My other two points were that there are strong practical reasons why a full Ukrainian invasion is quite unlikely and why a full withdrawal was quite unlikely ("quagmire" and no Minsk 2 implementation, respectively).
I'm not a fan of terms like "territorial aggression", not that it's not apt (Russia invading is clearly aggression, even a meaningful threat is "aggression" according to the UN charter), but such phrases are often used as a substitute for the actual motivating factors, and hence, used as a way to obfuscate the substantive issues. I still think there is a more straightforward and practical explanation.
> And I don't think Minsk 2 was a bluff. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are honoring it. Ukraine needs to stop implementing discriminatory language and education laws, and seriously seek to implement some form of regional autonomy. Russia needs to withdraw its forces (it was pretending it hadn't deployed any).
Putin is not consumed with abstract "territorial aggression", looking at a globe with flames in his eyes (I'm not accusing you of that, I'm just having fun, and making a broader point about some of the international relations phrases that are kindof weasel words in my opinion).
True or not, that's irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the action now in Donetsk and Luhansk demonstrates that the approach of tacit acceptance taken in response to the occupation of Crimea is not (contrary to what one might assume if only looking at Abkhasia and South Ossetia as indicators) sufficient to forestall further Russian territorial aggression.