> They certainly knew the difference between a Russian and a Belarussian, or
a
> Ukrainian. Slavic identity is big in the minds of most people.
I believe you. I know that Ukrainians have/had a different religion to Russians, to name just one objective distinction. But -- and I'm not being facetious --- what is strikingly distinct about contemporary Belarusian culture, apart from the language (which, I'm told, is not that different from any of the Slavic languages)? Obviously negligible cultural differences have never been much of an obstacle to well-organised nationalists _anywhere_.
> Chechen oil is negligible.
That's why I said "the oil in the Caucasus". I can imagine the Russian politicians, bureaucrats and oligarchs of the mid-90s --- rightly or wrongly --- fearing some kind of domino effect from Chechen independence.
> Palestinians are in a different boat. Armenians and Moldovans were not
> oppressed ethnic groups in the post-Stalin USSR (nor were Chechens).
Maybe so. As I was trying to say, I don't think nationalism necessarily has anything to do with real oppression; but it is _always_ a convenient ideology for nascent, localised ruling classes.
regards,
Grant.