You failed to address the point -- why would Russia allow a Ukrainian nationalist government that came to power illegally deny them access to a naval base in Crimea that existed before the US Constitution was written?
THAT ABSOLUTELY WAS a national security issue for the Russians. They had every right to annex Crimea with the consent of the people there, which they absolutely had.
You're such sick freak, you think Ukrainian nationalists can sh$t all over Russia and that the Russians were going to take it.
Well, they didn't and they are kicking your asses.
Keep it up and Ukraine won't exist at all. The only way you'd ever be able to go back to your homeland would be with Russian visa, which you shouldn't be granted.
The map was a response to your false claim that the Baltic states were not a part of Russia until the creation of the Soviet Union. So by the same logic that Crimea is Russian because it was a part of Russian before the creation of the US Constitution, the same could be said not only for all of Ukraine, but also of the Baltic states, Belorus, Moldavia, and all of the former Soviet republics.
It should also be pointed out that Russia had joint access to the naval base even under Ukraine control. But at this point, militarily control of Crimea is only a question of national prestige. With modern weapons, the naval base at Sevastopol is no longer of any military value. Ukraine is already denying Russia its use without occupying Crimea.
All that being said, because of its ethnic Russian majority, I have always said that Crimea is the one territory that Russia could make some legitimate claims. As for the rest, no.
And, oh, by the way. Your rationalization for Russia’s right to seize Crimea would also legitimize Germany’s claims on Kaliningrad / East Prussia. Indeed, Germany’s claims, in terms of historical length of ownership, would be even stronger.