“We remain committed to the
principle that international borders must not be changed by force.”[1]
This statement was signed by E.U. leaders, as well as officials at the state
level, and even leaders of sovereign European states such as Britain and Norway
several days after U.S. president Trump had met with officials from Ukraine at
the White House on October 17, 2025. If only the Europeans had been so unified
in 1939; it is difficult to fathom how the world would be 14 years short of a
century later had World War II not taken place. Force as a de facto decider of
territory has been the default through human history. For the principle of the
European political leaders to become the default would represent a step forward
in our species’ political development, but the even though principle sounds great,
it also looks hopelessly idyllic and not at all realistic.
As if enshrining the validity
of “might makes right” in territorial disputes, U.S. President Trump had said
in an interview before the meeting at the White House, Putin has “won certain
property.”[2]
By several media accounts, Zelensky and his travelling cadre did not take this fact
well at all subsequently at the White House. Just weeks before Trump’s statement,
Putin had said that “force of arms would decide the matter” if there is not a
peace agreement. The notion that bombs and guns can decide strikes me as
an oxymoron. Force of arms take, rather than make decisions. A robber
would not say that his gun will decide to whom the desktop computer in a house
being robbed belongs. Robbery does not alter ownership.
Rather than feign insight into
how the conflagration between Russia, an empire, and Ukraine, a sovereign
state, could be solved other than to state generally that a war between an
empire and a kingdom-level country is apt to be won by the former if by force
of arms, I want to put “won certain property” (as if a sovereign country’s
territory can be rethought into being a country’s property) directly up against
the principle that “international borders must not be changed by force.” The
word must may subtly import the mentality behind “might makes right.” If
so, how could the new principle be rephrased so as to sever it from values that
have given “might makes right” such staying power? In debate, it is better to
find one’s own presuppositions and values than import those of the opposition
and merely propose an alternative interpretation.
International borders are not legitimately changed by force, as opposed to an invader has won some territory, better characterizes the underlying antipodal values and beliefs that are actually in conflict. If only the values and presuppositions of the latter way of international relations when diplomacy fails could finally be overcome by those that have been recessive: namely, that territorial gains by force will not be recognized. The latter paradigm for international relations can include severing trade, cutting off memberships in international organizations like NATO and the UN, and even the use of force to push invaders back, as U.S. President Bush did in the early 1990s in leading an international coalition to forcibly remove Iraq’s dictator’s forces from Kuwait. The use of military force is the least preferred way of enforcing the new principle over the old because force itself is still being used in relation to territory.
Much more consistent with the European 21st century principle is ending trade even with an invader’s trading partners and seeing that the UN remove the invader from being able to participate (reversion to observer status, without a veto-power) for violating the UN’s charter. To avoid even more humiliation, the UN should do that anyway, and for any government that has serially violated the charter (e.g., Israel).
Successfully changing
the default in international relations from the notion that invaders “win” territory
and territorial claims can be decided by force of arms to the principle that
territorial borders cannot be changed by force would represent not only a
paradigm shift, but also a long-awaited advance in political development, and such
a change could not arrive too early in the nuclear age. Both Putin and Trump
can be seen as antiquated in their world-views if enough of the rest of the
world decides on its own to move on. Coming up with new, distinct sea-legs for the European principle that are NOT carried over from the underpinnings of the currently dominant, antithetical dogma that might makes right, or at least that forced territorial changes are legitimate, and then operationalizing the new principle in government policy would go a long way in actualizing the new paradigm in international relations.
2. Kevin Liptak, “How Trump-Zelensky Meeting Turned Acrimonious over Demands or Territorial Concessions,” CNN.com, October 20, 2025.
