Is it just me, or have aggressive separatist movements within nations weakened/died down relative to previous decades (homes)

[Stumbler.]

Maybe it's just perception, but I have noticed that as of this point in time/this decade or so, many aggressive separatist movements that have existed in the past decades have simmered down and strong "separatism" in many ways seems to almost be at an all-time low (can't say if it's anything but perception on my part so maybe I am wrong). In this post, I am referring to separatism as a sort of struggle as an unrecognized nation-state (sometimes armed or violent) though I don't know about other kinds (eg. peaceful protest).

For I was thinking about how the end of the 90s saw the simmering down/quieting of the Troubles of Northern Ireland, as well as Quebec separatism. Now, there is the thing going on with Scotland, but it's not something that's aggressive or violent. I'm not sure how the Basque separatists in Spain or say Kashmiris in India are at the moment, but I hear of them less too (maybe just media coverage). Israel/Palestine still seems problematic though they are working on it/trying to make peace talks as they've continued to do.

The most recent country to have a separatist issue resolved is South Sudan. What I am slightly perceiving is that separatist movements, whether violent or aggressive, seem to be off the radar now compared to the 90s, 80s or earlier. Some of them might have achieved their aims. Some have made compromises. Others reluctantly accepted deals. Some are still going. Yet, I have a feeling overall there is either less numbers of separatists groups, less coverage, whether that is media or reflection of the world.

I am not even that old (mid 20s in age) but I remember back in the 90s before 9-11 and before religious fundamentalists in the Islamic world came to the fore, the stereotypical image of a "terrorist, was less a religious extremist and more of actually a rebel or a separatist of a country who took the struggle violently, a person fighting for nationalist reasons for their region.

[Stumbler.]

Maybe it's more accurate for me to say "perception of violent separatist movements".

[ben86]

I think you're right, I can't think of many violent ones ongoing at the moment. The Balkans has been sorted out as far as I know by all these smaller countries having been created, ditto South Sudan, East Timor etc. Whatever happened to Chechnya, only I've heard of that doing well recently? Even in Wales there used to be a small group firebombing the holiday homes bought up by English people, but since they got given their own national parliament and laws promoting the language in the 90s I never hear of anything like that now.

[Trimac20]

I wonder if it's just because the media is focusing more on things like the War on Terror, and economic troubles? One possible reason is that people realise that nation states aren't always what they're cracked up to be: witness what happened in Iceland. In other words, they are realising that perhaps being part of the larger government might be the better option, in practical terms. Most separatist movements are based on mostly subjective reasons like honour, pride, heritage.etc.

There are still separatist movements happening in this decade so far such as for Belgium, India/Pakistan, Israel, Azerbaijan/Armenia, Puerto Rico, and Nigeria.

It seems relatively peaceful and not aggressive for Belgium and Puerto Rico’s case.

Some of those separatist movements still seem aggressive/violent such as in Nigeria, Azerbaijan/Armenia, and India/Pakistan. Also, what was happening in Sudan was a very aggressive/violent separatist movement and influenced the country of South Sudan to form.

However, aggressive/violent separatist movements still weakened/died down significantly compared to previous decades.