Geo-politics and Ukranian secession

Geo-Politics. This is what Richard Maybury is going to be talking with us about today on the Patriot's Lament radio show. I know we are going to be talking about the Russia/Ukraine/USA conflict.
I am mind boggled myself over this whole situation. The US government gets caught talking about spending $5 billion to support a coup and put in their own puppet government, the US government spin was that the Ukrainians have the right to their own self determination,(on this point I agree 100%, all people, every individual should be the owner of their own self and decide what they will or will not subject themselves to).
So there is a coup, and obviously the US sets up the government they want in place of the one that was in power. Then eastern Ukraine, Crimea in particular, votes to secede from Ukraine, and the US government all of a sudden does a 180 and says the Ukrainian people don't have a right to self determination. Of course Russia is blamed, but from what little I know, the eastern Ukrainians are basically ethnic Russians, and because of earlier State edicts, they were given to Ukraine. Like trading around cattle.
I'm not a cheerleader for the Russian State, I am against EVERY State, but I have to ask, why can't ALL the Ukrainian folks have self determination? If the eastern Ukrainians want to secede, and be apart of Russia, why not let them? Whether they want an autonomous state, or to live in an Anarchist state, what business is it of ANYONE'S except theirs?
Hans Hoppe argues for individual secession, and I like that idea. Why can't folks just live the lives they want, and be loyal, or disloyal, to whomever they want?
And more important, what business is it of anyone else?
I can see by looking at the "stats" on my blog, that we have folks from Russia and Ukraine that visit the blog. No, it doesn't tell me who anyone is, just that we had visits from these places.
So, if you are from Russia, or Ukraine, please, I don't know what is really going on, so tell us in your own words. Leave a comment.
For the rest of us, we should ask, why should any entity be able to tell any individual who or what they must obey or follow?
America was founded on secession, shouldn't Americans support secession movements anywhere in the world? I certainly do. If humans have the right to self ownership, we have the right to secede. If we don't have the right to secede, then we are merely slaves to the State that claims to own us.
Independence from the State should be our goal.

The progression of Revolutionary thought in the 17th century, Part 1

I have lately undertaken to read Algernon Sidney on government. ... As often as I have read it, and fumbled it over, it now excites fresh admiration [i.e., wonder] that this work has excited so little interest in the literary world. As splendid an edition of it as the art of printing can produce—as well for the intrinsic merit of the work, as for the proof it brings of the bitter sufferings of the advocates of liberty from that time to this, and to show the slow progress of moral, philosophical, and political illumination in the world—ought to be now published in America.
John Adams to  Thomas Jefferson in 1823.

Algernon Sidney (or Sydney in England) was one of the leading theorist in the Republican movement in 17th century England. (Note: This Republican movement or "Republicanism" which was a "Laisse Faire" and "Natural Right" movement has nothing to do with the Republican party in today's U.S. politics, which more closely resembles corporate fascism).
Sidney's importance was more or less his stress on the Right to Revolution, and his death was seen as kind of a martyrdom in the Republican/Libertarian movement, as he was beheaded by King Charles ll, and his "Discourse Concerning Government" was actually used against him in court, as witness against him.
To Sidney, revolution and freedom were the Right, and Duty of an oppressed people.
"Revolution to Sidney was not an evil but the people's great weapon for the overthrow of Tyranny and for exercising their Right to popular government. There was nothing sacred about governments, which on the contrary should be changed as required." (Murray Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" Volume 2, chapter 33)

Sidney championed law as "written reason" and as defense of Life, Liberty, and Property: " If there be no other law in a kingdom than the will of a Prince, there is no such thing as Liberty; and 'tis impossible for a man to have a Right to lands and goods, if he have no Liberty, and enjoys his life at the pleasure of another, as it is to enjoy either when he is deprived of them."
Sidney believed that government basically had an agreement or contract with the governed, and if the government failed in its duties, it simply needed to be removed. He also believed the People could not be made to give up their freedom, nor could they be bound to the government by dead hands of the past.
When he was being led to execution, in his "Dying speech" he said, "God has left nations the Liberty of setting up governments as best please them."
Injustice, to Sidney, made a government illegal. "Swords were given to men that none be slaves, but such as knew not how to use them."
In conclusion to part 1, I will leave with this from Sidney," Let the danger be never so great, there is a possibility of safety whilst men have life, hands, arms, and courage to use them, but the people must certainly perish, who tamely suffer themselves to be oppressed, by the injustice, cruelty, and malice of an ill magistrate."

For more on Algernon Sidney, read Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty."

For you "anyone but Obama types"

Supreme Court rules 5 to 4 it's OK to violate you.

Read the story here.

What could be the common denominator in the 5 judges that voted against your dignity?

All 5 were appointed by Republican presidents.