Some say that Russia is committed to moving NATO away from its own borders - and this is supposedly Russia's main goal. But the thing is, when Russia annexes Ukraine into the Russian Federation, they will directly border a NATO country - Poland. Which means that after Russian annexation of Ukraine, Russia will start demanding that Poland must leave NATO - in order to push away NATO from its new borders.
And Putin's goal is to annex Ukraine into the Russian Federation - perhaps as one of its autonomous republic (such as Mari El, Udmurtia, Kalmykia, Chechnya, etc.). Just read his July 2021 essay, or listen to his speech at the beginning of the invasion. This is his goal.
You have to consider the distance from Russias core zones. It doesn't matter whether a friendly state is in between or its actual Russian territory. Crucial its not controlled by hostile elements, which the Selenski regime under US guide did constitute.
Its the same with the debate I had with Northerner, when I compared it with a broken marriage and the belongings of the husband being still in the house - or the house itself. Same here: As long as they were married, friendly neighbours, it doesn't really matter that the Ukraine ruled over Russians, that they controlled one of the most important bases.
It did matter, when they tried to run over to the sworn enemy, tried to become a member of a hostile club - hostile not because of Russia, but because they did exclude and hurt Russia.
Like Russia tried to get the same agreement Ukraine tried to make, with the EU. The EU declined, not giving Russia the same chance to participate. This led to the original escalaton in 2014: The EU offered Ukraine favourable treaties, but declined the same conditions to Russia. The Ukrainians started to revolt, when the pro-Russian president had to deny the agreement, to not make Russia stand alone and against it.
Once the marriage was broken, it mattered that some crucial strategical, economic and ethnic territories belonged to this cobbled together state of Ukraine. Before it was largely irrelevant, because they were friendly, cooperating states, the borders were open etc.
You see how Crimea would have been taken away from the Russians, and once they took control over Crimea, they could be cut off there, even the crucial water supply, not talking about the land traffic. That would be a huge problem in any conflict, in which the Ukraine would side clearly with the Western alliance. Its simply unacceptable.
A neutral Ukraine, which would still keep up open borders and traffic, recognise the Crimea status and Russian minorities, I mean for god's sake, they even tried to ban the Russian language from the official Ukraine's administration and state! Everything the Ukrainian regime, especially the Selenski regime, did, was completely unacceptable for the Russians, I mean Russians, any Russian which cares for its people and state, not just Putin.
There would have been so many ways to act differently, more conciliatory, but there were these US agents and Ukrainian nationalists which didn't care, which used rough measures before Russia started to get rough. It was all their fault and the Ukrainians even realised that, they voted for Selenski to come to peaceful terms with Russia. Instead he did the dirty job for the oligarchs and the USA!
To sum it up: Just look at the map of Ukraine, its ethnic, religious and political composition. A complete breakaway from the Russian sphere had to cause trouble. Strategically, the Ukraine border is too close and to long to be ever successfully defended if the situation with "the West" would escalate. So its kind of a preventive war to keep things simple and straight too.
The Dnepr border is defensible and ethnically more reasonable. Obviously the Russians will try to get Odessa and the Southern Russian territories too, make Ukraine landlocked. But that's entirely Selenskis fault, because he refused to negotiate, to come to terms. He would have gotten very favourable terms, even if he or the nationalists might not have looked at it that way. I'm not sure he will get the chance for such favourable terms again.
And to change that, from the American adventurers perspective would mean World War III, which is even more insane.
The best Ukraine could hope for was:
- promised, lasting neutral state
- accept Crimea
- guarantee Crimea land traffice and water supply
- accept Donbas autonomy, its departure to Russia
That was, by and large, the status before the escalation anyway, Ukraine would have just needed to accept it, and the West had to lift the sanctions. They refused, they prepared for a war in Donbas, already attacked the people there and proceeded in arming up, which led to this escalation.
Now its questionable whether the Russians will leave the Eastern and Southern parts of the current state of Ukraine, once they conquered it with blood losses. Because a land bridge to Crimea, for starters, is better than a guarantee for traffic and water supply which might be broken by the next Ukrainian government.
And if anything, a new Ukraine without the Eastern provinces will become even more radical anti-Russian, because its more reduced to the core zone of Ukrainian nationalism, than the Ukraine was in 2014 or even in 2021. To leave any Russians and pro-Russians in such a state, which refuses to make peace with Russia, won't be acceptable. Like I wrote before, the clock is ticking for Selenski.