It seems that there is a straight foward solution to the conflict in Ukraine. Since all the parties involved claim that they adhere to democracy, they should simply negotiate and agree on how to oversee a referendum in the disputed regions. Let neither Russia nor NATO 'win' or 'lose' , but let the people of Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donesk and Luhansk win this war. There will be no one humiliated at all!

However, there is a problem in the so called 'international laws' that needs to be fixed. There is a wise saying that goes: If you make peacefull way of change impossible, you only make a violent way inevitable. The peacefull ways are supposed to be engraved in the so calles 'laws' or 'rights'. All 'laws' should allow for a peacefull means for change. But international laws were largely made for short term expendiency, often by the world powers at then. They donnot always have moral or ethical foundations.

The 'international laws' failed to provide a clear and peaceful way of changing international borders. If you gloss through history, one of the most obvious facts you notice is that international boundaries are dynamic. The makers of 'international laws' should have had this fact in their fingure tips. However, they seemed to have 'buried the head in the sand' and assumed that the contemporary borders were now perfect, and so there wasn't any more legitimate reason to change the borders. But change is a part of nature. If you donnot allow a smooth change, you must only get prepared for a rough change! Countries that donnot allow for a peaceful change in their leadership (e.g. through the ballot) will only, at some point, experience a violent change!

According to the current so called international laws, it is both legal and illegal to try to change borders all at once! So it depends on the whims of whoever has the weapons! To be more precise, the question of 'unilateral secession' is very ambiguous. Literally, it is both right and wrong to unilaterally declare your independence! This is how the countries that championed the unilateral secession of Kosovo now condemns the unilateral secession of Donetsk etc, without too much shame! Asked why? they might tell you 'it is both right and is also wrong to unilaterally secede'! So what is 'right' or 'wrong' might as well end up depending on what the global powers want, and not what moraly 'right'/'wrong'! As usual in such 'both ways', they allow one to condemn others for doing the same things that they themselves are doing! Properly written 'laws' should not 'kick the ball back' to the subjects of those laws.

Here, then, let me try to clearly define when unilateral secession should and when it should not be done. My definition will be based on what is 'moraly right'. If you 'drive' unilateral seccession, you will find that it reaches an absurd end! So clearly, there should be some limit to unilateral sucession. If every ethnic group have a right to unilaterally secede, then why stop there? It seems that every 'tribe' has a right to similarly secede, then every clan have this right, then every family, and finally, every individual! The governments will fragment up until every individual lives in his own country! The reason humans created cheifdoms, kingdoms, empires, countries etc was precisely to avoid such. There was no way everybody as an individual could be sovereign! It would be nearly impossible to build roads, protect rivers etc, or even enforce the 'moral laws' which would now absurdly be 'the international laws'!

So a daunting question arises: when is it moraly legitimate for a larger group of people to coarse a smaller group so that both groups form a sovereign entity? At some point, this must happen, if we should ever form countries at all! How do we, in a moraly legitimate way, unambiguously define where one 'country' should end and where another should begine? If we can answer this question well, then we might as well for ever do away with all wars! It seems that the best way to do it is to use landmark geographic features. Fortunately, God gave people natural boundaries but unfortunately, they ignored them and formed artificial ones! If there were no natural landmark features, it is hard to understand how the world ended up being divided into different cultures, languages and ethnicities. There must have been features that led people live in 'enclaves' forming unique cultures, languages and ethnicities. So we might say that provided that there is a well defined, natural 'enclave', the people in that enclave have a collective right to assert some sovereignty. That is to say the majority in that 'enclave' can coerce the minority and prevent them from forming a unilateral succession.

To justify more on this criteria, let us see how we define 'individual' for the purposes of defining 'rights of individuals'. We breath the same air, walk on the same planet, drink the same water, received the same sunlight etc. What we do affect other people. When we talk, other people hear what we are saying, when we shine light, it falls on other people etc. So when seen from some angle, there is no clear cut boundaries that define 'individuals'. However, we could not accept any man made definition of 'individuals'. We used a clear natural boundary to define 'us' to be different from 'other people'. This is where our visible bodies end. So we used a physical feature. So it is equaly moral to use geographic physical features to define countries.

From this, we can now see that there is not always a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to the morality of the question of whether or not one country has a 'right' to invade another country, or whether or not one group has a right to unilaterally secede. Instead we must carefully close examine first whether there is legitimate or natural reasons why the boundaries were drawn the way they were drawn.The concocters of 'international laws' seemed to have been bogged down on this, and so they left the question of unilateral secession blurred. Apparently, they never wanted to use natural boundaries because the makers of the 'laws' as the very same powers that artificially drew many of the boundaries, intended to violate such natural boundaries! So they opted to say that 'if a group of people were oppressed, then they can unilaterally secede'! This is foolish because if you ask Israelis whether they are oppressing the Palestinians, they will, of course, deny it! Same is the case with Israel's allies! Ask Americans whether or not Kosovo were 'oppressed' and they say they were oppressed! But Serbians, Russians etc if course deny it! Ask Russians if the people of Donetsk were 'oppressed' and they say yes, but Americans of course deny it! So whose opinions do we go per? But ask even a cow whether or not there is a distinct physical feature separating Afghanistan from U.S., and he will, of course, agree that there is such! So in our criteria, we can, consistently condemned U.S.'s actions in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan, but we cannot as easily condemn Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Let us now apply this to judge the current Russo-Ukraine conflict. You can see that we cannot easily question the moral legitimacy of Russian 'invasion' of Ukraine, basing it merely on the current international boundaries because we cannot easily tell the moral legitimacy of the current boundaries in the first place! Legal legitimacy or international recognition does not automatically mean 'moral' or 'ethical' legitimacy! Before second world wars etc, the international boundaries were different. So who says which boundaries are 'legitimate'? From history, we can see that the secession of Ukraine from Soviet Union was a multilateral persuit. Ukraine never unilaterally declared independence from Soviet Union. Instead, Russia was involved in the decision. Infact the very formation of Ukraine as a state involved Russia. If it did not involve Russia, then that would have been a 'unilateral secession' and we have seen that such secessions are not necessarily legitimate!

Now the 'international laws' agree that unilaterally secession is not necessarily legitimate. But now I ask why? Why must we involve England in the question of secession of Scotland? For whatever reason, we can reason that England must, in some way consider its own interests when agreeing that Scotland should secede, or at least that is what the international law allows it to do. But then what if, after secession, England realizes that the reasons that led it allow Scottland to secede were problematic? Does England have a right to unilaterally withdraw from the secession? I tend to see that England will still have some moral legitimacy, for otherwise, the provision that England must be involved in the question of Scottish secession will lack moral legitimacy! The moral reason why England must be involved in the question of secession of Scottland is that we care about the national interests of England. So if we truely care for these interests, it is only moral to keep caring about them even after Scotland secede. Therefore if the secession turns out to harm English interests, it will only be moral to seek some reversal!

So we can see that a very rigid sticking to 'present' boundaries, even if the two countries experienced a relatively recent secession are just nothing but dry legalistic rules that lacks ethical or moral foundations! Instead, the question of sovereignty should be applied in a more flexible manner and is different as applied to different countries. Countries which were unified only recently should be treated differently from countries that share no recent history. Same applies to countries that share borders and those that don't. There can be some moral legitimacy for one country to invade another if they share borders. But the more the countries are far apart, the less legitimate is an attempt for one to invade the other.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community to add comments!

Join Ashtar Command - Spiritual Community


  • One just wonder what is the hatred for? It is pure ignorance, exacerbated by western propaganda! Soviet Union was a unique empire in world's history in that it peacefully disintegrated! It itself freely decided its own end without any fight! This highlights how the Soviet states trusted each other. Vladimir Lenin refused to let Donetsk became a Soviet State on its own, and insisted that it should be part of Ukraine. The definition of Ukrainian boundaries involved Russia's goodwill. In 1954, they even freely handed over Crimea to Ukraine! It was a pure generosity to their very close brother! All these things were made by Soviets. It never involved any westerner. So I wonder why someone thinks he is so entitled to hate Russia that much! What has Russia done to you specifically? What have they taken it away from you? leave Ukraine aside!

    But now ask, what if Scotland secedes from Britain only to become an unti-British, China's puppet aspiring to join an unti-British, military alliance puppeteered from Beijing, or Moscow, and begin shelling English speaking pple and even ban English in Scotland? If Britain invade such a notorious country, do I have a right to hate Britain? I don't think so! Aside from me not being involved in the whole issue of forming Scotland, what, after all, does it mean to say that Scotland cannot unilaterally secede from Britain? Obviously two countries that recently shared history cannot be treated like those that have never shared such!
  • Time to give peace a chance......There is too much hatred of Russia, from all and sundry...
This reply was deleted.

Copyright Policy: Always Include 30-50% of the source material and a link to the original article. You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights. If you believe that someone's work has been copied and posted on Ashtar Command in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please Contact Us and include the links to these pages and relevant info. 

Latest Activity

ET Hugger replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion Social Distance Is Something All Humans Should Keep Throughout Their Lives ..NAMASTE Greeting Is So Lovely ..HEART TO HEART CONNECTION
"Touch is healthy and nurturing in human relationships. Perhaps not with random people you meet in the street, but with people you trust and love and who are comfortable with it.

I wonder how far removed western society is from more natural forms of…"
3 hours ago
ソウルライト SAN left a comment on Comment Wall
"This is a Concept for the whole World. If anyone would living it like that, peace can be manifest a little more, cause all we need is to have Respect infront each other. Best form to say Hello when you meet someone first Time, anyways.…"
5 hours ago
ソウルライト SAN left a comment on Comment Wall
"Yes, unfortunately there is not yet worldwide peace in this world. But there are always signs of peace written by life itself. I myself am an example of this, as I am a so-called Eurasian. I'm someone who has family trees in both Asia and Europe. My…"
5 hours ago
Drekx Omega replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion Social Distance Is Something All Humans Should Keep Throughout Their Lives ..NAMASTE Greeting Is So Lovely ..HEART TO HEART CONNECTION
"Sirians have several methods of selamat balik.....BUT, they are also able to hug and kiss, with love and affection....It is not "animal" to touch someone you love, or in friendship.....I'm sure that if your parents socially distanced, you would not…"
6 hours ago
Krishna Kalki replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion Social Distance Is Something All Humans Should Keep Throughout Their Lives ..NAMASTE Greeting Is So Lovely ..HEART TO HEART CONNECTION
7 hours ago
Krishna Kalki posted a discussion
Keep your distance hence the correct way of greeting NAMASTE ..heart to heart without touching the other person NAMASTE GREETING SO LOVELY The actual meaning of Namaste is "I bow to the divine in you." How come? The word Namaste is deeply rooted in…
7 hours ago
Drekx Omega commented on Drekx Omega's blog post Roaring Lovely and Drekx Omega Discuss ET Craft Science Classifications
"UAP is the currently used dark cabal psyop term, for FAKE ET CRAFT, or former UFOs....These are all Earth constructed, surface earth manufactured and totally fake ET craft....They lack all technological advantages....
Don't let them fool you.......…"
7 hours ago
Drekx Omega replied to Krishna Kalki's discussion Metallic UAP UFO Spotted in Arizona – Captivating Footage (Video)..Comments Please
"This is not "captivating footage," but is a genuine Earth human constructed UAP, pretending to be an ET vimana craft....Maybe we could suggest that it's a UAP, not a UFO...LOL

Note the Cabal's inferior technology, demonstrated in this absurd craft,…"
7 hours ago