So it’s ok for a country that has “interests” in a region to occupy a sovereign country in that region? I am trying to figure your argument out. Yes, if you look at a robber and murderer and he robs and murders someone you may say it is “predictable”. But you seem to be defending it.
Of course there has been one. United States has the right to keep a certain number of troops in Guantanamo Bay. But if those troops show up in Havana, that would definitely be an “invasion”, wouldn’t you say?
I’m not sure that comparison works …
You understand there is a legal agreement for Russian troops to be stationed in Crimea?
I am no more a Christian than I am an American. 
“Sins” is merely colloquial English for ‘moral wrongs’.
No-one seriously believes that what Putin’s forces are curently doing in Crimea is actually covered by the long-term lease of its Black Seas fleet. That dog won’t hunt. [And before you get all fussed, I’m not a dog-owner, or a hunter - the phrase means, in essence, ‘that won’t work’]
If they’re pretending to be locals, it doesn’t count.
No. There is a legal agreement for Russian troops to be stationed in several particular areas of Crimea, namely their bases that they are leasing. They are currently outside of those areas.
After all, anyone can buy American Army uniforms in surplus stores.
And if a bunch of heavily-armed, militarily-trained English-speaking men just happened to be leading an insurrection in the middle of Havana, that would clearly be a sign of a genuine public desire among the Cuban populace for regime change and not in any way suspicious or indicative of foreign meddling.
You seem to be having enormous trouble with the concept of what some mainstream media like to call an “invasion”.
If you are trying to twist that into being a non-sovereign territory ‘invasion’ then I guess people reading will make their own minds up.
As for me, I’m done on the legal point - it’s completely clear and unambiguous: there has not been an ‘invasion’ of Crimea in any sense whatsoever.
Yes, it is clear and unambiguous that Russian troops are allowed to be on Russian bases in Crimea that they are leasing. It is also clear and unambiguous that the troops being outside of those bases, occupying the Parliament and other government structures and patrolling civilian areas is way outside of those legal agreements. As I asked you, would US troops occupying government offices in Havana be classified as an “invasion”?
And as I said, what does the Crimean Parlimant say about an issue which is off my origina point?
Does the Crimean Parliament have the right to decide whether foreign troops can enter Crimea?
Whatever the Russian troops occupying their building wants them to say?
Did the protesters in the Maidan have the right to aggressively overthrow the standing Ukrainian government by violent means?
Do you mean the Crimean Parliament seized by those same gunmen? That parliament?
No. Now you answer the question. Does the Crimean Parliament have the right to decide whether foreign troops can enter Crimea?
Is this a tu quoque derby? 
The difference, of course, between the euromaidan protestors and the gunmen in control of Crimea is that the one is an indigenous protest movement and the other is a foreign invasion.
Well, there is another slight difference - in that the Euromaidan protestors did not remove Yanukovich from power. The Ukrainian Parliament did, under Ukrainian Constitution.
Although some keep claiming it’s the other way around.
Good point. Though to be fair, he’d already fled at that point I think.