The border to Norway barly matters, it's small as fuck. And Kaliningrad became a border to NATO as soon as Poland joined. That's not 50 years ago.
Whoops, my bad on Kaliningrad. I always thought it lay closer to Germany, or at least to Bornholm (Denmark).
It was a new government that was supposed to be in favor of the west. In case Ukraine joined the NATO/EU I am pretty sure that they would have been asked to leave Crimea. Why would the NATO allow a Russian fleet on their territory?
The crux here is "in case". Until Crimea was seized, there was no popular sentiment in Ukraine for joining NATO, and it's unlikely NATO would even allow it (the presence of a Russian base would have been a pretty solid argument against membership). The new government was pro-Western to some degree, but not anti-Russia either. Russia was, and remains, Ukraine's biggest trading partner after all. Back in early 2014, there was no reason to worsen that relationship, and NATO would hardly have angered the Russians unnecessarily by diving into talks of membership either. As for EU membership, it might have been on the table, but it would have taken years for Ukraine to join anyway, and it
might not have passed a popular referendum.
The democratically elected government of the Ukrain didn't want to align westwards. A coup d'état was necessary to make them want this. So was it really the desire of the population or just the desire of some rebells?
Well, the Maidan protests started because Yanukovych took a sudden 180-degree turn in the EU negotiations (him being in favour of cooperation with the EU was one of the key reasons why he was elected), to suddenly announce cooperation with Russia instead. The protests escalated
all over Ukraine, Yanukovych tried to answer with violence, and was
impeached by the democratically elected parliament. The rebels did not gain any political power until allowed so by the parliament, which was the same parliament that was elected back when Yanukovych was still in power. Many members loyal to Yanukovych did not show up for the vote, true, but they were not prevented from doing so. The assembly of parliament that day was entirely legal.
The details of the impeachment are a little controversial, though. It did follow the procedure of the 2004 constitution of Ukraine, which Yanukovych had put aside and changed in the 2010 constitution. Shortly before fleeing in 2014, Yanukovych had agreed to return to the 2004 constitution, and the decision had passed through parliament, but lacked the presidental signature to officially enter law. In other words, the only thing preventing the impeachment from following due procedure was the signature of the president himself.
I do not know if the eastern countries applied first or got invited first, I read sources confirming both and do not feel like I am the person to judge. Of course Russia has no god-given gift to dictate the policy of these countries[sic], but neither do we. We could have just let there countries be neutral between Russia and the NATO.
In either case, acquiring NATO membership is an entirely voluntary process that requires the initiative of the country in question. All these countries were run by democratically elected governments, which means they joined NATO by the will of the people. Their neutrality was respected - they were allowed to choose for themselves - and they chose to align westward. There was no reason for NATO and the EU to close the door for them, as they fulfilled the membership criteria and joined by their own will. Refusing them access would be akin to letting Russia dictate the policy of the EU.
Of course in case of crimea Russia was the aggressor, but that's one single case. I am talking about global policies in general. And do you really think Russia is acting like an aggressor towards europe? Trying to expand their spheres of influence and get closer to western european borders?
Obviously they don't. They try to keep up status quo as it is and not losing all their power in the world. You might (and probably will) say that Russia isn't supposed to have power, but you always have to consider what other countries want when doing foreign policies.
Well, what happens in East Ukraine suggests that Russia does not want to let go of influence over neighbouring countries. The Kremlin attempted to establish "Novorossiya", which failed as the attempts of quick seizure of government property was not as successful as it had been in Crimea two months prior. The Ukrainian government sent the army to break the rebellion, which was complicated because of overwhelming support by Russia. The Kremlin provides the rebels with weapons, manpower, intelligence, supplies, ammunition, training, maintenance, and on some occasions even direct artillery support across the Russian-Ukrainian border. The strategy appears to have changed since late 2014, when the "Novorossiya" project turned out too costly, and the rebels only controlled 8 % of the territory of Ukraine - and even less of the population, since most locals fled the area. A breakaway republic would be too small to exert any influence, and too costly for Russia to rebuild and maintain after the lengthy war. Instead, they push for federalization of Ukraine, a system where each federal unit could veto any changes in foreign policy. The vote of Donetsk and Luhansk would basically be decided in Moscow, giving the Kremlin a "hand on the wheel" in Ukraine's affairs.
As for whether they'd do the same to other European countries... well, given a new chance with the Baltic countries Putin probably would. Their NATO membership has made that a too costly stunt to be attempted, though, so it's probably a lost cause. Putin wouldn't go after West Europe directly, but seems determined not to let the neighbouring dictatorships slip away. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if a popular movement rose up against Belarusian dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko, or against Nursultan Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan. Lukashenko, surprisingly, seems to support Ukraine in this case, and appears to be determined to show the world he won't always follow where is Putin is pointing.
In case of Kosovo Serbia stated that the unilateral declaration of independence violates international law. Still, they lost at the
ICJ, which means that and unilateral declaration of independence is ok. Therefore I do not see, why the unilateral declaration of independence of the Crimea should violate international law.
The case of Kosovo was somewhat special, with the war and all. The UN Security Council and the General Assembly had passed several resolutions on the status of Kosovo, among other things declaring it a protectorate of the UN. This was done following negotiations with the Serbian government, so Serbia seems to have agreed to let control of Kosovo pass at least temporarily.
On the other hand, Crimea was outright seized by Russian soldiers. A local thug declared himself governor and took control of the parliament building, and called for a referendum using the voting cards of MPs who were not present. All media but the Russian state-owned channels were blocked in Crimea, armed Russian soldiers took control over government institution, and the peninsula was effectively on lockdown until the referendum could be called. The options on the ballot boiled down to "Declare independence so the Parliament can vote on joining Russia" or "Just join Russia". The entire referendum was a sham, and not recognized by the EU, the UN, or the Ukrainian government. It has little in common with the Kosovar declaration of independence, and more with the Anschluss of Austria in 1938.
I agree with this, but as stated above I don't think we should just fuck around with the russian feelings. After 1990 a lot of western politicans acted like they won the cold war, instead of treating Russia like a partner. It's a declining superpower, but instead of making them feel on the same level we just make them feel worse. That doesn't help and just causes conflicts when they are not needed.
Russia was treated like a partner for many years. Trade was blooming, there was international cooperation on many fronts, and migration and tourism across the former Iron Curtain had been steadily growing. What soured the relationship was Vladimir Putin taking a steady turn towards authoritarianism, with the famous "tandem cycle maneuver" essentially granting him six consecutive terms in office, election rigging (Putin's party getting 99.7 % of the votes in Chechnya in 2009, despite ravaging the region with war ten years earlier), seizure of independent media, silencing of opposition (Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, recently Boris Nemtsov), and increasing nationalism. Stealing Crimea was just the latest event in a long chain that led to the West cutting ties with the Kremlin. The Russian population at large bears no responsibility for this, as they have little say in the politics of their country. Sadly, opposition to Putin is now succesfully branded "Russophobia" in Russian media. Had Russia been open and democratic, this situation would probably never have occurred.