Facts One of the major ethical dilemmas that I recently faced had to do with Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which took place on March 21, 2014. The reason for this is that ever since when it happened, I never ceased being asked by my close friends and relatives to state what I think of the mentioned geopolitical development. Consequentially, this presented me with the choice: Should I be condemning the annexation of Crimea by Russia (because I am a patriot, and the U.S. Government continues to condemn it), or should I be supporting it (because I am an intelligent person, and I know that by having annexed this peninsula, Russia simply restored the historical justice and prevented the peninsula’s population of Russians from being slaughtered by the Ukrainian Nazis, who recently overthrew the country’s legitimate government)? In this paper, I will outline the line of my ethical reasoning, which, in the end, has brought me to choose in favor of the second of the mentioned choices. Ethical Issues While deciding what stance I should adopt, in regards to the mentioned annexation of Crimea, I had to address the following ethical issues: a) Remaining observant of the provisions of international law (which forbid territorial annexations) vs. Subscribing to the considerations of a commonsense logic (which deem the annexation in question thoroughly justified, in the historical and moral senses of this word). b) Supporting the condemnation of the mentioned annexation by President Obama (even though I consider him an utterly ineffective President) vs. Expressing my support to how President Putin handled the situation (despite my awareness of the fact that Putin’s move, in this respect, may well trigger the outbreak of the WW3). c) Proclaiming that those Ukrainians who overthrew the Ukrainian legitimate government in the winter of 2014 are ’fighters for democracy’ (because suits the geopolitical interests of the U.S.) vs. Claiming that these people are in fact Nazis [they openly wear swastikas on their sleeves], who consciously strive to plunge Ukraine in the civil war (because this indeed appears to be the case). My Deontological Principles Given the mentioned moral dilemma’s qualitative aspects, I decided to utilize the following ethical principles, while elaborating on what should account for the most ethically justified stance, in regards to the described geopolitical development: a) The principle of ‘act utilitarianism,’ which proclaims that the discursive soundness of just about any ethical decision positively relates to the measure of its potential ability to benefit as many people, as possible (Woodard 255). Because it is specified by the mean of exploiting the rest of the world that America is able to ensure its continual wealthiness, there can be no doubt that, by having annexed Crimea, Russia undermined the reputation of the U.S. as the ‘world’s gendarme’ – hence, benefiting just about any person on this Earth, who happened to be non-American. And, as we are well aware, the population of non-Americans on this planet is much larger than the population of Americans. b) The principle of non-violence, commonly associated with the Biblical commandment, ‘do not murder.’ After having annexed Crimea, Russia was able to prevent the potential slaughter of the