I wouldn't know all of Putin's reasoning, but I have to assume that his expressed regret over the dissolution of the Soviet Union, his desire to find out just how much he'd be punished for it, his anger (and need to save face) over the Maidan Revolution, all played a role.

Look at when the Ukraine revolution/coup happened, and when Putin annexed Crimea. Also, understand that after the coup, when Ukraine rewrote their Constitution they laid the ground work to drop neutrality and join NATO. Putin annexed Crimea the next day.

The only reason things didn't continue to accelerate under Trump is because he was not a fan of NATO and had no financial interests in Ukraine like Biden does, so the Ukrainians knew they had no friend in him. Once Biden won, Ukraine went back to poking the bear with obvious results.

I'm sure the Biden families financial activities in Ukraine are 100% completely unrelated though.

Tell me exactly what crimes Ukraine committed that make mass rape, kidnapping, murder, and destruction an appropriate response.

This isn't Reddit.

War crimes committed by the Russians or Ukrainians should absolutely be investigated. They're just not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is "How did we get to this point".

There is a pretty decent amount of information out there as to why Russia wants Crimea (and Ukraine)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

There is a lot of propaganda out there, but a hard and fast truth is that no country, not Russia nor the US nor China nor India nor anyone actually cares at all about normal citizens.

People can care about other people, but countries do not and cannot. Its why Putin's claims of protecting Russians are BS. (US Claims of protecting Ukrainians too, its in the US/Europe interest to do so, its not to protect Tibetans or Afghans for example, so it does not)

It's an obvious bad faith question. Parent poster has a well-rehearsed little shpiel to unload on "why Russia wants Crimea", it's in their comment history multiple times. They're not curious in the slightest, they're prompting a bogus talking point.

See above, cited and sourced. Do you think the timing in 2014 was coincidental?

Also, if the US government had nothing to do with the Russia/Ukraine tiff, then why did Crimea happen while Biden was VP, then nothing while Trump was President, then back on again after Biden becomes President. Is that also unrelated?

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 because Yanukovych failed to put down popular opposition to abandoning the EU association agreement scheduled to be signed in late 2013. EU association was Ukraine's goal long before Biden was VP.

Russia and Ukraine were at war Trump's whole presidency. The Kerch Strait incident escalated it.

Maybe Putin knew Trump was in his back pocket and didn’t need to rock the boat.

Just spitballing.

If that were the case, then he would have invaded while Trump was in office since by this sort of logic, Trump would have let Russia walk right in to Ukraine with no response from the US.

And yet that isn't what happened. Instead, Putin invaded while Biden was VP in 2014 and again while Biden is President now. Very curious that the exact opposite happened. Curious indeed...

> Trump would have let Russia walk right in to Ukraine with no response from the US.

Mr Trump would have done that, absolutely. Not only with no response, but with some blather about "fine people on both sides" and "I spoke to Mr Putin, he said he had to do it, he's a genius to do that".

In other words, with support from the White House in the obfuscatory propaganda; instead of having his militarily moves called out like they were in Feb 2022 - the Biden team was ahead of the game on that.

Why didn't Russia move when Mr Trump was in office? We can't know, but one theory is that he was waiting for NATO to be damaged beyond repair by Trump. Which would have happened if Mr Trump was still in office in 2022.

We know that Mr Trump was much warmer with Mr Putin than Mr Biden or any other recent US president was. Which makes your whole line of suggestion very misleading. So nothing new there. Anyway it's curious that you think this odd talking point is relevant. Curious indeed...

I'm not here for you trotting out that "poking the bear" nonsense again.

So wait, you think Putin could have easily taken Ukraine with no resistance from the US for 4 years under Trump, but instead Putin decided to wait until Trump was gone and Biden was President knowing he would get massive resistance across the board?

So Putin intentionally made things 1000x harder on himself...because reasons? I understand being blinded by Trump hatred, but how do you logically make that sort of conclusion? You have to know that makes zero sense, right?

This not a good response at all, it mostly shouts emotional phrases about "because reasons" and "zero sense" and does not engage with the parent comment.

In short: We can't know all of Mr Putin's reasons. He may have expected a second Trump term, and didn't think we was "waiting until Trump was gone" at all. You don't address the damage to NATO that a second Trump term would have done, and that Mr Putin so clearly wanted Mr Trump to do for him. Come one, engage your NATO obsession one more time?

Mr Putin also clearly didn't expect "massive resistance across the board" or that it would be "1000x harder on himself" to take Kyiv in 2022 so this argument doesn't hold up.

The words that you put in my mouth "you think Putin could have easily taken Ukraine with no resistance from the US" show a confused thinking - are you saying that "resistance from the US" is the only thing that prevents "easily take Ukraine"? I don't believe that, and in 2022, no one should. It's simplistic rubbish that forgets about the agency of the Ukrainian people. Facts on the ground have disproved it.

Finally if you want real answers, ask an expert - Fiona Hill, Molly McKew, Anne Applebaum or the like, not strangers on the internet.

I agree that Mr Putin's actions since February make "zero sense" - his speeches are unhinged and his invasion plan has failed. But an attempt to claim that the cause is in "Trump vs Biden" is ridiculous and self-obsessed. The cause is in Moscow. The answer is in Kyiv.

>are you saying that "resistance from the US" is the only thing that prevents "easily take Ukraine"?

You don't have to take my word for it, Zelensky himself has spent the last 2 months begging for more and more financial and military aid from the US/NATO. We have pumped billions into Ukraine already.

And I'm still trying to understand why you think Putin wouldn't take the opportunity to invade under Trump, while invading twice with Biden in a position of power. Especially considering all of the financial interests of the Biden family in Ukraine. You just see that as a coincidence?

> You don't have to take my word for it, Zelensky himself has spent the last 2 months begging for more and more financial and military aid from the US/NATO

And also fighting for survival, there's that. Financial and military aid from all over, after an invasion, is not the same as "resistance from the US" - the latter implies combat, from the US only. It's dishonest to conflate these.

> And I'm still trying to understand why you think Putin wouldn't take the opportunity to invade under Trump,

All the guidance that you're going to get is above, and I can not help you further.

>and I can not help you further.

Clearly, because there is no logical response. If Putin truly thought he could easily take Ukraine under Trump, he would have. Which means your assumption is wrong.

Meanwhile, we're back to wondering why the Biden families massive financial interests in Ukraine somehow aren't relevant...

> Meanwhile, we're back to wondering why (insert bogus propagandistic talking point) somehow aren't relevant...

I'm not wondering at at all, I see it clearly. You're right, this rubbish is a distraction.

"Hold back 10% for the big guy"

Do you think the invasion and annexation of Crimea, had anything to do with the coup (ahem...pro-US/NATO revolution) that had just occurred in Ukraine[1]?

Keep in mind Putin rolled his tanks into Crimea the day after the new pro-US/NATO regime in Ukraine had thrown out the democratically elected (albeit pro-Russia) government, and rewritten the Ukrainian Constitution[2] to then make it possible to drop neutrality[3] so that they could begin the process of joining NATO. A rule to join NATO is that a nation must be in control of its borders and not in active conflict, so by annexing Crimea, Russia ensured the moves to join NATO would be halted with that action.

Or is that timing coincidental? Remember, you don't have to agree with a reason to at least understand what the reason is.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-constituti...

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-30594763