[clusterfish]

> seizing Ukraine for it’s strategic importance to Russia - food, energy, year round port, buffer against a land invasion to Moscow.

Wow, that's literally the worst take I've heard on this.

- Russia has food to spare, exports tons of wheat, and has declining population

- Russia produces tons of energy and exports tons of oil and gas

- Russia already has several year round ports in the Black Sea. You think upgrading one of them to whatever they wanted is more expensive than waging fucking war?

- How much of a speed bump do you think a "demilitarized and neutral" Ukraine would be to forces that are doing a land invasion on the largest nuclear power? Also, Baltics are already in NATO, and the drive from there to Moscow is same distance on similarly flat terrain. Also, Finland and Sweden might join NATO too now thanks to this war. Also, nobody is ever doing a land invasion on a nuclear Russia. If the nukes didn't even assure that, nobody would keep spending billions on maintaining them.

[kavalg]

It is not only about what you have, but also about what you don't want your foe/customer to have. Lots of natural gas was discovered in Ukraine around 2011-2016. Donbass is famous for its coal mining too and you should also consider the numerous NPPs that provide about half of Ukraine's electricity. Imagine all these assets in the hands of US/EU companies. Now that sounds like becoming less energy dependent from Russia. You should inquire about some of the reasons for Syrian war too. It all looks like a big blatant chess game and you will be very lucky if you are just a spectator. Btw current mainstream media reporting from both sides is mostly useless.