Note that “Ukraine” is now preferred to “the Ukraine”; the latter term was used in Soviet times to diminish its autonomy by implying it was just a region of the USSR.
Source ?
But the theory that this has any impact on how English speakers view sovereignty is also completely bunk. While English does indeed use "the" for some geographical regions and features (but not universally; English rarely is so simple), in international contexts and sub-regions, that's swamped by more salient examples. Look right there at your use of "the" USSR. We don't talk about "the Scotland" and "the England" as part of "United Kingdom", nor about "the California" and "the Texas" as purely internal regions of "United States", but quite the reverse, reserving. In keeping with groups of smaller units, there's also the EU. There are also many examples of full names that include qualifying adjectives that take "the" -- i.e. the Central African Republic, the Dominican Republic, and historically the Czech Republic (now Czechia is preferred, of course).
There are also, of course, countries named after geographical features that traditionally do have the definite article, but this is rarely taken as a slight against their sovereignty or an accusation that they're not a real country: the Ivory Coast, The Netherlands, many, many island nations.
And why would the Russians even think to use articles to make this distinction? Neither language even has a definite article! There is a history of using different prepositions in these languages ("in" vs "on", roughly) which does have this suggestion, but it really doesn't parallel English usage of articles.
Ukraine is giving us (or at least the collective west) the best deal we've possibly ever given - dealing a mighty blow, hopefully the final one, to what used to be Soviet Union and its imperial ambitions. Without a single western soldier having to enter the battlefield. Indeed Ukraine may be the first ally in the long history of regimes that US has supported in their struggles since the end of WW2 that has a will and a skill to take the weapons of war that were developed to battle the commies in the first place and put them now into their intended use in killing russian invaders[nsfw] and destroying their machines of war[losses].
Now, if Ukraine were to fall, especially because US should decide that it is not in it's best interests to support them, this has a high likelihood to result in a world where Europeans now have to alone face the wounded and angry bear living next to them, and starting to arm themselves to the teeth. Historically nothing good has come from Europeans arming up, but this will also limit European countries ability, and willingness to support an ally that was, in other parts of the world. With US influence waning, this will lead to increasingly difficult situations in the middle east and Africa. Soon the willingness of US to support its other allies in Asia would be put to test in Korea. Failing to fight the good fight there, but this time with American skin in the game, then the Taiwan is likely to fall to China like a domino piece, putting an end to pax americana, and post world war 2 world order. And at least in the west, to one of the most peaceful periods in [modern] history.
If instead we will help Ukraine deal a decisive and lethal blow to a country that has terrorized its neighbors since the times immemorial, this will send a strong message to every dictator wanna-be, that the rules based world order is the one where we the free people of this planet choose to live in. In democracy, with all its flaws.
[nsfw] https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1b8f... [losses] https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/dfbcec47-7b01-400e...