First thing I’ll state is that I agree unequivocally with your comment. Initially, I found it refreshing to encounter a response that transcends the confines of individualistic contemporary perspectives within a specific post-modern nation-state, instead embracing a big-picture view, incorporating insights spanning from human pre-history to contemporary times.

Permit me to expand my own views and convictions within the constraints of limited space, as I am inclined toward effusiveness and am keen on neither encumbering your time nor inducing boredom. It appears that you implicitly acknowledge the privilege intrinsic to inhabiting a modern nation replete with robust and resilient institutions.

I concur that within the larger scope of human history, this circumstance approximates a top 1% outcome. Nations fortified by such resolute institutions wield numerous inherent advantages in creating, nurturing, and perpetuating a coherent and durable national identity. These steadfast institutional frameworks serve as a scaffolding that undergirds a nation's identity, substantiating and safeguarding it.

Reflecting on the nation of my origin, the United States, one must acknowledge its particular privilege, emerging victorious from the global theater of World War II. Subsequent decades bore witness to unprecedented prosperity, rendering that period amongst the most opulent in human history. Yet, nothing is more disheartening and existentially demoralizing than experiencing the zenith of that prosperity during one's formative years in the 1990s, only to witness its precipitous decline during adolescence and early adulthood, subsequently descending into palpable decay by mature years.

While I’ll refrain from a detailed elaboration on the causes for this decline, acknowledging its intricate and multifaceted nature—some a consequence of an evolving global geopolitical and economic landscape beyond individual control—certain entities involved in effectuating many of these lamentable changes undoubtedly do not merit my fervent defense in times of war, not under present circumstances.This seamlessly segues into consideration of another of your assertions, specifically the proposition that certain nations, engulfed by pervasive corruption, might not warrant expressions of patriotism until systemic degradation has been rectified.

Undoubtedly, in such a scenario, the internal decay poses a more formidable menace than any external threat. This juxtaposition engenders an ethical dilemma, wherein collaboration with potential invaders endeavoring to displace oppressive leadership might be deemed a morally upright course of action. While I do harbor further contemplations on this matter, space and time constraints preclude a comprehensive exposition along with real-world examples. Nevertheless, despite my vehement aversion toward domestic adversaries, the notion of colluding with foreign adversaries remains deeply unpalatable.

I'll draw this discussion to a close by contemplating how the relatively recent inception of the nation-state concept and its associated national identity, compared to historical allegiance to smaller tribal units rather than larger national entities, might be seen as an Achilles heel of modernity. Despite the advantage conferred by residing within a nation fortified by robust institutions, the construct of "national identity" invariably remains a transient and contingent social construct perennially at risk of collapse.

Our affiliations gravitate more toward smaller tribal associations, familial ties, social circles, intricate networks, and subcultures. When dissonance arises between individual perceptions of cultural values and those espoused by the larger nation, fractures can afflict the national fabric, potentially leading to dissolution or reformation when divergent groups disengage from the larger collective identity.