If I want a split in the alliance responsible for aggressive wars, namely NATO, I want war? No. All I want is a split. It weakens the most aggressive part of it, the US. That the US will start a war over such a split is improbable. If we are talking about the Civil War, we talk about the states which existed at that time. They had well-defined territories, and some of them were ruled by slaveowners or their supporters. BTW, you introduced slaveowners into the discussion. I was talking about the Civil War, which was between states, and had nothing to do with libertarian ethics. Nonsense. According to libertarian ethics, slavery is forbidden. Point. So, where libertarian ethics holds, there simply are no slaves. Nonexisting entities have no rights to territories. If the Confederacy would have become libertarian, they would have, first of all, ended slavery. So, the whole point I considered was only how to handle communities who do not accept libertarian ethics. If you have no problem to genocide them all away, your choice. In my approach to libertarian ethics war against them is not legitimate, except in defense against their aggression. So what? It does not follow that the Northern states had a right to offer them any support. So I assign responsibility to both parties and not to libertarians who opposed them but were defeated. Feel free to name some of them. The point being? As explained, Putin is not a libertarian and does not subscribe to my ideas about the right to separate. No. Multipolarity is far away from the libertarian ideal, it is simply one step closer to it than a unipolar world. So what? My take on Putin is different from yours so that any conflicts between your take and my ideal are irrelevant. My take on Putin is that his rule has given Russians much more nonviolence, civilization, and rule of law. This was, btw, the reason why I have changed my position about Putin, despite the fact that he is an etatist and I'm a libertarian. For a cognitive dissonance, I would first have to believe all that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The indictment against the 13 or so Russian bots I have studied and discussed, it is nothing, and once it has not been rejected as BS which proves nothing but is part of the report, and the other part often mentioned (the DNC hack) is dubious at best too, the whole report can contain reasonable information only by accident. Real wars and wars according to international law are different things. Crimea: Does not fit because there was no war. The separation was caused by the US with the coup in Kiev. Golan Heights: According to Wiki, "The question of which side caused the war is one of a number of controversies relating to the conflict." and "Israel reiterated its post-1956 position that the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping would be a cause for war (a casus belli)." Tibet: China was communist and not caring about international law. But the Tibetan people were, of course, suppressed by the evil rulers. The remaining parts are more or less related to the US, which is another power which does not care about international law. But, again, the winner is the good guy and the loser the bad one and was bad already before the war started. No. To unify with the already separated Crimea was fine according to international law, the support for legitimate government bodies like the separatist republics against a coup was fine given that it was supported by the legitimate power (the President). What Russia does in Syria is 100% international law. Russia is not ruled by libertarians so that there is no point in recognizing that it does not follow libertarian principles in its foreign policy. What Russia supports nonetheless is sovereignty by other states (even much smaller and weaker). While international law, with the sovereignty of states only, is far from the libertarian ideal, it is much better than the law of the jungle without any international law which is what the US is doing (and implicitly forces others to do too, either as an obligation as allies, or simply to survive as non-allies).