The flatland where Ukraine resides has historically been the region where the most successful invasions of Russia took place. It’s prime strategic territory without any natural barriers, mountains, swamps etc. It’s important for Russia to control Ukraine militarily, and not let them drift into NATO’s sphere of influence.
I worded it poorly, I meant benefit against the cost. It's one thing to take a region that is already majority Russian and desires to join Russia, it's another thing to forcefully occupy a sovereign nation while struggling economically. The only thing I can think of that makes this worth it is if Putin is on a timer, as in he thinks clean energy is going to destroy his leverage with the EU in around 10 years, and he intends to build a defense perimeter, and only then can I get it
The experts are the same gullible rubes who believed RussiaGate was real and vouched for the piss tape
He just announced he's not looking to send soldiers to protect Ukraine.
www.politico.com
Ukraine and Russians are the same people traditionally and they’ve always come under one rule, it’s nothing like Afghanistan. Plus Ukraine stands no chance against Russia and will be easily considerable, their territory consists of flatlands unlike Afghanistan which is mountainous which favours guerrilla warfare.
They're related, but not the same. Ukrainians have their own identity and history, Kievan Rus was more of a proto east slavic state, wouldnt say any country is directly a successor.
The assumption here is that Russia wants to invade Ukraine, why would they? Time is on their side here, the western backed nazis are losing popularity, the pro-Russia opposition is gaining strength. Putin doesn't have to do anything.He just announced he's not looking to send soldiers to protect Ukraine.
Sending U.S. combat troops to Ukraine ‘not in the cards right now,’ Biden says
Biden’s remarks come one day after his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
What would the yanks risk nuclear Armageddon just to protect Ukraine? besides Ukraine doesnt stand a chance against Russia in a war and i doubt the Europeans would also defend ukraine. I can only see Russia winning military in this scenario if it comes down to a war, but unless it takes control of the west bank of ukraine too it stands to lose Ukraine as a satellite state forever which is more harmful in the long run.
Agreed that an invasion is unlikely, but still if russia is counting on ukraine electoral base supporting it over the nationalist giv, then what is the point of moving nearly a 100,000 soldiers to the border then? before the maiden revolution he pro west and pro russia electorate was nearly split half, but since then the pro russian parties lost a lot of support mainly due to the russian invasion of crimea. And this threatening act is hardly going to endear Russia to the average Ukrainian voter but if anything it will have opposite result.
www.theonion.com
Because it drives his enemies insane, makes them do more unpopular things and create new enemies for themselves as they go on absurd witch hunts for Russian fifth column
Soviet union got back?
It was US regime change in Ukraine to remove the neutral leader and replace them with an anti-Russia pro-nato leader that caused it not like how you described
Sxb, its the onion, a satire site‘You Know, If I Were You, I’d Go After Finland,’ Says Biden Trying To Dissuade Putin From Invading Ukraine"
-Biden to Putin
‘You Know, If I Were You, I’d Go After Finland,’ Says Biden Trying To Dissuade Putin From Invading Ukraine
WASHINGTON—In an effort to dissuade the Russian leader from invading Ukraine, President Joe Biden reportedly told Vladimir Putin Wednesday, “You know, if I were you, I’d go after Finland.” “Ukraine’s cool and everything, but Finland has, like, an eighth of the people and twice the GDP—it’d be a...
