The United States and Turkey have different threat perceptions. Turkey's main threat perception - it's enemy No. 1 - has been Kurdish nationalism, terrorism with Kurdish ethnic roots. For the United States, enemy No. 1, since 9/11, has been jihadist terrorism. So up until Syria, the two countries were able to agree to disagree on their threat perceptions. But with Syria, there emerged a situation where the United States partnered up with the Kurdish terrorist group in the eyes of Turkey. And Turkey has turned a blind eye to jihadist groups in Syria by basically opening its border, and a lot of ISIS fighters entered Syria through Turkey. So this is a nightmare for Turkish-American relations.
Victimhood is very convenient because it allows you to escape responsibility and accountability. Since you are never guilty, someone else has to be at fault for causing all the problems. You unleash the media and blame the West on the grounds that they are racist, orientalist, imperialist, etc. and as a result, the citizenry of these states believe their destiny is not in their hands.
Now the question is: how can a Turkey that becomes more autocratic provide hope for solving the Kurdish problem? This is the paradox: can the president with centralized decision making, who wants to continue a hegemonic style of governance, provide hope for the most important issues of the country, such as human rights, democracy, minority rights and the Kurdish question?
The biggest problem is the regime in Syria is not that weak. They still have a critical mass supporting them: the Sunni merchants, who see the world is not doing anything and that Bashar al-Assad can get away with murder.