Dr Jorge's blog

Wednesday 19th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

Tuesday, 18 March 2025

The Borders We Share: Sherlock’s Docks, Ireland’s Edge (Post 3)

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

Section 1: Foundations of the Multiverse (Posts 1–6)

Blog Post #3: Sherlock’s Docks, Ireland’s Edge: Clues to Equal Ground

In a Nutshell

Imagine Sherlock Holmes untangling a dockside brawl over fish and fog—then picture Northern Ireland’s border after Brexit, a real-life riddle of fences and feelings. Both are turf wars, messy with pride and people, but they don’t need a single winner. In The Borders We Share, I’m chasing a hunch: split the stakes, share the load, and everyone gets a piece of the peace. Let’s crack these cases together and see if equal ground beats battle lines.

The Adventure Unfolds

I’ve always been a sucker for a good detective yarn—Sherlock Holmes puffing his pipe, cracking cases with a wink and a “elementary.” As a kid, I’d dream up my own mysteries, but now, with The Borders We Share, I’m sleuthing something bigger: how to fix the world’s broken borders. Last week, we roamed Crimea and Khemed—oil, metal, and mayhem. Today, we’re docking with Sherlock in a fictional fish fight and trekking to Ireland’s edge, where Brexit’s left a puzzle no one’s solved. Grab your magnifying glass—let’s hunt for clues.

First, the made-up bit. Picture London’s docks, 1890s, reeking of fish and coal smoke. Two crews—let’s call ‘em the Thames Trawlers and the Fog Cutters—claim the same wharf. It’s prime turf: deep water for boats, warehouses for cod, a shortcut to markets. The Trawlers, rough-and-tumble locals, say it’s theirs by grit—years of hauling nets. The Cutters, slick outsiders, flash a deed from some shady lord. Fists fly, nets tangle, and fish rot while they bicker. Enter Sherlock—pipe glowing, eyes sharp. He digs: the Trawlers need the dock to eat; the Cutters want profit. History’s murky—both sides fished it once. Watson scribbles; I grin. This is my playground—can Holmes split the wharf without a war?

Now, the real deal: Northern Ireland post-Brexit. It’s a green patchwork hugging Ireland’s north, part of the UK but kissing the Republic of Ireland, an EU member. For ages, it’s been a sore spot—Catholics (nationalists) lean Irish, Protestants (unionists) cling British. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement cooled decades of blood with an open border—no checkpoints, just cows and craic. Then Brexit hit. The UK left the EU in 2020; 58% of Northern Irish voted “stay,” but out they went. Suddenly, that invisible line mattered—trade rules split north from south. No one wants a “hard border”—guns could return—but goods need checking. It’s a standoff: UK pride, Irish unity, locals caught between. Sound like a case for Sherlock?

The Hidden Threads

These aren’t just about turf—they’re human tangles. My 2020 book, Territorial Disputes, says “border dispute” is too neat—think people, power, pasts. The Trawlers and Cutters aren’t just fighting for docks—they’re fighting for home, for coin. Northern Ireland’s edge? Nationalists see EU citizenship slipping; unionists fear losing London. My 2017 work, Sovereignty Conflicts and Shared Sovereignty, digs deeper: leaders love the mess. The Cutters’ boss puffs his chest; the Trawlers’ captain rallies loyalty. In Ireland, Brexit’s chaos boosts politicians—unionists tout UK grit, nationalists wave Irish flags. Outsiders meddle too—Holmes spots a fish baron stoking the dock feud; the EU and UK tug Ireland’s strings.

Here’s my sleuthing trick, straight from 2017: egalitarian shared sovereignty. Imagine Holmes blindfolding both crews, saying, “What’s fair if you’re equal?” They’d split it—joint docks, shared fish, Trawlers haul, Cutters sell. Same with Ireland: UK, Ireland, and locals co-run the border—trade flows, no walls. Four rules: everyone talks, jobs match skills, rewards fit effort, the strong lift the weak. My 2023 book, Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism, adds a twist—think like a detective in 3D. Straight clues (who’s top dog, who’s next) mix with wild ones (selfish grabs, random meddlers). The Cutters’ deed? A power play. Brexit’s border? Chaos, not logic.

The Case for Sharing

Why share? ‘Cause all-or-nothing flops. The dock war trashes fish—nobody wins. Northern Ireland’s limbo risks peace—30,000 died before ’98; no one wants round two. In 2017, I tested this on Kashmir—India, Pakistan, locals split water, security, jobs. My 2023 lens saw a 2009 poll: Kashmiris craved work over flags. Sherlock’s docks could split shifts—morning for Trawlers, noon for Cutters. Ireland’s edge? Joint customs—UK checks north, Ireland south, locals thrive. Time’s a clue too—dock rights blur in history; Ireland’s open border was gold ‘til Brexit. Everyone’s voice matters—fishers, farmers, not just suits.

The Other Side of the Pipe

Skeptics puff back: “Sovereignty’s sacred—sharing’s mushy.” The Cutters won’t budge; the UK won’t bend. Power rules—dock bosses flex muscle; Brexit’s a British win, hard border or not. My 2020 realism nods: leaders crave glory—the dock feud’s a ego trip; Ireland’s stalemate pads egos too. Outsiders stir it—fish barons, EU talks. Who’d sign up? Fair snag—my 2017 idea bets on reason; life’s messier.

But hold on: sovereignty bends all the time. My 2020 work shows it—Gibraltar’s UK bows to EU bits; ASEAN ties sea rivals. In 2017, I banked on fairness—dock crews want fish, not fists; Northern Irish (58% for EU) want calm. My 2023 detective work spots patterns—Kashmir’s jobs trump pride; Ireland’s peace could too. Sharing’s not weak—it’s clever.

Why This Keeps You Up

A dock brawl or a border snag isn’t just news—it’s us. The Trawlers’ kids go hungry; Ireland’s farmers fret. The Borders We Share says we can crack this—split the loot, not the land. Next week, “Sherwood’s Green, Amazon’s Roots: Forests for All.” I’m Dr. Jorge, spinning these tales ‘til they’re a book you’ll snag at the shop. Pop by https://drjorge.world or X (https://x.com/DrJorge_World)—let’s solve this mystery together.

Clues to Chase

Núñez, J.E. (2017). Sovereignty Conflicts (Ch. 6, 7).
Núñez, J.E. (2020). Territorial Disputes (Ch. 1, 7).
Núñez, J.E. (2023). Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (Ch. 1, 6, 7).

NOTE:

There will be new posts every Tuesday.

1. Entangled Worlds, Shared Futures: A New Border Blueprint

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-borders-we-share-entangled-worlds.html

2. Khemed’s Oil, Crimea’s Shadow: Splitting the Stakes

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-borders-we-share-khemeds-oil.html

Section 1: Foundations of the Multiverse (Posts 1–6)

4. Sherwood’s Green, Amazon’s Roots: Forests for All

Robin Hood vs. Sheriff; Brazil-Indigenous clash.

5. Atlantis Rising, Antarctic Thaw: Deep Claims, Shared Wins

Atlantis rivals; Antarctic resource race.

6. Narnia’s Ice, Cyprus Split: Thrones in Balance

Narnian kings divide; Cyprus partition.

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

Tuesday 18th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

Friday, 14 March 2025

The World in March 2025: Justice, Complexity, and Pluralism Amid Global Strife

The World in March 2025

Justice, Complexity, and Pluralism Amid Global Strife

As of March 14, 2025, the world teeters on edges of conflict and fragile diplomacy, from Ukraine’s ceasefire talks to Syria’s sectarian bloodshed. My works—sovereignty conflicts and distributive justice (2017), territorial disputes (2020), and cosmopolitanism, state sovereignty and pluralist theory (2023)—frame this landscape, evaluating how sovereignty’s rigidity shapes crises and testing the UN and ICC’s effectiveness in resolving them. Below, I survey key regions and institutions, seeking paths beyond entrenched divides.

United States, Canada, Greenland

The U.S. under Trump pivots globally—his 30-day Ukraine ceasefire (Reuters, March 11) with intelligence and arms (Axios) pressures Russia, while his Greenland claim (AP News, January) stirs debate. My 2017 justice lens asks: who gets this strategic turf? Canada’s Mark Carney, PM-elect (ABC News), braces for U.S. trade talks (NPR), and Greenland’s 56,000 resist annexation (AP News). My 2020 complexity sees rational Arctic plays, empirical stakes (ice loss, NOAA), and axiological sovereignty clashes. My 2023 pluralism flags a multi-agent web—U.S., Canada, Denmark—where co-sovereignty could ease tensions, but Trump’s unilateralism tests it.

Latin America: Mexico, Brazil, Argentina

Latin America wrestles with sovereignty’s costs. Mexico’s cartel violence—200,000 deaths in five years (ACLED)—defies justice (2017), as security eludes citizens. Brazil’s militias and Amazon disputes (CNN) under Lula mirror this, while Argentina’s VAT hikes (ABC News) post-2022 World Cup (NPR) strain fairness. My 2020 complexity notes governance gaps, rising violence (15%, ACLED), and identity struggles. My 2023 pluralism sees U.S.-China rivalry (Brazil’s trade, Interaction Council)—co-governance could stabilize, but rigid borders endure.

Middle East: Israel, Palestine, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq

The Middle East simmers with conflict. Israel’s 300+ Syria strikes (Al Jazeera) and Palestine’s 39,787 deaths since 2023 (ACLED) pit security against survival—my 2017 justice unfulfilled. Turkey backs HTS in Syria (WSJ), where 200+ died since March 6 (SOHR), with Iran pledging $2 billion (WSJ) and Iraq facing 80% oil export cuts (ABC News). My 2020 complexity maps legal breaches (UN norms), empirical tolls (162 Alawite executions, BBC), and value clashes (Sharia, X@magaXmahagirl). My 2023 pluralism sees a web—U.S., Russia, Iran—where co-sovereignty (coastal zones) could work, but rigid mindsets prevail.

Eastern Europe: Russia, Ukraine

Russia’s Ukraine war—233,000 deaths (ACLED)—meets Trump’s ceasefire (NBC), with Kyiv gaining intelligence (The Guardian) and Russia holding Kursk (100+ km², The Times). My 2017 justice pits Ukraine’s UN-backed sovereignty (Article 51) against Russia’s 20% claim (Independent)—an unfair split. My 2020 complexity notes informal talks (no UN mandate), battlefield deadlock (70% defenses gone, NYT), and democratic-autocratic rift. My 2023 pluralism sees U.S., EU (Starmer’s coalition, Reuters), and Saudi roles (NYT)—co-sovereignty (Donbas buffer) is viable, but Putin’s edge (North Korean aid, CNN) resists.

Europe and the European Union: UK, Germany, France

Europe counters Russia and Trump. The UK’s £2.26 billion Ukraine loan (uk.liveuamap), France’s Macron at summits (Sky News), and Germany’s defense push (NPR) show unity. My 2017 justice asks: who funds peace—EU’s $50 billion (Reuters) or Russia’s assets (Foreign Affairs)? My 2020 complexity flags rational cohesion, empirical strain (127,350 measles cases, ABC News), and democratic values. My 2023 pluralism sees a multi-agent bloc—co-sovereignty with Ukraine could bind, but Trump’s Greenland talk (AP News) tests it.

South China Sea and Asia: India, China, Pakistan

Asia’s tensions rise—China’s 50+ icebreakers (World Economic Forum) and Taiwan’s defiance (ABC News) clash in the South China Sea. India’s Kashmir skirmishes with Pakistan (liveuamap) and China’s Pacific claims (Interaction Council) defy my 2017 justice—resources stay contested. My 2020 complexity notes legal disputes (UNCLOS), militarization (drones, Vision of Humanity), and value friction. My 2023 pluralism sees India, China, Pakistan in a U.S.-Japan web—co-sovereignty (shared seas) could ease, but rigidity holds.

Africa

Africa’s 2 billion face conflict—Sudan’s toll (ACLED), Ethiopia’s Tigray coup (ABC News), and Kenya’s elephant clashes (NPR). My 2017 justice questions peacekeeper exits (Congo, ABC News)—who protects? My 2020 complexity sees governance gaps, 200,000 deaths (ACLED), and survival struggles. My 2023 pluralism flags AU-UN roles—co-sovereignty (regional zones) could aid, but fragmentation (170 Myanmar groups, ACLED) mirrors Africa’s plight.

Australia

Australia, linked to Three Seas (Atlantic Council), eyes Asia. My 2017 justice sees its trade fairness (CNN), 2020 complexity notes alliances (U.S.), empirical calm, and democratic values. My 2023 pluralism positions it in an Indo-Pacific web—co-sovereignty could shape norms, but China looms.

Arctic and Antarctica

The Arctic’s 2.5 million km² ice loss (NOAA) and Russia’s 50+ icebreakers (World Economic Forum) meet Trump’s Greenland bid (AP News). My 2017 justice asks: who claims this? Antarctica’s neutrality (Transantarctic range, geology.com) contrasts—my 2020 complexity sees rational claims (UNCLOS), empirical stakes (90 billion barrels, USGS), and preservation vs. exploitation. My 2023 pluralism envisions multi-agent governance—rigid sovereignty stalls it. In fact, I explore the situation in Antarctica in detail in my forthcoming book Territorial Disputes in the Americas: International Law and Politics (Routledge, Taylor & Francis, forthcoming 2025/26).

United Nations and International Criminal Court

The UN and ICC falter in conflict resolution. The UN’s Ukraine ceasefire lacks teeth (no mandate, Reuters), and Syria’s 200+ deaths (SOHR) defy resolutions—my 2017 justice sees enforcement gaps costing lives (162 executions, BBC). My 2020 complexity notes rational intent (Charter), empirical limits (vetoes, 45 U.S. since 1970), and axiological peace vs. power. The ICC’s Putin warrant (2023, ICC) stalls—Russia’s non-membership and no trials (NPR) show legal reach but no grip. My 2023 pluralism sees multi-agent roles—UN, ICC, states—needing co-sovereignty (shared enforcement), but state resistance (U.S. non-signatory, ICC) and rigid norms weaken them.

Synthesis

March 2025 reflects my works—justice splits (U.S.-Russia, Israel-Iran), complexity deepens (Ukraine, Middle East), and pluralism strains (EU, UN). The UN and ICC flounder—Ukraine’s talks (NYT) and Syria’s chaos (Al Jazeera) expose limits. My co-sovereignty—Donbas buffers, Black Sea zones—offers paths, but rigid mindsets (Putin’s empire, Trump’s whims) block progress. My research urges rethinking—this moment demands it.

Invitation to “The Borders We Share”

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

Friday 14th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

Wednesday, 12 March 2025

Trump’s Ceasefire and Ukraine’s Peace

Responding to Boot, Ikenberry, and James

Max Boot’s Substack post, “Trump finally pressures Russia,” and G. John Ikenberry and Harold James’s Foreign Affairs article, “Would a Peace Deal in Ukraine Last?” tackle the Ukraine-Russia war from complementary angles—Boot cheering Trump’s tactical 30-day ceasefire proposal, announced after Jeddah talks on March 11, 2025, and Ikenberry and James probing the durability of any settlement. Boot sees Trump’s move—resuming intelligence sharing and arms supplies—as a rare squeeze on Putin, potentially exposing Russia’s intransigence. Ikenberry and James, drawing on history (Napoleon’s 1807 Niemen River deal, post-WWII Germany), argue peace needs economic ties, societal buy-in, and great-power enforcement (U.S., China) to stick, warning of collapse if Ukraine’s reconstruction falters. Both pieces spotlight a pivotal moment; my research frameworks—justice, complexity, pluralism—deepen their insights, revealing opportunities and risks in this fragile gambit.

2017: Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Relations: A Distributive Justice Issue

My 2017 book frames sovereignty disputes as distributive justice dilemmas—who gets what, and at whose expense? Boot’s ceasefire aligns here: Ukraine gains a lifeline—intelligence to hit Russian depots (Axios, March 11) and arms to bolster defenses (Reuters)—while Russia faces a choice: pause its Kursk offensive (100+ km² reclaimed, The Times) or lose diplomatic cred. Ikenberry and James extend this—peace must meet “legitimate postwar aspirations” (52% of Ukrainians favor talks, Gallup 2024) but not cede 20% of Ukraine (73% oppose, Al Jazeera), risking an unjust reward for Russia’s aggression (UN Charter Article 2(4) breached). Justice splits define this war—Ukraine’s survival (Article 51) versus Russia’s grab (Independent). Trump’s shift pressures Putin to justify refusal, as Boot notes, potentially redistributing leverage. Ikenberry and James’s economic anchor—rebuilding Ukraine ($100 billion, Euronews)—echoes my fairness call: who pays? My co-governance concept—shared zones like a demilitarized Donbas—could balance this, satisfying Ukraine’s security (Reuters aid) and Russia’s buffer (Newsweek), though Putin’s edge (North Korean troops, CNN) and mistrust (73% Ukrainian rejection) signal a deep rift.

2020: Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics

In Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (2020), I see disputes as multidimensional—rational, empirical, axiological—demanding layered analysis. Boot doubts Putin will agree, and Ikenberry and James fear a shaky deal’s collapse; both are grounded. Legally, the ceasefire’s informal (no UN mandate, Reuters), while peace needs enforcement (1971 Berlin Treaty precedent, Foreign Affairs); empirically, Russia’s Kursk gains (38.6 sq miles, The Times) and Ukraine’s losses (70% air defenses, NYT) tilt the field; axiologically, Putin’s empire (ethnic cleansing, Foreign Affairs 2022) clashes with Zelenskyy’s democracy (82% anti-concession, May 2022). Trump’s intelligence (The Guardian drone strikes) and arms (Biden stockpiles, Reuters) shift power, as Boot highlights, but Putin’s rejection (no short truces, Independent) and Minsk II’s failure (2015, Al Jazeera) test my theory—complexity craves flexibility, not rigidity. Ikenberry and James’s great-power fix—U.S.-China guarantors—adds rational heft, but Russia’s momentum (10 sorties, Reuters) and Ukraine’s defiance (Zelenskyy’s X, March 11) complicate it. My adaptable sovereignty—temporary truces or joint zones—could bridge Boot’s wedge and their stability, yet history warns of shallow roots.

2023: Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory

My 2023 work, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory, views conflicts as multi-agent, multi-normative webs—Boot’s Trump-Putin dynamic and Ikenberry and James’s global framework fit this. Agents span Ukraine (Zelenskyy’s “positive” X post), U.S. (Trump’s envoy, Axios), Russia (Sobolev’s fears, Mirror), and beyond (Saudi talks, NYT; Starmer’s coalition, Reuters). Norms collide—peace (ceasefire) versus power (Kursk gains)—with Boot’s short-term win (intelligence targeting HQs, Axios) rippling globally, as my pluralism predicts. Ikenberry and James’s peacekeeping—France-UK for Ukraine, China-Central Asia for Russia—mirrors my multi-agent lens, but Putin’s distrust (Peskov’s wait-and-see, Reuters) and Trump’s volatility (X’s “no wars,” March 8) challenge it. My co-sovereignty—shared border control—could anchor their economic bridge (Ukraine as EU-Russia link), yet Russia’s trillion-ruble “new regions” budget (Wikipedia) and Ukraine’s resilience (Gallup) demand mindset shifts I’ve long urged.

Synthesis of Boot and Ikenberry-James

Boot’s optimism—Trump pressuring Russia—lands with Ukraine’s edge (arms, intelligence) and Putin’s bind (Kursk or optics), while Ikenberry and James’s caution—a deal must endure—grounds it in history. My 2017 justice sees Trump’s move tilting fairness—Ukraine’s breather versus Russia’s burden—but Ikenberry and James warn of post-deal justice: $50 billion from Europe (Reuters) versus Russia’s frozen assets (Foreign Affairs). Boot’s aid plea (minerals deal, The Times) aligns with my fairness call, though Trump’s mercuriality—cutting aid (Telegraph) then flipping (NBC)—echoes their stability fears. My 2020 complexity ties Boot’s wedge (Putin’s “no” exposes rigidity, Reuters) to their Berlin hope (détente), but Minsk’s ghosts linger. My 2023 pluralism merges Boot’s local gain with their global fix—Saudi mediation (NYT) and U.S.-China roles—but Putin’s edge (North Korean aid, CNN) and Ukraine’s stance (73% no ceding) test it.

Boot’s wedge is a crack; Ikenberry and James’s peace is a structure. Together, they frame Trump’s ceasefire (NBC) as a test—my works suggest it probes justice (2017), complexity (2020), and pluralism (2023). Putin’s “no” could spark hybrid U.S. moves (sanctions, X@strujillo075), as Boot hints, but Ikenberry and James’s history—post-WWI Germany’s despair—warns of collapse without economic roots. A pause isn’t peace, but paired with guarantors, it could shift dynamics. Russia’s response—rejection or reluctant yes—will reveal if this crack widens or seals shut.

Invitation to “The Borders We Share”

This moment echoes my new series, “The Borders We Share,” launched a few days ago. In my latest post (https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-borders-we-share-khemeds-oil.html), I explore Crimea’s 2014 shadow—Russia’s 2 million residents versus Ukraine’s claim—as a mindset trap mirroring today’s stakes. Blending fiction (Khemed’s oil) and reality (Crimea’s limbo), I propose co-sovereignty—shared borders—to break rigid divides. Boot’s ceasefire and Ikenberry and James’s guarantors test this: can rethinking borders, as I urge, turn Trump’s 30 days into a framework? My works seek such openings—readers are invited to join me in exploring these shared edges, where Ukraine’s future hangs.

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

Wednesday 12th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

Tuesday, 11 March 2025

The Borders We Share: Khemed’s Oil, Crimea’s Shadow (Post 2)

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

Section 1: Foundations of the Multiverse (Posts 1–6)

Blog Post #2: Khemed’s Oil, Crimea’s Shadow: Splitting the Stakes

In a Nutshell

Picture this: a dusty island called Khemed, dripping with rare metal, caught between two big-shot nations. Now swap that for Crimea, a real-world peninsula yanked from Ukraine by Russia in 2014, oozing with oil and tension. Both are messes of people, pride, and power—fights over land that don’t have to end with one winner. In my new series, The Borders We Share, I’m pitching a wild idea: why not split the prize? Share it like kids divvying up a chocolate bar—messy, sure, but fairer than a brawl. Let’s dive into these two tales and see how rethinking borders could change the game.

The Adventure Begins

Ever since I was a kid flipping through Tintin comics, I’ve loved a good mystery—especially when it’s about places where lines on a map spark real trouble. Last week, I kicked off The Borders We Share, dreaming up a world where borders don’t just divide but connect. Today, I’m taking you to two spots—one real, one from my imagination—where folks are locked in a tug-of-war over dirt, dreams, and dignity.

First stop: Crimea. It’s a rugged finger of land poking out of Ukraine into the Black Sea, a place that’s seen more flags than a parade. Way back, it was Greek, Roman, Tatar—then Russian in 1783. In 1954, Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev handed it to Ukraine like a birthday gift. Fast-forward to 2014: Russia’s Vladimir Putin swoops in after a vote (97% said “join Russia,” but plenty call it fishy). Why? It’s got naval bases, gas fields, and a chokehold on the sea. But it’s not just about stuff—Crimeans are a mix of Russians, Ukrainians, and Tatars (kicked out in ’44, trickling back since ’91). Each group’s got a story, a stake, a soul. Putin plays it like a chess move, looking tough at home while the world yells “foul.” Sound familiar? It’s a knot of who-belongs-where that’s still bleeding—war’s killed over 30,000 since 2022.

Now, hop into my made-up world: Khemed. I cooked this up in my 2017 book, Sovereignty Conflicts, and spiced it up in Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (2023). It’s a tiny island, mostly Muslim with Hindu pockets, sitting on a metal so rare it’s like pirate gold. Two nations want it: Syldavia, a flashy, far-off powerhouse with cash and cannons, and Borduria, a sprawling, broke neighbor sharing the same shelf of sea. Khemedians fish and farm, defenseless, while both sides claim it’s their holy turf—think Jerusalem vibes. Borduria held it ‘til Syldavia stormed in, guns blazing. Locals are split—some want freedom, others clash over rights (Syldavia’s got a death penalty for being LGBTQ+). Bigwigs from Nuevo Rico sniff around, eyeing the loot. It’s a mess I built to crack open a question: can we share instead of snatch?

What’s Really Going On

These aren’t just land grabs—they’re people stories. Crimea’s Tatars dream of home, not pawns in Putin’s game. Khemed’s fishers want peace, not a noose. My 2020 book, Territorial Disputes, says it plain: calling these “territorial disputes” misses half the picture. It’s not only about dirt—it’s folks, feelings, leaders flexing. In Crimea, a 1991 vote had 87% clinging to the former Soviet Union; by 2014, most picked Russia. Khemed’s split too—faith and fear tearing at its heart. Leaders love the chaos—Putin’s grip tightens with every standoff; Syldavia’s new boss hides rot with bravado. Outsiders—NATO, rich meddlers—keep it simmering ‘cause a boil suits them fine.

Here’s where I get nerdy but stick with me. In 2017, I dreamed up a fix: egalitarian shared sovereignty. Imagine everyone—Crimeans, Russians, Ukrainians; Khemedians, Syldavians, Bordurians—sitting down, blind to who’s strongest, and asking, “What’s fair?” They’d split it: equal say, jobs based on skills, goodies tied to effort, the big dogs helping the little ones catch up. Crimea’s gas could fund Tatar schools; Khemed’s metal could split three ways—mining, fishing, taxes. My 2023 twist adds color: think of it like a 3D puzzle—straight lines (who’s boss, who’s next) plus wild curves (selfish moves, random outsiders). Crimea’s grab? Putin’s ego, Zelenskyy’s unclear intentions, not law. Khemed’s stalemate? Same vibe, different flavor.

Why Sharing Beats Fighting

Why bother? ‘Cause all-or-nothing flops. Crimea’s a war zone—sanctions, blood, no fix. Khemed’s a powder keg—Syldavia’s win means Borduria’s rage. In 2017, I tested this on Kashmir: India gets water, Pakistan security, locals jobs—everyone keeps their pride. My 2023 lens digs deeper—a 2009 Kashmir poll showed 87% cared more about work than flags. Crimea’s oil, Khemed’s metal? Split ‘em: Russia keeps its port, Ukraine gets cash, Tatars get land; Syldavia mines, Borduria farms, Khemedians thrive. The strong lift the weak—no one’s crushed. Time twists it—Crimea’s 1954 shift haunts today; Khemed’s holy tales stretch back forever. Every voice counts—not just the loudest.

But Wait, Really?

Folks’ll push back: “Sovereignty’s king—sharing’s for suckers.” Russia won’t budge; Syldavia won’t blink. Power rules—Putin’s 2018 Crimea vote (42% turnout) was a flex; Borduria’s broke and desperate. Leaders crave glory—Crimea’s limbo keeps Putin golden and Zelenskyy a hero. Outsiders muck it up—NATO’s games, Nuevo Rico’s greed. Who’d agree? Fair point—my 2017 idea assumes good faith; real life’s grittier.

But here’s the comeback: sovereignty’s never pure. My 2020 work shows it—Gibraltar’s UK bends to EU rules; Asia’s sea claimants lean on ASEAN. In 2017, I bet on reason—Crimeans (70% for autonomy in ’94) and Khemedians want out of the trap. My 2023 puzzle cracks the chaos—Kashmir’s jobs beat dogma; Crimea’s gas could too. Sharing’s not soft—it’s smart.

Why You Should Care

Crimea’s war scars and Khemed’s imagined woes hit home—people hurt when borders harden. The Borders We Share says we can do better—split the stakes, not skulls. Next week, “Sherlock’s Docks, Ireland’s Edge: Clues to Equal Ground” spins more yarns—hard border, soft border, fights, same fix. I’m Dr. Jorge, and I want this dream in your hands someday—a series to spark chats at your table. Pop by https://DrJorge.World or join me on X (@DrJorge_World)—let’s redraw the world, one story at a time.

Dig Deeper

Núñez, J.E. (2017). Sovereignty Conflicts (Ch. 6, 7).
Núñez, J.E. (2020). Territorial Disputes (Ch. 1, 7).
Núñez, J.E. (2023). Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (Ch. 1, 6, 7).
The territorial dispute between Borduria and Syldavia: https://drjorge.world/2024/04/12/the-case-of-khemed-between-borduria-and-syldavia/

NOTE:

There will be new posts every Tuesday.

https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-borders-we-share-entangled-worlds.html

Section 1: Foundations of the Multiverse (Posts 1–6)

3. Sherlock’s Docks, Ireland’s Edge: Clues to Equal Ground

Holmes solves a turf war; Brexit’s Irish border.

4. Sherwood’s Green, Amazon’s Roots: Forests for All

Robin Hood vs. Sheriff; Brazil-Indigenous clash.

5. Atlantis Rising, Antarctic Thaw: Deep Claims, Shared Wins

Atlantis rivals; Antarctic resource race.

6. Narnia’s Ice, Cyprus Split: Thrones in Balance

Narnian kings divide; Cyprus partition.

AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):

AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:

Tuesday 11th March 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World