Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
How do you link grouping to the necessity of nationalism? If there were no nations (but one), you'd end up with various forms of regionalism; but you wouldn't have wars otherwise local military/militias was/were formed. For this to happen, you'd need a serious cultural split.

There's a vast difference between saying world peace can be achieved tomorrow by signing a dozen of documents today, and that saying it is at all possible.

Why is a huge country like the USA firmly united, while a small country like Serbia recently split in two? It shows us that size does not matter for unity; identity on the other hand, does. Identities change as history goes; they are as fragile as words drawn in the sand at a beach.
US waged a terrible civil war that prevented it from splitting in two. The federalist argument seems to continuosly be that together we are stronger. Well if the target is to create as large federal state as possible. Why dont we all just apply to become states of the United States, which is a democratic federal state? Or is there some rational behind that idea, like that the US is too far, which smells like regionalism, or in other words nationalism.