Nothing to lose besides thousands more lives, of course.

No real security guarantees also means tens of thousands of lives lost when Russia gets back into gear and tries to take Ukraine a second time.

Second time? More like fourth time. First there was Crimea, then Donbas, then the current invasion.

You are correct, I should have said "again".

Why would Russia bother going through this again?

The same reason they did it the first time.

Because after bribing Trump with the ability to brag that he won the USA 500B of minerals, they will be able to march in without any US interference...

That doesn’t answer the “why?” at all. To what end?

Are you asking people to read the mind of Putin? Or speculate? It seems reasonable to believe that at the very least Putin wants the territory he attempted to take when he first invaded, Kyiv et.al.

Why would that change if he hasn't?

Because both Ukraine and Russia have changed? Ukraine is war torn, deeply in debt, and no longer provides the strategic benefit to Russia it might’ve in ‘22. Russia’s economy and populace needs to recover from being war-oriented.

They have their land bridge to Crimea now, and if I had to speculate, they’d be happy with a neutered neighbor that can’t join NATO, essentially a populated DMZ. I can’t see what benefit in wanting to take Ukraine on again after the dragged out meat grinder it was this time around.

So speculation then. Here's some more: because it won't be a dragged out meat-grinder if he has a puppet US administration/political party.

> Ukraine is war torn, deeply in debt, and no longer provides the strategic benefit to Russia it might’ve in ‘22.

Expanded access to the Black Sea and natural gas/minerals were and still are very important to Russia. Aside from these, a total victory would allow Putin to cement himself as a conqueror in Russian history books.

The deal was a sham -- it came with no guarantees.

Don’t victim blame.

That is the real disgrace. This was a setup from day 1. A win-win to degrade Russia either way at Ukraine's expense.

I wish Zelensky made those points instead. "The US voted to open a NATO path for us, The US asked not to renew the base, and the US refused to negotiate with Russia when tanks were on our boarder. And now you want to walk away?"

Who do you think should pay for those invasions? Currently, it is the US/EU taxpayers.

I'd suggest the US, because they propped up the Ukrainian politicians who started saying it out loud they would join NATO (a big No-No since the fall of the URSS) and not renew the lease on Sevastopol (Russia's only naval base that operates throughout the year), but I'd settle with Russia, because, after all, they were first to cross the border with tanks.