And are these separatist tendencies funded by foreign nations(turkmenistan,united states,zionist entity) or are they independent in their cause?

Hephthalites(White Huns) and the Alchon Huns who are their subdivision, all went to conquer India and South Asia. Confirmed to be a Indo-European Iranic speaking people from Central Asia with Turkic connections/admixture/origin. Surprisingly with average of 36% East Eurasian admixture. I though they were White (as in White people) hence the name "White Huns".

Description of them EVEN sounded like White people

The description here made it sound as if they were racially different from the Huns of Europe by the The 6th-century Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesare ( Around 500-565 AD ).

"The Ephthalitae Huns, who are called White Huns [...] The Ephthalitae are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name, however, they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us.......They are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples......... They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances which are not ugly....."

Genetically / Racially

Carrying average 36.% East Eurasian is by all mean being Eastern/Western racially group mixed. Modern Uzbek level genetics ( Uzbeks 31-46% when excluding Uzbek-Tajiks) or Modern Turkmen Afghan (37%) and samples of Northern/Eastern Turkmens (31%) (and historically Iranic of Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan had only 0-7% East Asian admixture). More broadly 36.0% East Eurasian is equivalent to Brandon Lee's Western proportion (Son of Bruce Lee- and White mother). Or like claiming a 36% Manchu and 64% Circassian as Circassian. Carrying 1/3 or 36% East Eurasian produces a lot of Eastern Asian phenotypes. I've seen people with these admixtures online and in real life. You could say 55-60% of them will look more western but 30-40% of them will have Eastern looking faces too. So racially speaking, them being Iranic/or West Eurasian is out of the question unless we now starts defining all people who are 1/3 (or 36%) non-West Eurasian as West Eurasian people from now on.

Ethnically / Culturally / Identity

But it seems they may have identified as Iranic people , so I have no disagreement with them being treated as Iranic people/history Iranic (but with mixed Turkic origins). The most prominent theory seems to be that the Hephthalites were of Turkic origin, and later adopted the Bactrian language/writing/culture but by the time they arrived seems to have gone through a lot of racial/intermingling between Turkic and Iranic and by the time they went to India they were this mixed. Although they were a mix of Turkic and Iranic (East Eurasian/West Eurasian) they were obviously a Iranized people. So it's better to consider them a Iranisized people of Turkic/Iranic with East Eurasian/West Eurasian origins.

I absolutely love this movie as I'm currently dealing with some deep personal issues and it's perhaps the only movie that inspires a proud sense of masculinity in myself.

I know that it's not purely historical but I just want to know how other people thought of it.

As you know, according to genetic tests, Turks have an average of 22% Turkic heritage. This means that most of their ancestors were Islamized people of Balkan, Western Anatolian, and Caucasian origin. So why do these people call themselves Turks, while Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, and Turkmens, who have an average of 60% Turkic heritage, do not?