I think you’re forgetting that the recent difficulties in the Balkans stemmed from the attempt by the Serbs and former Yugoslav army to prevent certain peoples and regions from seceding. It’s the same as what Lincoln did, except the “union” lost that particular bloody war. But the analogy is bad for another reason: You simply assume the inevitability of a Balkan type split rather than a peaceful separation like that between the Czech and Slovak republics. Separation can work out just fine without a tyrant grasping to hold dominion over those who reject his claim to rule over them. You can speculate whatever makes you happy, but the course of alternate history is unknowable.
For the FINAL time, my point: numerous small countries with widely different ethnic, religious, demographic and economic make up WILL be exploited by politicians to attack their neighbors-similar the the Balkans.
Where in that argument is the fixation on the separation process?
You confine the periodic and almost regular warfare in the Balkans to the “recent” period. WWII, WWI, etc. doesn’t seem pertinent?
You seem to continuously limit your understanding of the point I am making in order to repeat your view intermingling a smug sermonizing about what I’m “forgetting” or “assuming” or “speculating”.
Please, don’t respond-just go away.