Posted March 01, 2014
The-Business: The Baltic countries had been independent between the wars, so nearly 100 years. (Belarus and Ukraine even had theirs own UN memberships.)
Well, the baltics had been invaded by the USSR in 1939 after a mere 20 years of independence, so at the fall of the USSR they reverted to their previous state. Russia and Ukraine were both states in the sense of the law ( and had in the UN, distinct seats from that of the USSR ) The case of Crimea is however different from that of Eastern Ukraine. Crimea was, after the fall of the Tzarist Empire, an independant republic, till 1921, then incoroporated to Soviet Russia as an autonomous republic, until 1954, given to Ukraine ( that's the Gordian knot ), where it had the statute of an oblast until 1992, when it regained a statute of autonomy. From an international law point of view, Crimea has had constant borders for long enough for them to be "recognized boundaries" and has internal institutions ( Head of state - the President of Ukraine , but that's very much of a dual hat , assembly, own administration ). In other words, if the Crimean want independence from Ukraine, there is very little obstacle to recognition.
Eastern Ukraine is potentially an uprising and a secession, with, as it seems, the support of a foreign power.... that's something else entirely. It usually means war.