Yes, of course. If the legitimate source of power is the consent of the governed then I don't see how it can be otherwise. I think the world would be a much better place if people dissolved their governments more frequently, and I don't mean in the Italian sense of merely dissolving the parliament.

Yes. Its hard to take another position when I support Taiwan. However, I dont think its going to stop with Crimea. Putin has big plans beyond Crimea now that they laughed their asses off at King Barry.

If a majority of people in a particular region want independence from any country then shall be. The Crimean people overwhelmingly voted to join Russia and yet the west sanctions them, WTF?

It's weird really since a country is sort of a fictional entity and only exists to divide different groups up. Just look at how the borders in Europe have changed in the last 1000 years, it's the same land at the end of it. Just divided differently.

Are you actually sure of that?

More people voted to join Crimea then people have voted for Saddam Hussein in the past.

A joining with russia was expected to win, but not anywhere near that sort of margin, and the only observers were specifically handpicked crimean ones.

The pot was almost definitly somehwat cooked.

Additionally, what about the Ethnic tartars and others in the area who are afraid of ethnic cleansing and other mistreatement from the Russians lik they suffered in the past?

Territories should be allowed to cede from one nation to another even if there is a likelyhood that minority groups will be abused?

And the final kicker....

a Majority of Palestinians in East Jersualem would rather be part of Israel then Palestine.  Should East Jersualem become the undivided captial of Israel?

I think in a democratic world where the will of the majority of the people really counts, it should be possible, but only if a vast majority (2/3) of votes are reached. And the votes and voters must not be influenced in any form. The law of nations does not currently allow such votes because the superpowers that made the law are against real democracy. This is why I think the law of nations should be changed.

In general? No. Unless they have some sort of humanitarian issue such as abuse, discrimination or genocide then I am not in favor of nations breaking down into smaller and smaller parts.

This is in large part because I live in the United States and see the massive advantages to our union. I can travel for business or leisure across a continent without customs and passports, without differing currencies and laws. If anything I'd like us to reach more agreements with Canada to make for softer borders and easier exchange of currency and business.

I think when I look at the states what would happen if Texas broke off from the union? Well, it would hurt Texas and the union economically as no way the union would want it to be a success story that encourages others to follow. Within Texas how would they fight against, say, Austin wanting to break off from it and then you could witness a Balkzanization effect.

I'll take the canadian province of Québec as a example. Different language, different culture and different political views than the rest of Canada. Why could'nt it become it's own country when it has barely anything in common with Canada? How was Canada created in the first place? Canada or any other countries were not created alongside mankind. Countries are disolved and new countries are made, this is how things go. You can't seriously expect that in 300years their will still be the same exact number of countries as today.

Same thing with Scotland, I thing it's riddiculous that they are not a country and that they are part of the british emprie, they CLEARLY are different ppl and deserve their own country, it's a question of identity and pride.

There's a lower bound on practical governability, is the issue. The tiny city-states of the modern world exist almost exclusively at the mercy of the countries around them, with Singapore being the sole exception for strong enough to stand on its own two feet. Tiny countries like Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino are anachronisms, while the goodwill afforded the Church is the only thing that keeps the Vatican around. Tiny countries that aren't sustained by old inherited wealth like the European ones (for instance, pacific Nauru), survive on charity in a meaner way.

There comes a point when groups should be prevented from making stupid decisions. Let's say Missouri decided they were hell-bent on being their own country: being surrounded by America, how much of Missouri's affairs would be so intimately tied with American affairs that it would be less efficient to allow Missouri to continue to be "free"?

The wonky numbers in Crimea are at least partially explicable in that the Crimeans allowed Russian citizen-residents to vote, so people who might not even have been registered when it was still Ukrainian, leading to turnout beyond possible levels.

Though i agree it was probably forged, i also think that the majority of Crimean permanent residents (combining Russian and Ukrainian citizens living there) did want to join Russia.

Obama has nothing to do with this. Bush didn't do a damn thing when Putin invaded Georgia, and that was an actual, killing-people invasion.

The costs are simply too high, unless Russia does something truly egregious like invade Ukraine proper (which would have the Poles screaming for intervention, as that'd mean Russian tanks on their borders once again).