(a) You are mistaken:USA was just the only coutry with that official position. And it was in the "Cold War Era". Obviously, it was a political position, not a care for fare in this world. All the rest of countries were OK with the USSR borders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EstoniaThe United States, United Kingdom and the majority of other western democracies considered the annexation of Estonia by USSR illegal. They retained diplomatic relations with the representatives of the independent Republic of Estonia, never recognized the existence of the Estonian SSR de jure, and never recognized Estonia as a legal constituent part of the Soviet Union.
 European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania" ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... 011983.jpg ). Official Journal of the European Communities C 42/78."whereas the Soviet annexias of the three Baltic States still has not been formally recognized by most European States and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of the Baltic States".
(b) There was no "cold war" in 1940.
(2) You also asked:
(a) Czar Nicholas II didn't hand over anything to the Constituent Assembly. He abdicated in favor of his brother Michael, as you have already pointed out. See also:And what about Czar handing power over to the Constituent Assembly in 1917?
The Abdication of Nicholas II
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Ab ... icholas_II
(b) Since Michael didn't become Czar, he received nothing from Nicholas II, and there was nothing for him to hand over to the Constituent Assembly.
(c) Even assuming, without conceding, that the Constituent Assembly of 1917 was able to receive what was not Archduke Michael's to give, the Constituent Assembly of 1917 did not hand over anything to the Soviet government of the RFSR.
(d) The RFSR did not attempt to assert the claims of the Czar to all of the pre-revolutionary Czarist empire. If it had, there would not have been a Ukrainian SSR or a Belorussian SSR.
(3) You also wrote:
The first sentence of this statement is incorrect, as your second sentence concedes. See:Technically the Baltic States joining the Soviet Union was correct. What was people of Latvia willnobody knows as there were no referendums or statistical researches taken place. That is why they do not start any cases against Russia as a USSR succeder. Though there are a lot of speculations about charge for the Soviet times.
Constitution of the republic of Latvia (1922), articles 74, 76-77, 79
Constitution of Latvia
Constitution of Estonia (1938), article 1
http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?k ... =80&leht=5
I have not found an online copy of the Lithuanian constitution of 1938.
(3) You also wrote:
Narochnitskaia is a very respected historian and her position is the official position of Russian Federation. She is also Soviet ex-representative in the UN.
That may be, but it does not explain why her article omitted material facts necessary to prevent misleading the readers.
(4) Finally, you wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the legality of the 1940 Soviet annexation?Dov Levin wrote about "the abundant enthusiasm and sympathy with which the Red Army was welcomed in many areas by the Jews --principally by communists but also by 'ordinary Jews'" (Soviet Jewish Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1975, p. 40). In his book With Their Backs to the Wall (pp. 22-23), he recounts, for example, Baruch Minkiewitz's testimony that in Riga Jewish communists "covered Soviet tanks with flowers, and there were those who jumped up on the tanks and kissed the Red tank drivers."
I wonder why Jews were so happy to see Soviets in Latvia?