Crimea is legally, according to international law and recognized by everyone but Russia, part of Ukraine. You mean Crimea was part of the RSFSR until 1954, not the Russian Federation.

Being legalistic in this circumstance ignores what Crimea means to Russia, and how the majority of Crimea is ethnically Russian. The background of the region matters for realizing how much Russia cares about Crimea, and therefore how to deal with it in this situation.

Okay, if you're willing to throw the law and legalities aside, then...you're nothing more than a thug, and/or an apologist for them.

No, I'm being realistic about what it means to push Russia on this point. They're serious about Crimea, handling this well will require consideration.

The law matters, yes. And so does how Russia feels about Crimea. Both need to be considered.

Japanese feel strongly about Kunashir too. But you don't see them sending in the military. I think thuggish behavior means you should consider their feelings less, not more. Get the military out, then talk about feelings.

It's brinksmanship of the most professional kind, there's no doubt about that. Russia can push harder than the US in this case. But of course the world needs to push back, I'm not saying take it lying down.

However, I will be surprised if Russia doesn't retain control of Crimea.

> How is Russia invading when it already has a massive military base there, in the Crimea, which was Russian until 1954?

The same way the US would have been invading if it invaded the Phillipines in 1991, where it had a massive military base and which had been American up until 1946. Neither "this was our territory ~50 years ago" nor "we have a massive military base in this territory" gives a country permission to invade and occupy a territory.

Are you trolling or can't comprehend the difference between having a military base on the territory and taking over that territory completely?