Very much like Hawaii and Florida, weren’t they? Weren’t those countries ruled for decade or so by dictators who ceased power in late 20s? Didn’t Soviet actually organized elections and then their parliaments voted to join the USSR? I’m sure it’s all a sham but history is a bit nuanced.

I'm not sure if you are serious, but just in case: no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union.

Also, there are no elections or parliaments anywhere within the Soviet (or Russian, for that matter) sphere of influence. There are "elections" and "parliaments".

> no, this is very much not like Hawaii and Florida. We are talking about countries with history, that were forcibly annexed

So how is this not like Hawaii?

It's a matter of US law that "the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands."

(The US didn't comport itself very well in Florida - or anywhere really - but I'll at least grant a difference in kind.)

Oh I see. That makes it alright, then. Those Balts really should stop whinging.

unilateral secession was not illegal according to the constitution of the USSR. I’m sure it (the constitution) was obviously a sham but history is a bit nuanced.

Irrelevant. Literally any country in the world would suppress independence declarations with violence, regardless of good justifications or not. That's just how nations work and has nothing to do with USSR specifically.

Well Britain allowed Scotland to have a vote, Czechoslovakia is another example, even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response. There are many other examples. So you’re wrong...

> even back in 1905 Sweden allowed Norway to declare independence without a violent response.

Norway was always independentof Sweden; it was never subordinate, only part of a "personal union", i.e. had the same king. Apart from that, it was an independent nation.

> So you’re wrong...

Not as wrong as you.

Sweden invaded Norway in 1814 defeated it and force it to accept the king of Sweden as their king. While Norway had considerable independence compared to most other occupied countries it was nevertheless a junior partner in the union (initially it’s foreign policy was fully controlled by Sweden)