> The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor I doubt the article would be able to argue that logically. One doesn't invade a place who's ent

> The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor I doubt the article would be able to argue that logically. One doesn't invade a place who's entire population has been attached to a country for greater than three generations. I think given the article writer would realise that this would be the same argument that justifies the 2014 crimean invasion, or the trouble in Sudan(both of them), or indeed the troubles in Northern Ireland.