Understand why most people feel this is a slippery slope. If Erdogan says that YPG is the PKK because the YPG politically support the PKK, what's preventing Netanyahu from using the same arguments against its neighbor supporting politically or selling weapons to the Hamas? China attacking India/Nepal for harboring the leader of the Free Tibet movement?

You probably it is not the same, but for many, many people it is.

Also, your example missed the point where the Good friday agreement was drafted with US backing and help. This actually did more for the peace than decreasing fundraisers. Maybe Turkey should learn from this example?

Has the slope already slipped? As far as I can tell Israel regularly conducts air strikes in Syria with a claim that they are against Hamas targets. The US waged war against Taliban b/c of association with Alqaeda.

I’m ask out of moderate ignorance in that I read the claims of Turkey and that of Sweden and Finland without a mechanism for deducing truth beyond various actors’ assertions.

While it would be optimal if Turkey did wage “Good Friday” peace to the extent that it is possible, it doesn’t seem likely since their position in the triad is that of GB, not the US. The non-NATO Nordics are more similar to the role of the US.

You are right, of course that's why I choose this example (forgot about the reason given for the Afghanistan war, good point). I might have poorly explained my second point, but you reformulated it better.

I don't have a solution either. I'll let professional negotiators find one :)

In Turkish propaganda, any form of Kurds organizing themselves, be it inside Turkey our outside in Iran, Iraq or Syria, is "terrorism". Even though most of this activity is political and from a democratic standpoint quite "legitimate". Even much of what the PKK has been doing historically falls under that umbrella.

Also the Kurds are forming a state in parts of Syria and Iraq, where the "original" state is not able to restore order, especially against islamic militants. On top of that, the Turkish security forces have a long history of prosecuting Kurdish civilians. This makes the whole label of "terrorism" extremely murky and what Erdogan wants of NATO is much less nice than support against terrorists: He wants support and acquiescence in his war against Kurdish forces, including outside Turkey.

Turkey sees YPG as a subsidiary to PKK. Others don't necessarily agree.

The history of Turkish forces prosecuting Kurdish civilians makes the whole matter extremely murky. Even the PKK does have quite legitimate and understandable goals and motivations, though it has been criticized for its methods which could be called "terrorism". But the same can be said of the Turkish state.

As a total outsider I see the situation as somewhat related to the Palestinian struggle: The more you are struggling for basic survival in the face of aggression, oppression and poverty, the less energy and motivation there is to curb the excesses of extremists in the own ranks.

I'm very sympathetic to the YPG, and I don't think they are a subsidiary... but any objective observer can see that YPG and PKK are very closely related. They have posters of Abdullah Ocalan everywhere, they have many PKK fighters in their ranks, etc. etc.