Are you going to keep your word? Go back and address my comment. You can do it in a sibling comment.

> Why except Crimea?.

Because I believe in people's self-determination. Like in Kosovo. Crimea is in Ukraine only because no one ever listened to them. They were already in Russian SSR but got transferred to Ukrainian SSR "as a gift".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum

And not just that, but they fought for their autonomy the entire time since 1991, the Kyiv government even signed agreement with them for this autonomy but then renegged on it and forced them to change their constitution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Aut...

Let me ask YOU. Right now, Crimea is relatively peaceful. Do you support bringing violence to Crimea, just so Ukraine can own it again?

I am not a statist who believes that the rights of states to fly a flag over a territory trump the welfare of millions of people. States and corporations are useful concepts, but they are still temporary, and for most civilians there are more important things in life. This time lapse of Europe shows how silly it is to kill millions just so a specific color to be over a certain area for a few years or decades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcwGSFPqIo

I can understand many people don't feel that way, but I think it's because they've been brainwashed into supporting states and territory over humans welfare. Especially after 1950s or so, this fantasy came about that the borders of nation-states will be the same forever now. This creates dangerous tinderboxes, like all the countries established in the Sykes-Picot agreement (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, mixed into one). Or like in Yugoslavia, after they lost their organizing principle (socialism) they reverted to sectarian violence.

NATO also doesn't always believe in immutable borders, since they violated international law and ignored the UN security council, bombed civilians, and carved off Kosovo from Serbia. But you don't say that they are "occupying Serbia" at the moment, or "invaded Serbia". That's to be expected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent

> The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour.

It's typical for each side to blame the other for its own aggressive expansion, calling it a mere defensive posture. NATO placing "defensive" installations in Romania and Poland were just the latest pre-emptive "defensive" measures. Somehow all this "defense" ends up in escalation. Statesmen know this. "BUT HE STARTED IT!" is an argument for kindergarteners. Our politicians on all sides need to grow up - and this includes Russian ones.

> The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour.

Well, the USA has a long history of expanding, and renegging on all the agreements, since its founding. Go ask any native nations that used to be on this continent. More recently, go ask North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or whoever is on the OFAC list. They all had a deal with USA, but thanks to US representative democracy, the next admin killed it:

North Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

Iran: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8182063/tom-cottons-controvers...

Cuba: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-hits-cuba-with-n... (Really, Cuba has been a threat to USA?)

Why would Russia trust USA? They promised no expansion to Gorbachev, Yeltsin:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...

Clinton promised Yeltsin that NATO's expansion would be "in partnership" with Russia, Bush ruined it:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021...

Clinton also gave the Three Nos to China, and now we are renegging on those too:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590364

I could go on, but USA's very representative democracy makes it so that it can't be trusted. Why should Russia trust it?

> Wow you think the 2014 vote, with Russian tanks, and soldiers overseeing it was actually legitimate?.

Legitimate as in accurately reflecting the will of the people? Sure, check out the 1991 referendum. Only 54% of Crimea ever voted to be part of Ukraine, and since then they had a tough time inside it. Why si it so hard to believe they wanted to be independent in 2014?

Someone always has the monopoly of force while a referendum is taking place. If Ukraine had it, would that delegitimize the people's secret vote?

Do you think Catalonia's vote for independence, amid Spain's tanks and soldiers was legitimate? Or Kurds in Iraq?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Kurdistan_Region_independ...

OSCE refused to participate SPECIFICALLY TO NOT GRANT IT LEGITIMACY. Had it been overseen, a result along the expected lines would have solidified that Crimea wants to be independent.