On October 23, 2024, terrorists attacked Turkish Aerospace Industries (TUSAS) near Ankara, killing five people and injuring another 22 in the tragic incident. Turkish security forces acted swiftly and neutralized two terrorists involved in the Ankara attack. They endangered their lives in protecting critical national infrastructure.
At first glance, the Ankara attack appears to be a simple act of terrorism. However, complex geopolitics are at play behind it. The incident occurred while President Erdogan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the BRICS summit. It appears to be a calculated move to disrupt Türkiye’s geopolitical efforts and sow instability in the region.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) stands at the center of these efforts. It has long been associated with external support from Western and Israeli elements. Different Turkish officials have said that the nature of the attack hints at PKK as the main perpetrator.
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia. [AP]
PKK’s Role and External Support
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has condemned the attack regarding it as a “heinous terrorist attack”. News sources tell that 15,000 people worked at the TUSAS campus at the time of the attack. Security camera footage showed a man with a backpack and assault rifle, along with a woman carrying a weapon.
Images of terrorists attacking the Turkish Aerospace Industries (TUSAS) near Ankara [X]
Turkish Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya suggested that the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK is likely linked to the attack. The PKK is a group that has led a decades-long insurgency against the Turkish government.
Similarly, Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler suggested that the PKK could be responsible for the attack. This aligns with the PKK’s history of orchestrating such violent incidents to destabilize the region and target critical infrastructure. Both officials pointed to the group’s militant tactics, reinforcing the likelihood that the PKK was behind this latest assault.
PKK’s alleged external support and backing from Israel and the West is part of broader efforts to weaken regional stability, challenge Turkish authority, and leverage the PKK as a proxy to achieve foreign policy objectives.
The incident also highlights a tactical similarity with the BLA, which involved a female terrorist. Both the BLA and PKK are regional proxies that utilize unconventional warfare methods, including female combatants, which enhance their operational reach and serve symbolic purposes.
The parallels between the PKK and other proxies like the BLA point to a broader trend in the use of insurgent groups by external powers to destabilize states like Türkiye and Pakistan. Both groups, though operating in different regions, are part of a larger network of non-state actors utilized to promote external agendas. The PKK, with its introduction of female suicide bombers, reflects an evolution in insurgent warfare, drawing inspiration from similar tactics seen in other conflict zones. The attack on critical infrastructure, like TUSAS, mirrors the BLA’s targeting of economic and strategic sites in Pakistan, further underscoring the similarities between these proxy groups.
Turkish Response and Future Implications
In response to the attack near Ankara, the Turkish defence ministry launched airstrikes on PKK targets in northern Iraq and Syria, according to state-run news agency Anadolu. The operation reportedly destroyed 32 terrorist sites, with a significant number of militants “neutralized.” As the complex geopolitics unfold, Turkey has to tactically advance its options for effective conflict management and securing strategic interests.
SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
In September 2025, a simple expression of faith became a crime. When a devotional social media trend, the ‘I Love Muhammad’ campaign, went viral, it was deliberately framed as a provocation by authorities. The state’s response was swift and brutal: mass arrests and punitive demolitions that turned a peaceful act of devotion into a national flashpoint, revealing a clear intent to police and punish Muslim identity itself.
Long seen through a security lens, Pakistan is now redefining its role in US strategy, as a supplier of critical minerals, a connectivity hub between Central and South Asia, and a stabilizing force in a volatile region. Amid global competition with China and shifting energy dynamics, Washington increasingly views Pakistan’s stability not as a choice but as a strategic necessity anchoring its economic and geopolitical interests across Asia.
Far from being an impartial recognition of pacifism, the Nobel Peace Prize’s legacy is marred by controversial laureates whose actions have been linked to immense violence. The prize is not a universal arbiter of peace but a political instrument reflecting a Western-centric worldview, rewarding figures who align with its geopolitical interests, regardless of the blood on their hands.
Eighty years after the UN’s creation to “save succeeding generations from war,” the organization stands at a breaking point. With veto paralysis, waning U.S. commitment, and global disillusionment, is the UN becoming the very institution it replaced—the League of Nations 2.0?
A recent Financial Times story claimed Pakistan was pitching a new Arabian Sea port to the US Built on anonymous sources and logical flaws, the report was quietly corrected. This article dissects how the flimsy reporting was weaponized by domestic and regional actors to push a false narrative, revealing more about their political agendas than Pakistan’s foreign policy.
Ankara Attack: More Than Just Terrorism?
On October 23, 2024, terrorists attacked Turkish Aerospace Industries (TUSAS) near Ankara, killing five people and injuring another 22 in the tragic incident. Turkish security forces acted swiftly and neutralized two terrorists involved in the Ankara attack. They endangered their lives in protecting critical national infrastructure.
At first glance, the Ankara attack appears to be a simple act of terrorism. However, complex geopolitics are at play behind it. The incident occurred while President Erdogan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the BRICS summit. It appears to be a calculated move to disrupt Türkiye’s geopolitical efforts and sow instability in the region.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) stands at the center of these efforts. It has long been associated with external support from Western and Israeli elements. Different Turkish officials have said that the nature of the attack hints at PKK as the main perpetrator.
PKK’s Role and External Support
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has condemned the attack regarding it as a “heinous terrorist attack”. News sources tell that 15,000 people worked at the TUSAS campus at the time of the attack. Security camera footage showed a man with a backpack and assault rifle, along with a woman carrying a weapon.
Turkish Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya suggested that the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK is likely linked to the attack. The PKK is a group that has led a decades-long insurgency against the Turkish government.
Similarly, Turkish Defense Minister Yasar Guler suggested that the PKK could be responsible for the attack. This aligns with the PKK’s history of orchestrating such violent incidents to destabilize the region and target critical infrastructure. Both officials pointed to the group’s militant tactics, reinforcing the likelihood that the PKK was behind this latest assault.
PKK’s alleged external support and backing from Israel and the West is part of broader efforts to weaken regional stability, challenge Turkish authority, and leverage the PKK as a proxy to achieve foreign policy objectives.
The incident also highlights a tactical similarity with the BLA, which involved a female terrorist. Both the BLA and PKK are regional proxies that utilize unconventional warfare methods, including female combatants, which enhance their operational reach and serve symbolic purposes.
Also See: Terrorism: Bleeding Wound for Regional Connectivity
Connection to Other Regional Proxies
The parallels between the PKK and other proxies like the BLA point to a broader trend in the use of insurgent groups by external powers to destabilize states like Türkiye and Pakistan. Both groups, though operating in different regions, are part of a larger network of non-state actors utilized to promote external agendas. The PKK, with its introduction of female suicide bombers, reflects an evolution in insurgent warfare, drawing inspiration from similar tactics seen in other conflict zones. The attack on critical infrastructure, like TUSAS, mirrors the BLA’s targeting of economic and strategic sites in Pakistan, further underscoring the similarities between these proxy groups.
Turkish Response and Future Implications
In response to the attack near Ankara, the Turkish defence ministry launched airstrikes on PKK targets in northern Iraq and Syria, according to state-run news agency Anadolu. The operation reportedly destroyed 32 terrorist sites, with a significant number of militants “neutralized.” As the complex geopolitics unfold, Turkey has to tactically advance its options for effective conflict management and securing strategic interests.
SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
The Indian Muslim: Living Between Faith and Fear
In September 2025, a simple expression of faith became a crime. When a devotional social media trend, the ‘I Love Muhammad’ campaign, went viral, it was deliberately framed as a provocation by authorities. The state’s response was swift and brutal: mass arrests and punitive demolitions that turned a peaceful act of devotion into a national flashpoint, revealing a clear intent to police and punish Muslim identity itself.
Pakistan’s Stability: A Silent Pillar of US Strategic Interests
Long seen through a security lens, Pakistan is now redefining its role in US strategy, as a supplier of critical minerals, a connectivity hub between Central and South Asia, and a stabilizing force in a volatile region. Amid global competition with China and shifting energy dynamics, Washington increasingly views Pakistan’s stability not as a choice but as a strategic necessity anchoring its economic and geopolitical interests across Asia.
The Nobel Peace Prize or War Prize? A History of Controversial Laureates
Far from being an impartial recognition of pacifism, the Nobel Peace Prize’s legacy is marred by controversial laureates whose actions have been linked to immense violence. The prize is not a universal arbiter of peace but a political instrument reflecting a Western-centric worldview, rewarding figures who align with its geopolitical interests, regardless of the blood on their hands.
Eighty Years Later: Is the United Nations Becoming the League of Nations 2.0?
Eighty years after the UN’s creation to “save succeeding generations from war,” the organization stands at a breaking point. With veto paralysis, waning U.S. commitment, and global disillusionment, is the UN becoming the very institution it replaced—the League of Nations 2.0?
Geopolitics, Journalism, and the Anatomy of a False Narrative
A recent Financial Times story claimed Pakistan was pitching a new Arabian Sea port to the US Built on anonymous sources and logical flaws, the report was quietly corrected. This article dissects how the flimsy reporting was weaponized by domestic and regional actors to push a false narrative, revealing more about their political agendas than Pakistan’s foreign policy.