31-10-2025, 02:57 PM
A "crusade for freedom" turned into a territorial partition?
Egelion proposal for the future of New Endralon and Kizenia raises questions about self-determination, regional balance and dangerous precedents for international law
Equilibri Globali
A Neapulia based journal of geopolitical studies founded by an independent collective of journalists, professors and international relations experts
Issue 43 - August 5684
With the Kerisian War over and peace negotiations underway, the Kingdom of Egelion has presented a proposal that, according to Altéa's authorities, aims to "restore stability and order" in the territories of New Edralon and Kizenia. However, the complex Egelian plan, which calls for the restoration of the monarchy, the personal union of the two thrones, Egelion's annexation of Zyldavia, and the creation of two free cities under military guarantee and international observation, has sparked mixed feelings among the international community and, above all, a strongly critical reaction from the government of Kalistan.
"Peace" according to Altéa
In Egelion's proposal, the reconstruction of New Edralon and Kizenia would be governed by an enlightened monarchy, legitimized by the lineage of House Montalivet-Sildavia and linked in personal union with Altéa. This proposal, defined by Mondragon II as "enlightened absolutism", is designed to prevent the return of the "evil" that would have corrupted the New Endralonian and Kizenian institutions, leading them to conflict, according to official Egelian rhetoric.
Egelion, therefore, presents itself as a guarantor of stability, temporarily administering a significant portion of the territory, ensuring that the country's transition occurs "without extremist tendencies or democratic degeneration".
This, however, is a highly paternalistic vision of international relations, according to which a nation's sovereignty is subordinated to the judgment and supervision of an external power. This is the concern expressed by the Chancellor of the Ananto Empire, Lady Ericka Donahue, who described the plan as "a partition disguised as a peace agreement".
Kalistan's voice: between idealism and realpolitik
Kalistan, which had supported the intervention in the country and joined the joint effort to overthrow the military junta, declares itself "betrayed" by Egelion's proposal. Donahue's words leave no room for interpretation:
Kalistan did not enter the war to legitimize a massive territorial annexation or a de facto protectorate, since the goal was to restore a legitimate and independent government in Kizenia and not to witness a partition of the country.
Kalistan's position is based on two principles: first, the need to preserve the independence and integrity of Kizenia, considered vital to the stability of the entire Anantonian area, and second, the protection of the Anantonese interests passing through the defense of the free cities of Luncasi and Deltabor, currently under the administration of Kaliburg authorities and where, Domahue stated, democratic governments, functioning infrastructure, and social peace already exist. The Egelian desire to opt for direct or indirect administration by Altéa, the Chancellor has consistently stated, "is not only unjustified, but potentially destabilizing".
Therefore, the rift is evident: Kalistan denounces that the Egelian plan is not a pacification project at all, but an attempt to expand its sphere of influence, where local aspirations and neighbouring geopolitical interests are subordinated to and undermined by Altéa's geopolitical ambitions. And in this context, the risk of escalation appears far from remote.
The People’s will, the great unknown: who truly represents New Endralon and Kizenia?
One of the most pressing and least addressed questions in the negotiations concerns the will of the populations involved. Have the citizens of NEK been asked what future they desire? Do they willingly accept the prospect of a monarchical restoration, or of living in semi-autonomous city-states under foreign control or tutelage? But not only that: does the population of NEK approve of Nadiya sponsored "socialist-like experiments" by a local government heavily backed by Nadiya itself, which, while claiming to want to restore sovereignty, appears to actually occupy those areas?
There are no simple answers or solutions, but the risks are clear: excluding popular and local interests from the decision-making process could set a serious precedent. There is a risk of embracing the logic according to which peace is imposed from above, with the resulting legitimization of practices that undermine key principles that have governed international law for millennia, such as the rejection of violent territorial expansionism and the principle of self-determination of peoples.
This risks paving the way for the legitimization of violence, of war, as a means of territorial conquest, where force and political prestige prevail over consensus and participation, all perhaps disguised under terms like "peacekeeping mission" or "special peacekeeping operation."
International law and new precedents
From a legal perspective, therefore, the situation in NEK risks representing a potential break with international law established over many centuries, shaped by struggles and claims, but also by numerous, often bloody, wars. If the powers involved in this peace process were to define the new borders and institutional structures without a process of internal consultation or impartial international supervision, they would risk sanctioning a return to the legitimacy of territorial conquest by occupation, through wars but also through various military operations or missions. This is a principle that international diplomacy, since ancient times, had relegated to the past.
The comparison with Amudim: a clearly different case
At this point, some might object to the thesis presented in the previous paragraph, recalling the precedent of Amudim, the former state of Beiteynu, fragmented into various state entities, with large portions then integrated under the sovereignty of various foreign nations, such as the Triad Republic or Xsampa. However, this comparison is misleading and intellectually dishonest.
The disintegration of Amudim was, in fact, an endogenous process, stemming from the crisis of central power and the collapse of the legitimacy of the Yishelem government, accused of systematic abuses and the cause of the domestic and international crisis that was engulfing the country at the time. The subsequent accession of some areas to the Dual Republic of Narikaton & Darnussia occurred through agreements supported by historical ties developed between the two nations, while the recent negotiations in Shar-Mearvi saw the participation of representatives of local authorities and the new political entities involved. It was, therefore, not an occupation or partition imposed by external powers, but what seemed a consensual process of reorganization, devoid of armed conflict and widely accepted for years by the populations involved. The current "nationalist" fringes wreaking havoc on Amudim today, appear, according to unconfirmed rumors, to be fueled by external pressure rather than by genuine internal claims.
Nevertheless, history should teach us that communities with strong cultural and national identities are reluctant to accept the imposition, whether forced or not, of external sovereignty. Therefore, NEK also risks becoming a zone of dangerous ethno-nationalistic tensions in the long term.
Conclusions: a fragile balance
Peace in Keri, for now, still seems far from a shared agreement. The Egelian plan, according to many analysts, appears like an attempt to expand political and military influence in the region disguised as an institutional reconstruction project.
And there is a real risk that the entire geopolitical balance of the Anantonese area will fall into a deterioration in relations between northern Seleya and Keris, with direct repercussions on international trade, maritime security, and, first of all of course, the geopolitical stability of the entire area, which could even lead to an arms race along the coasts of the Anantonese Ocean.
In conclusion, a disturbing question arises: do we really want to accept that the sovereignty and fate of entire nations are decided in the gilded halls of power, far from the voices of the people who live there? If this is the answer, what is at stake here is not only the future of New Endralon and Kizenia, but the entire framework of international law and coexistence that has thus far guaranteed for millennia, despite its limitations, a fragile but important global balance among Terra's nations.
Egelion proposal for the future of New Endralon and Kizenia raises questions about self-determination, regional balance and dangerous precedents for international law
Equilibri Globali
A Neapulia based journal of geopolitical studies founded by an independent collective of journalists, professors and international relations experts
Issue 43 - August 5684
With the Kerisian War over and peace negotiations underway, the Kingdom of Egelion has presented a proposal that, according to Altéa's authorities, aims to "restore stability and order" in the territories of New Edralon and Kizenia. However, the complex Egelian plan, which calls for the restoration of the monarchy, the personal union of the two thrones, Egelion's annexation of Zyldavia, and the creation of two free cities under military guarantee and international observation, has sparked mixed feelings among the international community and, above all, a strongly critical reaction from the government of Kalistan.
"Peace" according to Altéa
In Egelion's proposal, the reconstruction of New Edralon and Kizenia would be governed by an enlightened monarchy, legitimized by the lineage of House Montalivet-Sildavia and linked in personal union with Altéa. This proposal, defined by Mondragon II as "enlightened absolutism", is designed to prevent the return of the "evil" that would have corrupted the New Endralonian and Kizenian institutions, leading them to conflict, according to official Egelian rhetoric.
Egelion, therefore, presents itself as a guarantor of stability, temporarily administering a significant portion of the territory, ensuring that the country's transition occurs "without extremist tendencies or democratic degeneration".
This, however, is a highly paternalistic vision of international relations, according to which a nation's sovereignty is subordinated to the judgment and supervision of an external power. This is the concern expressed by the Chancellor of the Ananto Empire, Lady Ericka Donahue, who described the plan as "a partition disguised as a peace agreement".
Kalistan's voice: between idealism and realpolitik
Kalistan, which had supported the intervention in the country and joined the joint effort to overthrow the military junta, declares itself "betrayed" by Egelion's proposal. Donahue's words leave no room for interpretation:
Kalistan did not enter the war to legitimize a massive territorial annexation or a de facto protectorate, since the goal was to restore a legitimate and independent government in Kizenia and not to witness a partition of the country.
Kalistan's position is based on two principles: first, the need to preserve the independence and integrity of Kizenia, considered vital to the stability of the entire Anantonian area, and second, the protection of the Anantonese interests passing through the defense of the free cities of Luncasi and Deltabor, currently under the administration of Kaliburg authorities and where, Domahue stated, democratic governments, functioning infrastructure, and social peace already exist. The Egelian desire to opt for direct or indirect administration by Altéa, the Chancellor has consistently stated, "is not only unjustified, but potentially destabilizing".
Therefore, the rift is evident: Kalistan denounces that the Egelian plan is not a pacification project at all, but an attempt to expand its sphere of influence, where local aspirations and neighbouring geopolitical interests are subordinated to and undermined by Altéa's geopolitical ambitions. And in this context, the risk of escalation appears far from remote.
The People’s will, the great unknown: who truly represents New Endralon and Kizenia?
One of the most pressing and least addressed questions in the negotiations concerns the will of the populations involved. Have the citizens of NEK been asked what future they desire? Do they willingly accept the prospect of a monarchical restoration, or of living in semi-autonomous city-states under foreign control or tutelage? But not only that: does the population of NEK approve of Nadiya sponsored "socialist-like experiments" by a local government heavily backed by Nadiya itself, which, while claiming to want to restore sovereignty, appears to actually occupy those areas?
There are no simple answers or solutions, but the risks are clear: excluding popular and local interests from the decision-making process could set a serious precedent. There is a risk of embracing the logic according to which peace is imposed from above, with the resulting legitimization of practices that undermine key principles that have governed international law for millennia, such as the rejection of violent territorial expansionism and the principle of self-determination of peoples.
This risks paving the way for the legitimization of violence, of war, as a means of territorial conquest, where force and political prestige prevail over consensus and participation, all perhaps disguised under terms like "peacekeeping mission" or "special peacekeeping operation."
International law and new precedents
From a legal perspective, therefore, the situation in NEK risks representing a potential break with international law established over many centuries, shaped by struggles and claims, but also by numerous, often bloody, wars. If the powers involved in this peace process were to define the new borders and institutional structures without a process of internal consultation or impartial international supervision, they would risk sanctioning a return to the legitimacy of territorial conquest by occupation, through wars but also through various military operations or missions. This is a principle that international diplomacy, since ancient times, had relegated to the past.
The comparison with Amudim: a clearly different case
At this point, some might object to the thesis presented in the previous paragraph, recalling the precedent of Amudim, the former state of Beiteynu, fragmented into various state entities, with large portions then integrated under the sovereignty of various foreign nations, such as the Triad Republic or Xsampa. However, this comparison is misleading and intellectually dishonest.
The disintegration of Amudim was, in fact, an endogenous process, stemming from the crisis of central power and the collapse of the legitimacy of the Yishelem government, accused of systematic abuses and the cause of the domestic and international crisis that was engulfing the country at the time. The subsequent accession of some areas to the Dual Republic of Narikaton & Darnussia occurred through agreements supported by historical ties developed between the two nations, while the recent negotiations in Shar-Mearvi saw the participation of representatives of local authorities and the new political entities involved. It was, therefore, not an occupation or partition imposed by external powers, but what seemed a consensual process of reorganization, devoid of armed conflict and widely accepted for years by the populations involved. The current "nationalist" fringes wreaking havoc on Amudim today, appear, according to unconfirmed rumors, to be fueled by external pressure rather than by genuine internal claims.
Nevertheless, history should teach us that communities with strong cultural and national identities are reluctant to accept the imposition, whether forced or not, of external sovereignty. Therefore, NEK also risks becoming a zone of dangerous ethno-nationalistic tensions in the long term.
Conclusions: a fragile balance
Peace in Keri, for now, still seems far from a shared agreement. The Egelian plan, according to many analysts, appears like an attempt to expand political and military influence in the region disguised as an institutional reconstruction project.
And there is a real risk that the entire geopolitical balance of the Anantonese area will fall into a deterioration in relations between northern Seleya and Keris, with direct repercussions on international trade, maritime security, and, first of all of course, the geopolitical stability of the entire area, which could even lead to an arms race along the coasts of the Anantonese Ocean.
In conclusion, a disturbing question arises: do we really want to accept that the sovereignty and fate of entire nations are decided in the gilded halls of power, far from the voices of the people who live there? If this is the answer, what is at stake here is not only the future of New Endralon and Kizenia, but the entire framework of international law and coexistence that has thus far guaranteed for millennia, despite its limitations, a fragile but important global balance among Terra's nations.