Without Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, Russia loses sea access to the Black Sea and thus the Mediterranean for their navy (and also for trade), which historically has been a primary determinant of Russian military influence in Europe. Otherwise, they only have northern ports which are frozen and easily choked off (and ports way over on the Pacific - imagine having to sail your navy around Eurasia in order to attack or defend).

More importantly, Ukraine's geography is easy to move large forces across, in that respect a major battlefield (with due respect to Ukrainians). Napoleon and the Nazis both crossed through that region on their way to Russia, and when Russia attacks West, they go through Ukraine. Russian wants to control it and to prevent others from controlling it.

By controlling Ukraine, Russia can put more pressure on, have more influence over, Ukraine's neighbors, including Poland, and further cut off Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia from their NATO allies.

Finally, Putin wants glory - don't underestimate the personal characteristics, such as ego, of unaccountable dictators - and to recreate the Soviet empire and the illusion of power. An independent, democratic Ukraine both undermines that appearance (and perception is everything for dictators) and embarasses Putin's claim to power as an authoritarian dictator.

That's untrue. Sevastopol is the main port and naval base in the Black Sea, but Russia has plenty of others, and some are even undergoing expansion - Novorosiisk ( the backup one). Sevastopol is in Crimea, but was shared under an agreement between the Russian and Ukrainian navies. So in reality, Russia gained nothing there besides an extra front for their current invasion of Ukraine.

Romania, Bulgaria doesn't border Russia , Turkey is not on the land border and they have decent relations with them. But sure, they're likely not happy with that either - they just can't and will not do anything about it. With Crimea/Ukraine - they could.

I have never seen someone claim that Novorosiisk was a sufficient port. Maybe it's a capacity issue?

> Sevastopol is in Crimea, but was shared under an agreement between the Russian and Ukrainian navies.

It is in a foreign country, an unfriendly one. That greatly limits Russia's freedom of action.

Putin view Ukraine as a natural part of the Russian Empire - they are his vassals.

They can't have a free and prosperous Ukraine that has 'gone to the side of the west'.

The Crimean peninsula is just a bonus.

Hitler yes. Napoleon no. The French neither attacked nor retreated through what is now Ukraine.

That "Mystery of Russian Soul" lies among the lines of "Kiev - mother of Russian cities" (term of 12th century Primary Chronicle) and too many other historical facts. Like Wild Steppe (south of Ukraine) were fought for and liberated from Crimean Khanate by Russian Army. Modern Kherson, Nikolayev, Sevastopol, and Ekaterinoslav(Dnipro/Dnepropetrovsk), were established by Gregory Potemkin (Empress Catherine times) and populated by peasants from Russian heartlands - Tambov, Ryazan, Pskov, etc.

All that is well known and well remembered facts by Russian public. So we should not expect that Russian people will be so against all that. If in doubt then see the above.

Peter Zeihan predicted this in 2017. There is first of many wars to come.

The fact is that democratic countries with leaders elected yesterday are at a disadvantage to these perpetual dictators with low accountability and strong convictions.

Putin is a snake. I would say he’s the most dangerous man in the world. He absolutely cannot be trusted, and his agenda really does involve damaging and weakening other sovereign nations seemingly for the sake of it.

The only game he knows and when he sees a winning move he can get away with he can't not take it.

For one, Putin seems to want to reassemble the USSR as a vanity project. Further, this all started (years ago) when the Ukrainians removed out their Moscow friendly president. Putin doesn't like reminders that months of sustained protests can really effect change and remove leaders, especially so close to Russia.

Crimea is the only "warm water" port that Russia has access to to gain access for the end and the Atlantic.

The Ukraine has a ton of farmland. This may be more valuable soon because China imports a ton of food and if you're planning on a Sino-Russo alliance cut off from western powers, food is important.

Similarly, it shares a lot of the fresh water sources with the rest of Europe. I don't know if it's something he can attempt to monopolize, but controlling water into the region is at least as good as natural gas, and less seasonal with less ability to diversify like to green energy.

The USSR located some specialty heavy industry in Ukraine. If it still exists, it might be valuable. I read, but can not confirm, that it was part of the strategic goal of the USSR to make sure each constituent state wasn't self sufficient to encourage national unity. But that could just be BS. Reasoning like that is almost certainly why Crimea was given to the Ukraine.

This is bullshit propaganda, sorry. Russia has over 1000km of coast at the Black Sea, to the East of Crimea.

I will say, even if it were true, that wouldn't justify what Russia is doing. But I can see how it would be useful for domestic consumption.

Its straight out of Imperial Russia's propaganda book. Kind of proof that Russia since ~1600 has always been the same country, just with a different coat of paint (the one between 1917 and 1991 happening to be red paint).

Putin has almost exclusively bad things to say about the USSR, it is the Russian Empire he wants to restore.

But you contend that Putin doesn't want the western tip of Ukraine, but instead to reclaim Finland, Alaska and parts of Poland? Because that's the only difference in his territorial ambitions.

Very similar to what WW1 and WW2 causes.

- In approx 1900, Germany becomes one country (before, there where many small principalities, and no central power lasts long).

So appear new country, powerful country, and they look on world and see colonial system, where nearly ALL powerful countries has colonies. I mean whole world where divided between top countries.

First, Germany tried to reach an agreement with top countries, to cut some colonies from other countries and assign to Germany, but without fast success, because pre WW1 agreements system where extremely sophisticated, and they just cannot rebuild this system fast.

Than German powers conclude, that they could faster got wanted if make war, that's all.

To be more precise, Russia is large, but economically, it's position is worst in world, except Mongolia. - Russia have longest in world size of land borders, near no borders on mountains, very little number of possible sea ports; extremely large territory is just ice, nothing could grow there.

- Russia really have reliable access to sea only in few places - Baltic, Black sea/Azov, and on Pacific, this is extremely little, for so large number of citizens (approx half of US).

BTW, current Russia situation is much better, than for example 200 years ago, because that time they had neighbors, who demand very high fees for access to sea. To solve this, Russians occupied their neighbors - 300-200 years ago, Russians near constantly invade neighbors and assimilate them into their empire, so now they have another problem, google Belfast.

Now, Russians trying to work less crude, they trying to place puppet governments in all neighbors countries.

Ukraine have borders with three EU countries, and is one of the largest counties on Black sea, so Ukraine is extremely interest for logistics.

And unfortunately, current Ukraine don't have effective government system, as I said on another comment, current Ukraine officials are extremely corrupted and extremely illiterate.

So Russians concluded, that Ukraine could be easy target for occupation and/or to place puppet government, and prepared for invasion and invade.

I don's think, Russians really plan to assimilate Ukraine, most probably, planned scheme where similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact

BTW exists excellent movie, very good show atmosphere in Warsaw Pact countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_of_Spies_(film)

It's not 'what it has' it's 'what it is'.

Putin views the Ukraine as 'part of Russia' - that's it.

I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this.

Imagine if Mexico invaded Texas in 1950 and 'won'. A lot of Americans would want to 'take it back'.

Now I don't believe that this analogy is real in terms of the Ukraine situation (Imagine if those Mexicans wanted to be Mexicans and definitely did not want to be part of the USA...), but you can see how Putin + Co. propaganda would like you to see it.

I'm wary that there will be much of an insurgency in Ukraine - it's big, open, spread out, there are few places to hide.

We'll see.

A better analogy would be Australia and Canada. Both were part of Great Britain and both became independent after the British Empire collapsed.

Example of the Queen's representative interfering in local politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

Ironically it happened the other way round.