Man,there's common sense. Western interests could have tried to avoid meddling in that area. Yes,theoretically Russia cannot tell Ukraine what to do. Of course. But there's also common sense that in the geopolitical arena,this is considered Russian turf.
Again, that explained nothing in term of Russian Strategic Threat.
First of all, Ukraine had already applied and rejected twice by NATO. Sure, if it was Ukraine who want to join, and NATO is willing to accept, then what you said would make sense, but this is not that case because NATO had rejected Ukraine membership twice (in 2008 and 2015) and there are no plan for NATO to accept Ukraine as a member in any term of future, not just near future. In terms of NATO membership, the packing order goes Kosovo, then Georgia, then Ukraine.
This is not about Geopolitical need for Russia, they wanted Ukraine to remain neutral, they are, because NATO rejected their application.
They did try. They had Yanukovich. Then Yanukovich was kicked out by a riot of organized nationalists and pro-Western parties. And then there were the Minsk agreements.
As I said before Yanukovych government is NOT Majority, the government was dissolved before Maidan and that is because Tymoshenko's party pulled out of the power sharing deal, without Tymoshenko Party, Yanukovych government would lost both Presidential Majority (which accounts for nothing because he would still be president until next election) and Parliament Majority (Which would dissolve the government and trigger a re-election)
en.wikipedia.org
On the other hand, Zelenskyy is probably the MOST pro-Russian president after Maidan, he is ethnic Russian, he speak Russian and he was hail from a Russian Speaking South near Crimea. Did you see Putin try to works with him?
Yes,the Russians had acted because they saw this as a regime change by Ukrainian ultranationalists and foreign centers. They considered Ukraine's future as uncertain and they acted fast. Was it right? Was it wrong? They did act and took Crimea back.
Problem is, Russian is also "Foreign" to Ukraine.
Just because they annexed Crimea, does not mean what they did is right. If so, how about the US start annexing Cuba or Part of Mexico? Or Venezuela because of the Preceived threat offered from these countries? What would you say about that?
Apparently getting in the EU is something Russians don't want. For what reason,I don't know. Probably economic reasons.
Maybe they consider the EU and NATO as the same club in a way.
So then what exactly the problem for Russia then? Or you are telling me Russia do not understand the basic different between EU and NATO??
Like I said in a previous post,the Baltic countries are small and can be easily smashed. I mean the Russians probably keep an eye on them all the time.
Yes of course ballistic missiles can reach Siberia in a few minutes from the East. The Americans can even invade easily.
But the core is European Russia. An invasion from the Baltics could theoretically be easy to defend against. But from Ukraine? The area is much bigger. Siberia gives them huge depth. They don't need South Korea or Japan,don't be absurd.
The most important cities and population mass is in European Russia,that's what they want to protect the most.
What you failed to see is that there are 3 landmass NATO can invade if they choose to, Ukraine is not even one of them. They can go over the Baltic, they can go over the Bering Strait, and they can go over Finnish Border.
Why Ukraine is not one of them you would ask? Did you see how hard it is for Russia to invade Ukraine? The reverse will also be true because soil is not going to be harder and favor one side over the other. It's going to be the same going in either direction.
There are also a sea route from Turkey (Which is a NATO member) via Black Sea, and another Sea Route via Baltics.
If NATO wanted to Invade, they can choose either one of the 5, or they can choose all 5. Which make Ukraine more than Redundant in any of the scenario you can think of.
And funny how you discounted Japan and South Korea while focus on Ukraine.
But then this is beside the point, the point is, Threat Level is not going to go away for Russia even with Ukraine at their side (Which is now basically no way this will happen) NATO already fronting Russia in 3 sides, about to be 4 if and when Finland join NATO, which is highly likely now seeing 58% of Finns wants it.
Like I just explained,it depends where is that depth. In the Cold War they had the Warsaw Pact in front of them. Now,they only have Belarus. It's important for them to protect European Russia and the Urals.
Warsaw pact is the Entire Soviet Union, Warsaw pact nation are not neutral toward either the West or Soviet Russia. And as I said you don't understand what is the definition of strategic depth. Russia is probably the last country on earth that needed more. And just because they wanted Ukraine, does not mean Ukraine have to give it to them, hence this war.
If you can't have Ukraine on your side,you might as well have it kind of neutral. It used to be on the Russian side,but after 2014 the next best thing is to have them neutral,unless they agree to have a pro-Russian government again maybe?
LOL, you think the Ukrainian will ever elect a Pro-Russian regime?
Also, it was never on Russian side since they split, the only time they elected an out-right Pro-Russian leader is in 2010, and that's wasn't even a majority win, and is marred with Election Fraud.
The guy before Yanukovych is not Pro-Russia (He was poisoned by FSB), the guy after Yanukovych is not pro-Russia either. And if Ukraine is really Pro-Russia, they would not choose to go their separate way from Russia in 1991 when they were offered a chance of independent.
www.nytimes.com
