implications, particularly concerning Türkiye’s regional ambitions. A key question is how this development might bolster President Erdoğan’s position as Türkiye seeks greater influence over Syria’s post-war reconstruction. Ankara has long viewed Kurdish-led forces as an obstacle to its strategic goals, especially as it competes with other regional actors to shape Syria’s future governance. Resolving, or at least appearing to resolve, the PKK issue could strengthen Türkiye’s position in negotiations while undermining Kurdish leverage in the region.
The impact on Kurdish-led forces in Syria and Iraq is also critical. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a US-backed coalition that has fought ISIS while also facing pressure from Türkiye, remains a focal point. SDF commander General Mazloum Abdi clarified that Öcalan’s ceasefire call applies only to the PKK and does not directly involve the SDF. However, Ankara may not recognise this distinction and has continued airstrikes in northern Syria, including near the Tishrin Dam, a long-standing flashpoint between the SDF and Turkish-backed militias.
Domestically, the political ramifications are complex. The Turkish government has historically been unwilling to grant legal and political guarantees to Kurdish groups, and scepticism among the public remains high. Öcalan has now served 25 years of his life sentence, but the timing of this announcement raises questions: why now? Erdoğan’s government has often used Kurdish-related developments to consolidate power, and far-right nationalist leader Devlet Bahçeli has surprisingly endorsed the ceasefire, a move that seems at odds with his hardline stance.
Adding to this volatile mix, Türkiye faces the ongoing challenge of managing the exodus of Syrian refugees. As Ankara pushes for their resettlement, resolving, or at least de-escalating, the Kurdish conflict might provide Erdoğan with greater leverage to shape Syria’s post-war landscape. However, without meaningful democratic reforms and institutional safeguards for Kurdish representation, Kurdish leaders argue that the ceasefire alone will not prevent future escalations. Given Türkiye’s past reluctance to offer substantive concessions, a question remains over the government’s intentions.
Can the ceasefire hold?
The sustainability of this ceasefire hinges on three factors.
First, in the absence of a formal mediation mechanism, there exists a risk that the conflict could evolve instead of concluding. Türkiye’s reluctance to permit international mediation arises from its long-term geopolitical strategy of maintaining autonomy over domestic affairs. Although international actors like the UN and the US have played vital roles in various peace processes globally, Ankara is unlikely to accept such intervention.
Second, unresolved Kurdish grievances pose a significant challenge. Kurds constitute 20% of Türkiye’s population, and the historical suppression of Kurdish identity and rights has been a key driver of the conflict. If the Turkish government fails to provide concrete political and cultural reforms, Kurdish activists may persist in campaigning for recognition through alternative means, which could provoke new forms of resistance.
Third, strategic considerations exist for both Erdoğan and the PKK. Erdoğan’s government, grappling with economic challenges and potential political instability, may utilise the ceasefire to garner nationalist support or even seek backing from Kurdish political groups for constitutional changes that might extend his tenure. Meanwhile, the PKK, under intense military pressure from Turkish operations in Iraq and Syria, may view this as a tactical pause rather than a definite end to its armed struggle.
While Öcalan’s call for disarmament is a significant development, the absence of institutional guarantees, ongoing military operations, and political uncertainty raise doubt as to whether this ceasefire will result in a lasting resolution or merely another hiatus in a prolonged cycle of conflict. Without structural reforms and a trusted mediation process, the Kurdish question in Türkiye may remain unresolved, with the potential for future unrest.
Halil Uysal/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0
Forecast
Short-term
In the months following the announcement of the ceasefire, PKK activity will likely decrease dramatically. However, this will not reduce the activities of the pro-Kurdish parties in the Turkish parliament, which will most likely attempt to gain concessions in the new political background. Resetting relations with the Turkish government could, in return, give the Kurds further language and cultural autonomy.
Long-term
It is almost certain that this is not the end of armed Kurdish resistance. Like all political organisations, the PKK is plagued by political division and factionalism, it is more than likely that some of these more radical factions will not accept the ceasefire and call for dissolution. Instead, these members may carry on their attacks, however, their capacity to commit such attacks will be severely weakened.