I do not get why I would get jailed in Russia for just saying that their war is clearly different from the N. Ireland conflict.

On the other hand, do you truly believe that Russia is the only country with such an oppressive judicial system? I can't critique the royal families of the Persian Gulf countries either... oh wait! We need to keep purchasing their petrol! The hypocrisy, kicking in again.

It is generally reported that in Russia you can't call it a war, and those that have, or do, find themselves in a lot of trouble.

And your argument appears to be, person x does bad things, therefore it is ok for you to do bad things. Which is a very convenient stance and argument for people deficient in or lacking a moral backbone. And it's usually childish, "Billy did it, why can't I?" Most folks; most nations, grow up. If you're a grown-up, time to start thinking and writing like one.

No, mate. My arguments are not childish, but your continuous dislike towards Russia. This discussion, started by @EricH, was focused mainly on the Northern Ireland conflict. Yet, it seems that you were looking for something related to Russia just to see some weakness in my arguments. I even admitted that both issues cannot be juxtaposed with each other.
On the other hand, I agree that Putin bans people from referring to this conflict as a war and some had trouble doing so. Yet, what is your point at all? We already know that Putin loses his patience and mind often. As well as if you 'boo' the American anthem at a sports game. Don't you think?

I feel that your aims are twisted. Like, you are pursuing or seeking a personal benefit from a 'screwed up' from Russia. You seemed to be pretty obsessed with them.

At the risk of not-picking, the discussion I started - Who Owns the Land - was not specifically about N. Ireland. Instead it was an attempt to see if there are any universal principals that can provide a basis for resolving these differences short of violence or threat of violence.

The N. Ireland part of this discussion came very late in the game and it was simply to present a rare case where a "who owns the land situation" (for want of a better term) was resolved peacefully. However it does not appear that N. Ireland applies generally.

Might makes right still seems to be the typical way these situations get resolved.

Ah, I understand you now. Thanks for the clarification. :up:

It's the unfortunate reality which we try to hide in our hypocrisy. After all, don't we live in the 21st Century?

You seemed to be pretty obsessed with them. — javi2541997

My obsessions, such as they are that concern TPF, are people like you who argue from ignorance and stupidity, without apparent regard for truth or reason, but in service of some agenda having nothing to do with truth or reason.

An example is ready to hand: your reply to me just above includes this:

No, mate. My arguments are not childish, but your continuous dislike towards Russia. This discussion, started by EricH, was focused mainly on the Northern Ireland conflict. — javi2541997

And I only had said

You value free speech. You realize, yes? that if you wrote that in Russia you would be detained and questioned and possibly jailed, if not sent to the front. Are you saying, then, that it is a war? — tim wood

Your reply is non-responsive, defensive, incoherent, and factually wrong. Now just for the heck of it, are the Russians waging war in Ukraine, yes or no? What do you say?

My obsessions, such as they are that concern TPF, are people like you who argue from ignorance and stupidity, without apparent regard for truth or reason, but in service of some agenda having nothing to do with truth or reason. — tim wood

If you think I am such a fool, why do you want to argue with me constantly?

Now just for the heck of it, are the Russians waging war in Ukraine, yes or no? What do you say? — tim wood

Yes, they do. When did I refuse to admit that reality? I just don't want to be a Westernised brainwashed boy, and being paradigmatic. You seem to have a noble goal to pursue freedom of speech. Why am I not allowed to express my respect for Russia freely? Why do you consider me a Buffon for disagreeing with you? It seems pretty dishonest of you, mate.

Instead it was an attempt to see if there are any universal principals that can provide a basis for resolving these differences short of violence or threat of violence. — EricH

Sure there are, lots of them. The real question underlying yours is if there are any means by which people or nations can be compelled to act against their wishes short of violence.

And I would like to think that principles alone would work for most people, but history says not for all. And further, that Americans elected Trump in 2016, that about 75M American voters voted for Trump in 2020, and apparently a lot of them would vote for him in 2024, persuades me that a capacity for violence will be necessary for a long time - for so long as people will do such stupid and ignorant things, along with their implicit endorsement of immoral and criminal behavior.

For so long as there are people like Putin with guns who want to take, the rest of us are condemned to having and maintaining guns so that he cannot.

If you think I am such a fool, why do you want to argue with me constantly?

↪tim wood
Now just for the heck of it, are the Russians waging war in Ukraine, yes or no? What do you say?
— tim wood

Yes, they do. — javi2541997

Obsession? Notwithstanding a lot of pages of discussion, we at least have here a clear and unambiguous acknowledgment that the Russians are waging war in Ukraine. So, there's a war. Who started it?

So, there's a war. Who started it? — tim wood

The Western world for crossing all the red lines which were warned by Moscow.

Am I taking an examen on politics or what? Would you be satisfied if I respond to the answers you are looking for?

So if you punch my nose, my nose started the fight? The question wasn't about who annoyed whom, but who started a war. Not an exam, but an effort to raise an argument out of a body of facts rather than nonsense, and as well to see if you're a respecter of words or an abuser of them.

On the other hand, since when police officers - or public workers in overall - have been covered by the government? It will be a difficult situation, but with some differences, because the new generations of N. Ireland haven't been raised at the core of the conflict. They are the sons and daughters of the 1998 Belfast agreement. I don't think they would be as violent as their parents or grandparents. — javi2541997

The conflict itself is part of one's identity for many. That's the problem.

It's like for a Palestinian living somewhere else than Palestine or Israel, the Nakba is something that makes you a Palestinian. It's not that you are of Palestinian ancestry, but now you are a citizen of country X, but you are a Palestinian and you are a refugee expelled from your home. You cannot brush away from it or let just time heal, when you

Here's a good present documentary about North Ireland. Even if it can be said it's pro-Republican and views that Brexit gives hope for unification, never underestimate the youth:



And furthermore, the paramilitaries do exist in the North Irish community. They won't go simply away. The UK truly has to alienate the Unionists / Loyalist that they really start hating Queen and Country. A lot more than just Brexit have to be done.

Perhaps to me and you it would be equivalent of that the Civil Wars our grandparents endured never went away: that your cities would be separated by walls where on one side would live the Republicans and on the other side the Nationalists, and in my country the division would be between the Reds and the Whites. There would be gangs around who would say that they are either fighting for the Republican and Nationalist cause and I would have here gangs of the Reds and the Whites. And there would be murals everywhere remembering the fallen and these two societies would go to different schools. That would really, really suck. But so it does in Northern Ireland. In that kind of environment, it's difficult to put the past away, because the past is upheld and cherished as part of your identity who you are.

The real question underlying yours is if there are any means by which people or nations can be compelled to act against their wishes short of violence. — tim wood

That's not quite what I'm trying to do here, but it is a legit interpretation. Let me try a sort of quirky different approach.

Suppose we appoint you (or anyone else listening in) as a judge in the strictly hypothetical World Supreme Court and your judgements in these manners are always obeyed (the manner of enforcement is irrelevant to the question).

So the question here is this:

If you had such power, can you conceive of a set of laws/rules/philosophical positions that would govern how these issues are decided (some details please)?
OR
Must every situation be decided on an ad hoc basis?

Now if folks here could agree on some set of laws/rules/philosophical positions then those laws/rules/philosophical positions would at least help guide the discussion over in the Ukraine thread.

But if we here cannot come up with some rules, then the whole discussion regarding Ukraine's nationhood seems sort of pointless. I've read the various arguments and it seems like there is data to support almost any position. So now you're doing dueling historical data.

My historical data beats your historical data! So there! :razz:

But let's say for the sake of discussion that the historical data overwhelmingly says that what we've been calling country X in reality has always been a part of country Y. If we go with the historical data, does this mean that the people living in country X are stuck forever being part of Y even if they overwhelmingly want a divorce?

The particular details of Ukraine or N. Ireland are irrelevant here.

You are using my arguments with bad faith again. It is not about punching someone's nose to start a conflict, but warnings. As I said - and at least this has been proved - Russia warned the Western world that approaching that much to their territory would be a red flag. Then, NATO and Ukraine - other parts implacated too - didnt care.

I am going to use a more practical example. Imagine you warn me that I must not dig or plant next to your ground. Yet, I do not respect your caution, and after some warnings you punched me in the face. Did I deserve it, right?

(the manner of enforcement is irrelevant to the question). — EricH

I disagree; that is the question.

If you had such power, can you conceive of a set of laws/rules/philosophical positions that would govern how these issues are decided (some details please)? — EricH

Kant's categorical imperative is a good place to start.

But let's say for the sake of discussion that the historical data overwhelmingly says that what we've been calling country X in reality has always been a part of country Y. — EricH

All this calls for, and depends upon, definitions. I've italicized the words I think require definition. And as well what construction or meanings should be applied once definitions established.

And there is more in this case to the machinery of the categorical imperative than perhaps meets the eye. E.g., if it's ok to attack, then it must be ok to be attacked. And if the merit of the attack depends on the reasons for the attack, then they must be adjudicated. And also, you qualify violence as to be avoided, implying that no reason justifies an attack.

We come down to a good will. Participants must have a good will. And of all the so-called just wars of history, they seem to have been between those of good will and those not. Usually the defender being the party of good will.

Here's a good present documentary about North Ireland. Even if it can be said it's pro-Republican and views that Brexit gives hope for unification, never underestimate the youth: — ssu

Hey, thanks for sharing. I will look at it tomorrow because I am tired now. :sweat: It is 22:40 here, and I wake up at 05:30 every day.

Perhaps to me and you it would be equivalent of that the Civil Wars our grandparents endured never went away: that your cities would be separated by walls where on one side would live the Republicans and on the other side the Nationalists, and in my country the division would be between the Reds and the Whites. There would be gangs around who would say that they are either fighting for the Republican and Nationalist cause and I would have here gangs of the Reds and the Whites. And there would be murals everywhere remembering the fallen and these two societies would go to different schools. That would really, really suck. But so it does in Northern Ireland. In that kind of environment, it's difficult to put the past away, because the past is upheld and cherished as part of your identity who you are. — ssu

I agree. Excellent post.

Depends on the rights involved. If I'm planting where I have no right to plant, then a legal claim is appropriate. On the other hand, if I am planting where I do have a right to plant, your right (it seems to me) is limited to speech. All jurisdictions I know anything about would arrest you for assault if you attacked. In short, warnings in themselves carry no weight and are zero justification for war.

Does one set of rights sometimes impinge upon or impair another set? Of course they can and do. And that's what courts are for. But any warning itself implies causes and reasons, and those are essentially irrational, if they lead to attack.

By attack, I mean starting a war.

Is there any legal / moral framework that can be used to resolve these issues in an impartial manner? Or put differently - what are the rules for determining the rightful owner of said property?

Having an enforcement mechanism is a related but separate issue. — EricH

There are LEGAL frameworks that establish a basis of ownership. Wherever colonists landed in North America (and everywhere else), they transferred the European system of land ownership. When Israel seizes Palestinian land, they lay LEGAL claim to the property, usurping the Palestinian LEGAL claim.

If colonialized natives had a system of property ownership, it was set aside (ignored). If they didn't have a system of property ownership (the case in North America) then the land was freely available in the European legal system.

A legal system means little if there are no courts and proceedings whose jurisdiction all parties accept. Under normal circumstances, the colonializer will provide the courts which will be heavily biased in their favor.

A MORAL framework might stay the hands of colonizers, but that's unlikely if the land in question is very valuable to the colonial power, and if the colonialized people are unable to enforce their moral framework.

The upshot is that forced acquisition of land ownership have been the routine and customary method of expansion for millennia. You know, your explorers find some nice land and they claim it on behalf of the sponsoring king. Later colonists will be sent in to exploit the value of the property, If the natives become restless under the new management, then heavies will be sent in to show the locals how the new system works: We are here and it all belongs to us now. If you object too much we will shoot you. Get used to it. Who you gonna call?

In our current enlightened era (the last few years) a few beneficiaries of the European colonization of the Americas have felt guilty enough to rename a few lakes using the native words. Extremely guilt-plagued individuals have donated a little land to a tribe, or given them some cash. These are nice but feckless gestures. Feckless, because the natives are not going to get back more than a symbolic portion of the land back that they once lived on (without title).

A morally sound solution would involve a substantial redistribution of land and wealth, but even if that happened, what natives lost is too profound to be 'fixed'.

Force is the essential ingredient when it comes to shifting ownership of national lands. Hitler took a lot of various national lands, and by force the national lands were taken back -- at great human cost, both ways. Britain claimed a huge amount of land occupied by others, as did several other nations. They didn't abandon those holdings for moral reasons. Force was applied, to the British and other colonizing nations.

We come down to a good will. — tim wood

Even in the best of times that is in short supply.

A morally sound solution would involve a substantial redistribution of land and wealth, but even if that happened, what natives lost is too profound to be 'fixed'. — BC

In cases that are unambiguous (or as unambiguous as possible) such as European occupation of Western Hemisphere it might be possible to come up with some sort of formula. But that redistribution also puts a burden on the current inhabitants who are not at fault = so there has to be a balance.

But things get more complicated in more ambiguous situations where multiple groups of people have migrated/conquered/occupied a particular piece of land over millennia.

I do not have an answer.

I do not have an answer. — EricH

I don't either. But...

I don't look at European arrival in the western hemisphere as "an occupation", which sounds too much like a military program to me, as when Germany Occupied France and several other countries.

It just isn't a human trait (or custom) to discover a new continent richly supplied with all sorts of good things and just leave it alone because somebody else got there first, especially a somebody else that didn't seem to be exploiting it sufficiently. King Leopold was very happy to get his hands on the Congo because the natives had little interest in latex, and he knew there was a growing market for it among other good things. Japan was perfectly aware that China had been next door for thousands of years, but at the time they needed a lot of what China had, and they took it.

All that displays extraordinarily bad manners, but that's the way people are -- sometimes. We behave fairly well when we're reasonably happy and not too resentful about other people. That can change fairly quickly.

The rest of the world didn't let Germany and Japan get away with it. They were bombed into submission. The armies of the just (AKA the Allies) had long since claimed a lot of other people's territories and there wasn't anybody around strong enough to take it away from them or make them give it back, Lucky us! However, the Axis powers came fairly close.

As I said - and at least this has been proved - Russia warned the Western world that approaching that much to their territory would be a red flag. Then, NATO and Ukraine - other parts implacated too - didnt care. — javi2541997

Yet before this it had already attacked Ukraine and annexed territory and fought a war against Ukraine. Whenever the proxy fighters were losing, Russian army intervened. Well before the 2022 invasion.

And not only was Russia making ultimatums about approaching their territory, it was also questioning the sovereignty of other countries by seeking a veto in NATO membership and declaring that that new eastern NATO should dissolve their security arrangements. This was simply out of the question for these countries and showed Sweden and Finland the writing on the wall. All this was to get an illogical reason for a bellicose attack on Ukraine to deal with it once and for all and get the Novorossiya into Russia, something that Putin had talked and wanted so much.



But of course people can opt for the whimsical "Nato made Russia do it" option, which the new territorial annexations should show to be a bogus reason.

(Yet we have been through this for over an year in the Ukraine thread.)

But coming back to this thread:

Land is basically owned by sovereign states, which control the area and can make up the laws there.

This ownership is basically depended on everyone else recognizing this ownership and thus also recognizing this state's soveireignty over the territory and it's people.

Hence sovereignty and recognition of this sovereignty are simply the political and legal foundations of owning land.

Because otherwise ownership of land is a murky difficult problem. Yes, this makes it a worthwile discussion on a Philosophy Forum, but any other idea for legality of ownership is problematic.

As an (very small) landowner myself, it's the goddam piece of paper and data in the various registries in the government that makes me own the small summer place and it's surroundings. It's that legal contract that is important. That my great grandparents built the house, that I got from my grandparents, that I've spent all my childhood and adulthood there when possible (and my children are now enjoying the same thing on holidays) are a side issue. How can I have any right to that small patch of land otherwise? It's going to be still there when I die and was there before me (although a part of it was under the sea in the Middle Ages and earlier as the land has risen here).

And there's an example of the importance of institutions. If someone could just bribe a judge and come to me with a piece of paper which states that he actually owns the place, or that there wouldn't be any official recongized documentation, that would make my ownership quite unsure.

In a way this is true for independent states too: if their neighbors and the World community accepts their sovereignty, there's no problem. If it is questioned, if part's of the territory are disputed, then you have problems. Yet in the same way it is about recognition and a legal framework.

I admit that Russia was bellicose before the war started, and I do not attempt to justify the lost lives in this war or even in 2014, when the annexation of Crimea started either, but I personally believe that Ukraine in the 1990s proceeded with bad faith when they didn't concede Crimea to Russia. Yes, I know that the USSR conceded to them the management of the peninsula in 1954. But, we have to notice that the piece of land was part of Russia for 174 years, and the release was just an administrative concession for the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, not Ukraine as we all know nowadays.
According to a 2009 article on Russian website Pravda.ru, the Presidium of the Supreme Council gathered for a session on 19 February 1954 when only 13 of 27 members were present. There was no quorum, but the decision was adopted unanimously. https://english.pravda.ru/history/107129-ussr_crimea_ukraine/

Who owns the Crimean Peninsula? This map shows how the land was always part of Russian sovereignty. It dates from 1938, and it is not really old.

Hence sovereignty and recognition of this sovereignty are simply the political and legal foundations of owning land. — ssu

Exactly, and this is where the problems arise. The Western world does not want to recognise the sovereignty of Russia in those 'disputed' lands because they do not respect the Russian constitution when it is clear that the 65th article says: Chapter 3. The Russian Federation includes the following subjects of the Russian Federation:

Republic of Adygeya, Republic of Altai, Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Daghestan, Republic of Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Republic of Kalmykia, Karachayevo-Circassian Republic, Republic of Karelia, Komi Republic, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Mari El, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Republic of North Ossetia - Alania, Republic of Tatarstan, Republic of Tuva, Udmurtian Republic, Republic of Khakassia, Chechen Republic, Chuvash Republic.

@ssu I just watched the documentary. Very interesting and a good piece of work to understand the cultural and problem of identity in N. Ireland. It is a video of nearly one hour, and the part I would like to share with you is the targeting and death of Pat Finucane by the British government. It made me astonished. Such a situation is not expected to be in a democratic country like the UK and its police officers.

Finucane's widow subsequently claimed that Margaret Thatcher, the UK Prime Minister at the time of the murder, "knew exactly what was going on". She claimed that Cory had told her that he had seen papers marked 'for cabinet eyes only', and they involved collusion and the killing of her husband. On 12 December 2012, the government released the Pat Finucane Review, the results of the inquiry conducted by Sir Desmond de Silva. The report documented extensive evidence of State collaboration with loyalist gunmen, including the selection of targets, and concluded that "there was a wilful and abject failure by successive governments to provide the clear policy and legal framework necessary for agent-handling operations to take place effectively within the law.

Imagine using the state power to kill a lawyer for just representing and defending IRA members in court. At least, we never did that with Catalan members and later on, we call Putin a psychopath in some threads...

But karma kicks in and now his son, John Finucane, is the first Irish nationalist MP in the history of the constituency. :smile:

The Western world does not want to recognise the sovereignty of Russia in those 'disputed' lands because they do not respect the Russian constitution when — javi2541997

No, no no! It doesn't go like that.

The Western world either doesn't want to recognize the sovereignty of Spain over Gibraltar or the sovereingty of Morocco over Ceuta and Melilla. The reason simply is that they have recognized the sovereignty of UK, Spain and Morocco. Period. If Spain writes in it's constitution where it states that Gibraltar is Spanish territory or Morocco proclaims that Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of Morocco, that doesn't matter. It's simply bitching about territory. Because the UK hasn't given Gibraltar back to Spain and you haven't handed over Ceuta and Melilla to Morocco, both countries aren't giving up their territory. Go then and fight the UK or have Morocco capture Ceuta and Melilla. And guess what! It's extremely likely that "The West" wouldn't recognize the either invasions as lawful and would likely support the claim of the previous holder of these territories.

Just look at what kind of limbo it has been for the area formerly called "Spanish Sahara" (since 1884) and now called Western Sahara and it's occupation by Morocco in 1976. Morocco fought the Ifni war with Spain and then with Mauritania got the deal with Spain with the Madrid Accords. Yet several countries don't recognize Morocco's claim on West Sahara and the US only accepted the Moroccan claims tunder Trump's administration after Morocco normalized relations with Israel (the Abraham Accords). So yes, you can haggle a deal and get recognition. (Just like (surprise surprise) Cuba, North Korea and Syria have recognized the annexations of Ukraine that Russia has done.)

Hence Russian constitution itself doesn't matter. Heck Russian's can write in their constitution whatever they want! It matters what has been recognized by others! And when Russia and others have recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, that's it. That's the end of the marriage. And one side cannot afterwards just start backtracking the whole thing, that actually they didn't have a divorce. Or it was unlawful. The merit of these accusations have gone after not only Russia recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, but reaffirmed it later in the Budapest memorandum.

Thus it is now an aggressive expansion and an attack on a sovereign state. No way over it.

Who owns the Crimean Peninsula? This map shows how the land was always part of Russian sovereignty. It dates from 1938, and it is not really old. — javi2541997

This is a good example of the complexities in these situations. Why should the 1938 demographics be the deciding factor? If we want things to be resolved in a fair & just manner, then at a minimum shouldn't we go back to the Crimean Khanate?

Why should the 1938 demographics be the deciding factor? If we want things to be resolved in a fair & just manner, then at a minimum shouldn't we go back to the Crimean Khanate? — EricH

I didn't attempt to consider the 1938 map as a determinant, but to show how perfectly it is drawn. We are debating here about sovereignty, and we can see that the coloured part is Russian. Yes, I read some information on the Crimean Khanate. It seems to be a Turkic tribe who inhabited the zone for some centuries and then, they were part of an Ottoman protectorate, and then the peninsula was transferred to the Russian Empire after the Russo-Turkish War (1768–1774). That tribe no longer exists since the end of the war, so it will not be worth debating if the peninsula belongs to them. Russia has been maintaining more power and presence since then.

The same happened to Celtiberians. They were the original inhabitants of Spain, until the Roman Empire vanished from them. Are they the real owners of the Iberian Peninsula? Or the Romans, Moors, Visigoth? Well, the Reconquista established that this land belonged to Castile and the rest of the Iberian kingdoms, which they united themselves to become Spain.

I understand.

The position of Spain after the death of Franco was similar to the end of the Soviet Union. A country with the need to be respected by the international arena again, and our people gave a big effort, transferring a lot of sovereignty - and dignity sometimes - to Brussels. So, our politicians never claimed Gibraltar back because it is so 'nationalist' and we were feared of being rejected by the European Union. The years passed by, and most of the Spaniards no longer care about Gibraltar because we understand it has always been English.

I thought the European Union would make a movement in favour of Spain after Brexit. But most people do not want to get involved in these issues...

On the other hand, Ceuta and Melilla were never part of Morocco, but Portugal. Nonetheless, those cities decided to move on to the Castile - Spanish - Kingdom and Portugal agreed on this transference. Morocco claims those territories - as well as the Canary Islands - with the aim of establishing a Great Morocco, which never existed, and it is only in their dictator's mind.

The years passed by, and most of the Spaniards no longer care about Gibraltar because we understand it has always been English. — javi2541997

It has been 319 years under British rule. Yet above all, the treaty of Utrecht signed it to the crown of Great Britain for "perpetuity" in 1714. And that "perpetuity" has kept as Spain has seen it not worthy of a war with the UK about it.

We too have no interest of the lands we lost in WW2. All the people were relocated to other parts of Finland and everybody understand that Russia won't give up a place inhabited by Russians now for 79 years. It only a sleazy way to get votes of older ex-Karelians that a politician upholds the idea of somehow negotiating these lands back. So we too have accepted that former Finnish lands aren't anymore Finnish.

It hasn't been so in Russia. And especially for Putin, for whom the collapse was an traumatic experience. Why Putin refers to the greatest tragedy is simply that it was Russia itself that wanted the break up of the Soviet Union. And once Russia was against the Union, there wasn't anything support the union. Once the August coup of 1991 happened, they didn't catch Yeltsin (likely was drunk somewhere) and finally (a sober) Yeltsin then made the famous talk on top of a tank. And that was it. The armed forces broke up into different sides and later the coup (which would be more correctly an autocoup) fell. It would be if all the states that make the US would simply reject the current Federation and leave a President and Congress in charge of just Washington DC.



The continuation of the union in the form of CIS never happened. Yet because the Soviet Union simply dissolved, for Putin it was a huge error or something that could be corrected. The real tragedy is that here the war that the last Soviet leadership prevented has now being fought by soldiers that were born later than the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Why the Soviet Empire collapsed: If Russia wasn't for the continuation of the union, who would be?

On the other hand, Ceuta and Melilla were never part of Morocco, but Portugal. — javi2541997

Both Ceuta and Melilla have been around in antiquity. Ceuta was only conquered by Portugal in 1415. Although then I assume it was the Marinid dynasty controlling Morocco. But of course 600 years of control of a city is something. Nearly as long as the Moors controlled southern Spain.

Typically people want to find the "correct peace" which is most advantageous for their country, but I still insist it's the last peace treaty or the last recognition of independence, that actually matters.