User blog comment:EthanConquistador/Crimean Crisis/@comment-5590986-20140319214035/@comment-6812733-20140322225332

But with that way of thinking, no nation would even have any claims to other nations lands since there is no history which would allow you to have any claims on the land. But I'm not saying that history doesn't matter, of course it matters. But if you do something on an international level, you have to live with it. You mess up? Live with it. If you ever try to "fix" it, you will get sanctions or at the worst scenario, war. In Russias case, they gave Crimea away so they have to live with it. They didn't consider all the possibilities and now they suffer the consequences. But since they tried to "fix" their own screw up, everyone gets angry at them. If we use these kinds of things as a reason then does Russia have every right to invade Baltic States, Kazakstan and Finland? Because who would've guessed that these countries would try to gain independency since there were no real huge fighting for independency when they were part of Russia? And nationality identity, alot of nations have reasons to invade other nations because of their culture. As for the reason for Köningsberg/Kaliningrad, greeks still consider Thrace as their land since they had it in the medieval times even though Turkey has controlled Thrace for a long time. You can see that's true even here in the wiki since some of the greek people here don't like when people call the old Constantinople with its current name, Istanbul.