For Russia, military intervention in Crimea is a risk worth taking

The de facto expropriation of Crimea by Russia raises serious questions about the perceived legitimacy of the new government in Kiev, ethnicity in Ukraine, Russian history and Russia's ability to project its power in the future. Depending on one's frame of reference, Russia's actions over the weekend either evoke outrage or relief, as Ukraine becomes the epicentre of the battle between European and Russian influences in the region.

In the absence of any meaningful military response by either Europe or the US - which is not expected - Vladimir Putin appears to have achieved what many Russians have sought since jurisdiction over Crimea was transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 - a return of Crimea to Russia.

Indeed, this has as much to do with history as it does modern politics. Following the second world war, Joseph Stalin ethnically cleansed Crimea, effectively making it majority Russian, followed by its formal annexation by Russia in 1945.

Nikita Khrushchev returned Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 in what has been referred to as a "symbolic" gesture to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine having become part of the Russian empire. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea became part of independent Ukraine. Tensions over jurisdictional authority and the administration of Russia's Black Sea Fleet have been present between the two countries since that time.

Russia's stated intention of protecting Russian interests and Russian citizens beyond its borders has implied that a day of reckoning would eventually emerge - and it has. Following the coup in Kiev, Putin saw an opportunity to secure Sevastopol, where it has a naval base, as well as Crimea, and he took it.

Many Russians do not view the change of government in Kiev as legitimate, which is an important reason why Putin easily won the approval of the Duma to exercise military force to secure Crimea. For them, it is little more than reclaiming land that had historically been theirs.