Yeppers ... why would they not? And if you're going to the same situation here, we fought a Civil War over that. Our Constitution, to which they agreed, and which they cannot withdraw from. Chechnya didn't have that provision, that I know of ... they were just an occupied territory. Of course, if we extend that, Puerto Rico would have a right to declare itself an independent nation. It's a kindof gray area no matter how you slice it. Both sides have some logic behind them ....
In our case (the US), it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869 (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869),) ... "the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a United States state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case." ...

Yeppers ... why would they not? And if you're going to the same situation here, we fought a Civil War over that. Our Constitution, to which they agreed, and which they cannot withdraw from. Chechnya didn't have that provision, that I know of ... they were just an occupied territory. Of course, if we extend that, Puerto Rico would have a right to declare itself an independent nation. It's a kindof gray area no matter how you slice it. Both sides have some logic behind them ....
In our case (the US), it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869 (Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869),) ... "the court ruled that, legally speaking, Texas had remained a United States state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case." ...

If it hadn't been for Stalin 'acquiring' those satellite states by occupation after WWII, the rest of Europe wouldn't have felt the need to coalesce into in a defense force. And with the demise of the Soviet Union, those satellite states decided that Soviet rule was something they never wanted again and joined NATO to prevent that.
<sigh> I h**e to tell you this, but Putin has said himself any number of times that he's on a mission to recreate the Soviet Empire. And NATO, to my knowledge, hasn't been aggressive, but voluntarily defensive.
Read and learn.

An additional response to Logically Right:

"What's past is prologue." These words spoken by Shakespeare's Antonio in The Tempest, are prescient in relation to Russia and Europe.
Europe and the Mediterranean have repeatedly been invaded and overrun since the time of the Vandals (who sacked Rome), Attila the Hun, (who overran much of Europe), Ghengis Khan (and the Mongol Hordes), the era of the Tsarists, the Soviet Era (that acquired the numerous satellite states as buffers) and now to the expansion of Russian influence following the fall of the Soviet Era. While they haven't been called "Russians" all the time, they derive from the same Northern Asian stock as has populated that area since time immemorial. They were never a truly agrarian society, but relied on raiding and foreign invasion to obtain those things that allowed them to exist on the plains of Siberia and the Steppes of Central Asia.
Russia, and its predecessor societies, have always had expansionist notions, for wh**ever reasons ... it may just be in their DNA. But modern Europe, after seeing what the Russians did after the Second World War, felt that it was in their best interests to form and maintain NATO in order to prevent further expansion of the Soviet Union. With the actions of Russia recently (Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea, and now Ukraine) they obviously feel that the Russians are again in an expansionist mood. NATO is probably going to get a number of other previous non-aligned states (Finland, Sweden, Moldova, etc.) that are showing increased interest in joining the alliance because of those fears.
It isn't NATO that's the aggressor, it's the Russians under Putin. 'Nuf said.

I don't think I said that ... I think as long as there was no binding contract (read overriding constitution, etc.), a region/country/area has a right to establish their own country. If there is a binding contract, such as our US Constitution, then they don't have a right to do so. At least, that's my take on it ...
From Wikipedia:
"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties."
Also from Wikipedia:
"The Constitution does not directly mention secession. The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century. ... The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation. Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question."

Draw your own conclusions ...

I have read and learned. The C*******t Russia and Stalin is long gone and we aren't against opposing that. But the expansion of HATO after agreeing not to, is the start of what is happening now. The Warsaw pact broke up and it was internal leadership that caused a lot of the early problems. Not Russia. And it was HATO that keeps creeping towards Russia without, Russia making any moves towards Europe or HATO since the breakup. They are now fighting back against this continuous move by HATO and American containment, against a threat that wasn't, that made it into a threat to breakout that you are seeing today. You can't keep poking the bear with a stick without it eventually swiping back with a mighty paw and beware of that bite. HATO and Europe never gave Russia a chance to be equal partners in peace and now innocents are dying. And we are supplying them weapons so they can last longer and the slaughter continues. Russia's demands were not only DAMN reasonable but the smartest thing to do. Ukraine neutrality, and stop expanding HATO, and freedom of choice for the eastern provinces of Ukraine, that wanted no part of the Ukraine reconstituted by an American C**p, and the leaders America put in there. There is the final cause that called on Russia to set a red line. What would you want? Ukraine in HATO and missiles on the border with Russia and the equivalent of the DMZ of Korea now extended to Europe. That would be utterly ignorant.

Logically Right

I have read and learned. The C*******t Russia and Stalin is long gone and we aren't against opposing that. But the expansion of HATO after agreeing not to, is the start of what is happening now. The Warsaw pact broke up and it was internal leadership that caused a lot of the early problems. Not Russia. And it was HATO that keeps creeping towards Russia without, Russia making any moves towards Europe or HATO since the breakup. They are now fighting back against this continuous move by HATO and American containment, against a threat that wasn't, that made it into a threat to breakout that you are seeing today. You can't keep poking the bear with a stick without it eventually swiping back with a mighty paw and beware of that bite. HATO and Europe never gave Russia a chance to be equal partners in peace and now innocents are dying. And we are supplying them weapons so they can last longer and the slaughter continues. Russia's demands were not only DAMN reasonable but the smartest thing to do. Ukraine neutrality, and stop expanding HATO, and freedom of choice for the eastern provinces of Ukraine, that wanted no part of the Ukraine reconstituted by an American C**p, and the leaders America put in there. There is the final cause that called on Russia to set a red line. What would you want? Ukraine in HATO and missiles on the border with Russia and the equivalent of the DMZ of Korea now extended to Europe. That would be utterly ignorant.

Logically Right