RR
Brewers Droop you also have to remember Crimea was part of Russia until the 1950s
Sigh - the old "it used to be ours in history arguement". So I am assuming Russia will now give Ukraine back to Turkey? Incidentally, the Crimea was given to what was then the Ukraine SSR in 1954 by who (let me give you a clue R_u_s...you can finish it). I say again, in the 21st Century big neighbours don't go into smaller and weaker neighbours and seize territory by force of arms.
and after the coup in Kiev the locals wanted to join Russia again
You conveniantly ignore 'the locals' that didn't. Anyway, the current fighting is in Easter Ukraine
NOT Crimea. Just because some of the population want to be part of Russia it gives them no right to try and take it by force of arms (apparently supplied by Russia)
Its only natural if Kiev use force against them Moscow will give some support them.
No its not. Period. End of. Russia has absolutely no legal or moral right to unilaterally to go in to a Soveriegn Nation, arm the opposition, and fight a Democratically elected Government (I am talking democratically elected not one that simply took over by a coup or similar) regardless of whether they deny doing so or not. And you seem to be very blinkered on who is using force against who.
As I pointed out earlier the west has supported rebels (terrorists) in Libya and Syria in recent years, the US did the same in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Was that the Afghanistan were Russia went in, shot the leader and replaced him? By the way, isnt Afghanistan now a place were 'the west' (whoever they are) are now supporting a Government elected by fair and free elections across the whole country rather than the might of the Soviet Army?
Aside, there is a big difference in acting against regimes that commit gross violations of human rights against their populations rather than simply acting against a Soveriegn country because you fancy some Territory back...
I risk feeding a troll but my red wine tastes quite pleasant this evening
