>

100%. And after they have regained all their lands make them a NATO member.
“We have said throughout the war that Crimea is Ukraine, and Ukraine has the right to defend themselves and their sovereign territory in their internationally recognized borders,” said Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.
Privately, military and administration officials had questioned the utility of Ukraine focusing attacks on Crimea, arguing Kyiv’s military had better targets elsewhere on the battlefield.
But the Biden administration has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea can be threatened, that would strengthen Kyiv’s position in any future negotiations. In addition, fears that the Kremlin would retaliate using a tactical nuclear weapon have dimmed, U.S. officials and experts said — though they cautioned that the risk remained.
The new thinking on Crimea — annexed illegally by Russia in 2014 — shows how far Biden administration officials have come from the start of the war, when they were wary of even acknowledging publicly that the United States was providing Stinger antiaircraft missiles for Ukrainian troops.
But over the course of the conflict, the United States and its NATO allies have been steadily loosening the handcuffs they put on themselves, moving from providing Javelins and Stingers to advanced missile systems, Patriot air defense systems, armored fighting vehicles and even some Western tanks to give Ukraine the capacity to strike against Russia’s onslaught.
Now, the Biden administration is considering what would be one of its boldest moves yet, helping Ukraine to attack the peninsula that President Vladimir V. Putin views as an integral part of his quest to restore past Russian glory. >

If Russia loses Crimea, then Putin loses all credibility and I think it's likely we see an internal power struggle develop. If that happens, then Ukraine will be in a much better position to retake the regions in the east while Russia is distracted. >

Russia?  You mean eastern Ukraine? >

North Ukraine >

No one was happy when Putin illegally annexed Crimea, but we lived with it, and would probably still be living with it if Putin hadn’t been so greedy and launched his full scale invasion last February. Now? I say that he needs to give back every inch of Ukrainian territory. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and the destruction of thousands of businesses. He has destroyed billions of dollars worth of infrastructure. The very least he could do is to return Crimea to Ukraine in addition to all the illegally annexed territory of a few months ago. Putin is a war criminal and in no way should he or Russia benefit from this abhorrent behavior. >

That's the ironic thing. People grumbled about Crimea but there was just enough "justification" for people to accept it. Same arguably for Donbas/Luhansk if they had annexed them before the invasion.
But Straight up trying to occupy Kiev? There is just no way they justify that. And that pretty much ended up costing the country everything. >

that justification was falsified and we all knew it, but russia is hiding behind the fact they own nukes and we all knew it. >

You use the word ‘always’ pretty loosely there >

Well there was a  period during Turkic conquest that it had a plurality of Tartars >

And some 5000 years of Russian-free history before that too >

Well okay that would be covering a period when neither Russia nor Ukraine existed. >

“Always” does that too. 
Anyway, Russians have been main pop in there for far too short time and became that under far too violent circumstances to have “always” attributed. >

But I mean most of the population there is Russian? >

I mean at this point even if Putin manages to keep Crimea he couldn't sell that to his people as a victory. Russia already controlled Crimea before the 2022 invasion. It's not like one of his objective was "make sure you don't fuck up so bad you lose Crimea." >

One big objective of course was the water for Crimea, but even that achievement is currently in jeopardy. >

Good. We need to support them retaking ALL of their territory. Particularly since it’s integral to their overall war effort. >

wonder if there is any way to cause problem on that bridge but not destorying it? That would cause panic. >

The attack Ukraine made on the Kerch strait bridge seems to have done that.
The bridge handled both rail and car traffic. The Russians quickly patched up the car part and made a parade of recrossing it. The rail part may still remain inactive but in either case the attack stopped rail traffic for many months.
Logistically, for Russias military supply chain in the area that’s what mattered the most. I am sure the attack hoped to collapse a full section but it was a strategically victory either way stopping the rail cars of supplies. >

When Ukraine starts rolling into Crimea on Bradley's and Leopards. That's gonna be some crazy shit >

The US seems to have a plan to defend Ukraine without provoking Putin too much. Putin is like a frog in boiling water. He knows it's getting hotter but he'll never jump out. He's fucked.