The exact same logic you are using to support Georgian rule over Ossetia would also support Serbian rule over Kosovo.
You have no idea what I think about all those FYRs, especially that particular hotspot. What I don't support is ethnic cleansing in
any form, whether it is by direct persecution or 'merely' paperwork.
Georgian rule over Ossetia is a legal fiction,
...sounds very much like a "Soverign Citizen" line of argument; notoriously misguided, and "selectively editing out" of any established regulations deemed inconvenient to the current dissatisfaction
du jour.
"Legal fictions" aren't imaginary/arbitrary, they are established to clarify potentially labyrinthine legal mish-mashes of competing legislation by cutting through to the chase and saying (for example) that the current balance of understanding is that <Foo> is effectively equivalent to <Bar>, and so all dependant legal issues should consider it so without painstakingly revisiting the question (and potentially dealing with an interim judgement at odds with all those judgements that already sided with the opposite version of interim judgement). A legal fiction
can be revisited, should the need arise, but often that means a replacement with an alternate legal fiction to reflect modified circumstances/understanding.
An excellent example of "legal fiction" is that of adoption. Having gone through the process of adopting a child, the legal fiction establishes that the adoptee is the child of the adopters, for all future legal purposes, and that the original parents now are no longer so (excepting where other adoption-aware legislation explicitly unpacks the various relationships as being meaningful in their original subtleties). This saves time in back-tracking the decision whenever future parentage issues, to be dealt with, are written without reason to distinguish or otherwise specifically mention adoptive statuses.
Should (for whatever reason, hopefully less common in this day and age) twins be separately adopted by separate families, this does not allow one family to then unilaterally tempt the other family's twin to run away and live with them, outwith any proper legal reassessment and rearrangement of the situation.
With countries/regions you get other complications (also easements) to the situation, plus no eventual assurance that (mortality allowing) the 'twins' will attain the age of majority. Our human twins are eventually (theoretically) able to make their own adult decisions as to what family (if any, if not all!) they each/both decide to socially accept and declare for themselves, on an ongoing basis from there on in, which is different from how territorial aspirations have all kinds of local legislatures ('adoptive family') and international courts (finding a family court, or higher, to appeal the prior decisions to) which should always be available to renegotiate through whilstsoever the (sub)national-zeitgeist is inclined to rebargain the unwanted situation. Glacial as such things are, the pop-up zeitgeist may not last long enough to see the result, but that is, if anything, even more reason to decry non-legal rearrangements of the issue.
A home invasion and 'kidnap', by one family on the other, is rarely seen as justifiable. Especially if the kidnapping family has been taking every opportunity to groom the "willingly kidnapped" child with whispers and promises and even gaslighting the lawful family's rightful intentions.
(...I can't parse this. The first "They" is Russia, but I'm not sure the rest of the "they"s and "their"s are also Russia. Or who else 'they' might be. Which grossly changes which alliances were kept/broken in your statement. I have a feeling what you tend towards, based on the rest, but it's such a bad summary that I'm not sure at all.)
First the Donbass republics are part of Ukraine and then they aren't. Can you lot make your minds up?
My mind remains that (outwith a
proper, albeit lengthy, process of petition to change things) Donbas republics are Ukrainean. I was (and remain) just expressing confusion over your own phrasing. Never mind, I get the gist of what your attitude is, even if I couldn't work out the convoluted meaning intended in the phrase referenced above. (And I'm no stranger to convolution!)
Invading somewhere does not automatically mean you in the wrong Starver.
It doesn't help. See the "twin kidnap" example, above, only it's not the 'missing twin' just another folk's kid, straight... You could argue that Crimea is more "my own kid, bringing back home after an acrimonious divorce", but perhaps the best analogy is the one who went off with the other step-parent during the trial-separation (though you saw at weekends and let them keep their military bases), because everyone was (originally) happy with the continuity of school-catchment and various other reasons.
[...]
Why can you not accept that if someone overthrows a government they do not automatically gain IN-FACT possession of every inch of territory the government they overthrew possessed?
It was more an overthrown leadership. The government itself had voted for closer ties to the EU, the leadership had acted against it, the protests caused the change-over (after punctuated violence, much of that due to the leadership's responses to popular protest) and government reorganisation which led to the Yatsenyuk (whose coalition drew back from EU-tying), Groysman, [...], Honcharuk governments, with elections and/or coalition-rewranglings all along the way, and thus into Zelenskyy's current era that has had to morph into a War Cabinet form but is still a government within the obvious constraints.
(And yet the overthrown Crimean autonomy, being held at gunpoint in the Supreme Council of Crimea building to support the 'referendum',
does invoke the wholesale parcelling up of the applicable territory? Choose what's valid and what isn't?!)
You might as well say that Rishi Sunak doesn't rule the same UK as Winston Churchill, the number of resignations/forced-elections/national dissatisfactions that have occured in the meantime. But only because your own particular slant requires justification to ignore the (bumpy, but effectively coterminous) line of continuity are you trying to sever the recognisable succession of responsibility... Crimea being the interesting point, with the externally enforced transition for this starting practically the same day as the post-protest continuation of government at the national level (which probably helped wedge that particular door open, and lay open the most untransparent 'official' process of eventually being transferred to Russia).
And I probably should not have bothered going toe-to-toe with your 'arguments' against my bits, so I'm not going to bother at all with what I see wrong in your other bits.