Talk:Scenario: World War III (Obama vs. Putin)/@comment-26577560-20150721020034/@comment-26294986-20150731140305

To Lung Nan. I completely disagree that Nationalism has been a common force until recent times. You could make a case that the Roman Empire was bound by nationalism and had a Roman identity. However, it was an exception. This is why Empires were so fragile, because the people do not identify with their own people. This is why the Mongols were able to succesfully invade China. Tens of millions of Chinese had no problems working for the Mongols and fighting their own people. If Nationalism existed in the 13th century the Mongol invasion would have failed horribly.

The assertion that Sudenland and Ukraine are different is also wrong. Germany as a modern state did not exist untl 1870? Yet how com the Austrians welcomed Germany's annexation by Hitler. Nationalism is not about political or historical boundries. It is about a people for good or worse attempting to reorganize themselves based on a common identity. There does even have to be a historical country to exist. Kurdistan has never existed. Yet the Kurds in the three countries want more autonomy.

If you want to make a case that the ethnic Russians should have more autonomy that is reasonable. Perhaps even indedenpence. The reality is that Russia annexed Crimea and there has not been a general rebellelion in Eastern Ukraine. The rebels control onl 5% of the country and only exist because the Russian army has committed several thousand troops to keep them alive. If Russia's troops left the rebellion would fall apart in a matter of weeks. If this was a true organic uprising cities like Kharkav and Odessa would have been in flames. But nothing happened.