There are some points in the article that  I found misleading.
In my opinion, talking about the Kurds who served Islam and PKK/YPG in the same context is very misleading. As if we are talking about the same group of peoples.
Kurds indeed have contributed a lot to Islam. There are unnumberable people but Molla Gurânî who was the Sheykh of Fatih Sultan Mehmed and sheykhulislam of Ottoman is also worth mentioning. Unlike Martin van Bruinessen said, their role hasn't been unnoticed (maybe in the west, but at least not in Turkey). Said Nursî is probably one of the most read Islamic authors in Turkey, Kurd Mollas have always been respected and if you visit past Kurdish sheykh's graves in Turkey, you will never see them empty.

Sheykh Said (rahimahullah) rebellion wasn't about ethnicity, he didn't rebel the M.Kemal for Kurds, he did it for Islam. It wasn't the Turkish culture that imposed to the Kurds, it was the Western culture which is imposed to ALL citizens. He rebelled against these anti-Islamic reforms M.Kemal government implementing. And he wasn't executed because he was a Kurd, but he was a Muslim Sheykh refused to stay silent. Similarly, many Turk (and other ethnicities) Sheikhs get executed that time as well, such as in Menemen incident.

When it comes to PKK/YPG, what western media try to picture is as if "There is an oppressed Kurdish population, they live in a clearly differentiated geography and it's invaded by Turks, and they fight to get their freedom back. And Turks hate Kurds and try to carry out genocide of them". If people believe that, it would be easier to rationalize when they try to invade Turkey, just like they did in many middle eastern countries. 
-> -> ->
Unfortunately, some Muslims from the outside of the Turkey, mainly western media followers, influenced by these as well.
What Western media don't show is the terrorist attacks they have done for decades. So many civilians died in Turkey, bomb attacks were happening almost every week in major cities, people stopped to get surprised after some point. It should be noted that PKK doesn't represent the Kurds, saying that would be a big insult to the Muslim Kurds. They have nothing to do with Islam (I'm not talking about "they act like they are Muslims but they are not", they don't even act like this, they are openly against Islam).

Also, what's been missed by the west (generally intentionally) is; Kurds (both in Turkey and Syria) who refuse to support PKK/YPG -which is a big portion of the Kurds- have been targeted by them as well. Actually, they are the ones who suffer most from PKK I guess, because of the region many of them live and many of their children kidnapped by PKK to be raised as one of them. So, "Kurds" aren't "getting persecuted for being a transnational group", Turkey fights against a terrorist anti-Islamic group PKK.
By the way, PKK isn't founded by Kurds contrary to what is believed, the majority of them non-Muslim Armenians who describe themselves Kurds for strategy, many non-Muslim Kurds later become pawn of them, but that's not the main point here.

One thing I'm against in the cited article the "adorned with all the necessary symbols of Turkish nationalism, ..., Turkish ethno-nationalism over others" parts, which is caused by a shallow reading of the situation in my opinion. Let me start with the words "Turkey" and "Turkish".  Let's not forget that Turkey didn't found as some Turks coming to a land and found a state and name it Turkey. It was the Ottoman Empire before, which isn't an ethnical state but an Islamic state which contain many ethnic people. Unfortunately it collapsed and ONE part of it named as Turkey. Some may say this isn't the best choice to name this state (I would agree with them) but at the same time this isn't mean some ethno-nationalism over others etc. The similar situations have been happened and still valid in many countries. Many times a geographical area is named after a race and people from that area has been called with that area name, although they don't belong to that race. For example, the area we call Anatolia today was called Rum land in the past because there was under Byzantine ruling. And even after it conquered by Muslims, the area still called with that name for a long time. Mevlânâ Celâleddin Rûmî is a popular example, he got the nickname "Rûmî" because he is from the Rum region, although he isn't belong to that race. As a country example, Azerbaijan also gets its name from Azeris (which is wrongly used in the cited article). Majority of the Azerbaijan citizens aren't Azeris (they are Turkic) but the country's name is Azerbaijan because the area named like that before. Again the USA named after the area not by race, yet those people who belong to British race call themselves Americans. Talking about the state of Turkey, or calling its citizens Turkish doesn't mean ethnic nationalism. Somebody can be non-Turk and from Turkey at the same time, nothing odd about that. In Turkish, its "Türk"(Turk) and "Türkiyeli"(one from Turkey).
When it comes to the Turkish flag, the mistake is even bigger. It's a renewed version of the Ottoman flag. That's why many non-Turk Muslim countries have a flag which is similar to the flag of Turkey. Crescent moon perceived as a symbol of Islam, not a symbol of Turks. Therefore, representing it as an oppressing ethnic symbol over others is a really irresponsible action.
By the way, if talking about one state, one flag is problematic, what is the solution then? Dividing it into two states and two flags as Turks and Kurds? Isn't that would be the ethno-nationalist move?