...I agree, but you'll also need to throw Assad and those pesky Iranian puppet-master Ayatollahs (and of course, Erdogomaniac) into the mix too.
Speaking of the Kurds, if they did have their own defined state and borders where their people are the majority, it'd turn the existing (traditional Sunni vs Shiite) balance of the Middle East upside down:
Kurdistan (or greater Kurdistan) would create a massive roadblock to the aspirations of Assadthebutcher/Syria/Ayatollalahfruitcake/Iran and ISIS/Nutjoberdogan/Turkey. For the rest of us, it would create an effective natural barrier and insulator against much of the problems in that neck of the woods.
While the majority of Kurds are Sunni, they are Shafií and typically more moderate than many Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds and their leanings do vary, depending upon where they are located, but still, I think there is a general common feeling (amongst the West and Russia) that a united Kurdistan would be good.
However, unfortunately, Kurdistan does not suit Syria, Iran (you might recall Khomeini's fatwah against the Kurds), Turkey (the traditional Ottoman control), ISIS. The geopolitics and relationships between the West/Russia and their respective allies, between them (Syria, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia) are preventing a common Western/Russia pro-Kurdish goal.
That barrier Kurdistan would create, in blocking off the divisive activities in particular of Iran and Turkey, is unfortunately preventing a United Western/Russian support of a formal Kurd state and a possible rejig for the better of the Islamic forces in the region.
