Probably some line of reasoning along the lines of : Winning against insurgency in central asia is almost impossible. So to protect the critical junction they must assimilate the population there.

Same here. Exactly the 'reason why' advertised in the headline is missing from the article. Is it the collateral environmental destruction if any, that the locals are opposing (in which case it's irrelevant that they are Muslims)? Is their traditional way of life under threat?

The geographical and economical pointers from the article are welcome however, so the oppression of Uyghurs can be put in a context that is not about cultural or linguistic differences.

I don't get it either. Why not play nice with them?

There is more to the story and the propaganda than meets the eye. With all of these stories you have to ask yourself 'why is this person writing this and why does it matter now'?

China is going places and across numerous sectors we can ignore China and tell ourselves that they just steal our IP and have no creative ideas of their own. We did this when Japan was going places and insisted they just imitated our cars, motorbikes etc. Nobody says this now.

In the Western narrative about China it is of considerable propaganda value to get some 'human rights' argument on the go. Whether or not China are oppressing people is immaterial to the argument and the propaganda. The point is that discussion is framed that way with China on the back foot if they buy into this narrative.

Incidentally, further West from this region where all the Chinese 'terror campaigns' go on is the NATO narco-state of Afghanistan. This is the model of democracy that has been put in place by our great leaders over the last 17.5 years.

There is a NATO modus operandi of buying guns from Eastern European countries getting them in to places that are sovereign but not aligned to Washington, hiring mercenaries, giving them the guns and calling them terrorists (or freedom fighters) to create a situation that requires the troops to be sent in for 'humanitarian reasons'. Other tactics include 'colour revolutions' and 'Arab springs'. This happens where the media tells a different story, for instance the situation in Venezuela is an example of this, but, if you only watch the mainstream news then your only thought can be 'those poor people in Venezuala, we must bomb them now so the food aid can get through!'.

China has existed as a large empire for many millennia and survived colonial ambitions such as the Opium Wars. China learned about printing too much paper money, having global colonial ambitions and the art of war many, many centuries ago. They don't have capitalist politicians running the show and values in Chinese society are more Confucius than Chicago school of economics. Chinese leaders see China as a beautiful garden, you may scoff at that, but that is how they want China to be and that is more important to them than having 'democracy' as in the Western capitalist version of empire.

So, to get to your point, China, as in this culture that makes Washington look like a toddler on Ritalin, doesn't want a Maidan colour revolution going on or any of that nonsense in the far provinces. Same goes for 'free Tibet' with a CIA asset Dalai Lama getting Western SJW types antsy.

Uighur separatists would gain significant leverage in their calls for autonomy/independence if billions of dollars of unguarded infrastructure are built across their land. Derailing a single piece of train track in the baron desert would cost pennies but yield perhaps millions in maintenance, insurance, and other costs to the Chinese state. This could be repeated dozens of times per day across a vast swathe of land.

This is why its easier for critical logistics node workers to unionize than other workers. If 50 workers in a port strike, the entire economy grinds to a halt. If 50 Walmart greeters strike, they get replaced by the same afternoon.

This post should not be considered an endorsement of the CCP's methods or goals by myself.