CaliGuy
Banned
This is possible, given the weakness of Belarusian nationalism.
OK; good.
I am not sure of this. Galicia was a stronghold of Ukrainian nationalism, yes, but Ukrainian language and Ukrainian identity was also a noteworthy factor in Tsarist territories.
Yes, Ukrainian was a noteworthy factor in Tsarist Russia; indeed, Tsarist Russia feared it so much that it issued the Valuev Circular as well as the Ems Ukaz. However, Ukrainian nationalism wasn't the only game in town in either Tsarist Russia or Galicia; indeed, even in Galicia, there appear to have been powerful Russophile/Pan-Russian sentiments up to 1882 or so (source: Professor Keith Darden).
Basically, with Galicia under its rule early enough, Tsarist Russia would be able to fully control the development of Ukrainian nationalism--something which, in addition to the implementation of universal literacy in Russia and Ukraine--would have probably resulted in a very Russophilic Ukraine with large Pan-Russian sentiments.
Could the Ukrainians have still considered themselves to be a separate people (or at least a separate branch of the Russian nation) in this TL? Yes, certainly. However, if usage of the Ukrainian language will gradually significantly decline, it is very possible that younger generations of Ukrainians will tend to view themselves as exclusively Russian.
Perhaps more of a Scottish than an Irish take?
What exactly is the Irish take a reference to? After all, didn't both the Scots and the Irish saw their languages wither away while their national identity remained?
Also, Yes, it is very possible that Ukrainians would come to view themselves as a separate branch of a larger Russian nation--similar to how Scots view themselves as being both Scottish and British or to how various Soviet people viewed themselves as both their ethnicity and as Sovoks. As for whether or not Ukrainians fully assimilate into the Russian population, this might very well depend on how popular and widespread the Ukrainian language remains--indeed, does it gradually wither away like Alsatian or Occitan (in which case Ukrainians will probably come to view themselves as fully Russian) or does it flourish and thrive (like Catalan; in which case Ukrainians will probably keep a separate identity from Russians at least to some extent)?
Possible.
Possible.
Possible.
Possible.
OK; good.
That, actually, would not be very likely. The Finnic peoples on the northern and southern shores of the Gulf of Finland have long had very separate histories and identities, dating back at least as far as the middle ages, when Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden while the Estonian lands were subjected to the Teutonic Knights.
If so, this might make it rather hard to construct a common national narrative for the Finns and Estonians. Plus, this would mean that Tsarist Russia wouldn't have much incentive to put Estonia inside of Finland--after all, why unite territories with such different histories?
Now, if we are talking about the relationship of Finland with Karelia, that blurred borderland substantially populated by Finnic peoples with close ties of language and history to Finland, that is different.
OK; thus, if Finland is able to keep Karelia, the Karelians would have probably become Finns by now, correct?
I am not sure about that. With the partial exception of the Catholics of Latgale, in the southeast of Latvia, Latvians and Lithuanians have long had separate histories and identities. The religious difference between the Latvians and Lithuanians co-exists with longer distinctions going back to the middle ages, when the Lithuanians were the core of an arguable great power but the Latvians were under the Teutonic Knights.
Good point about the religious differences as well as about the different histories of Latvia and Lithuania. Indeed, these factors would make it harder to unify the Latvians and Lithuanians.
Also, though, what about the Catholics of Latgale? Could they have been Lithuanized?
Quite possible.
OK; good.
I suspect the Walloons would have been readily assimilated.
OK; good.
I am not necessarily sure about the Flemings, as much depends on what this France is actually like.
Good point. Indeed, I suspect that Napoleonic France would pursue linguistic policies similar to those of the Third French Republic (after all, Napoleonic France was arguably the founder of modern nationalism); however, I could certainly be very wrong in regards to this.
If I am correct in regards to this, though, I stand by my statement that the Flemings would have probably ended up like the Alsatians. Also, I suspect that, whatever path the Flemings would have taken, the Rhinelanders (who would have also remained a part of France in this TL) would have also taken.
Much depends on the pre-existing nature of relations between the two peoples. If there are meaningful distinctions which go back in history a long way, and especially histories of opposition of rivalry, merger is not likely. If there are no such meaningful distinctions, merger is possible.
OK; understood.