Because this isn't Risk. They don't care about capturing all territory within a state's borders, they care about a defensible border position. It's strategic.
The same reason the Himalayas are the border between China and India, the swiss and Italians border in the alps, the US and mexico border along the Rio Grande, and the Arab countries have foggy borders. It's the reason you see ethnic groups bounded by geographic artifacts. You want a natural barrier as a defense. You expand or contract to an easier to defend position. You'll note nations with artificial borders such as latitude lines are at peace with one another, and ones that aren't, such as several African nations who's borders were decided by the French and English are in constant strife and flux.
I think his (perfectly reasonable) point is that, in the long run, a natural border might make it easier to establish and maintain a legal border, and will likely favour internal cohesion by forcing connections to go certain ways.
Obviously it is not a prerequisite for statehood, which is a complex construct that goes beyond territorial claims (since Woodrow Wilson at the very least, in legal terms).
Why would Putin want to annex a country full of people who hate him? Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea had 70%+ ethnic Russians with pro-Russia sentiment. Everywhere else in Ukraine he is hated, there's no way he will want to expand into territory that jeopardizes his own stability.
> Why would Putin want to annex a country full of people who hate him?
Because distracting people with a project to restore the greatness of Imperial Russia, repudiating the losses it suffered at the hands of hostile foreign powers (and even Soviet leaders—he’s blamed, e.g., Lenin for “creating” Ukraine from “Russian” territory and Stalin for giving Ukraine control of additional “Russian” territory) is Putin’s central political strategy right now, and he’s already laid out the public case for why Ukraine ought to be Russian on that basis.
That's definitely a factor. Another factor is the refusal to make NordStream2 operational. Gazprom must be free of Ukrainian influence, and if it can't be North it will be South - the spice must flow, and so does the gas.
For money, of course. Donetsk region is full of good quality coal and benefits coming from controlling the Black Sea are definitely very tempting.
> Why would Putin want to annex a country full of people who hate him?
Please change your optics. People never matter in Russia/Soviet Union. Even, if there will be 70-80% of people who are dreadful opponents to "new goverment" then what they would do? Take it to the street? Strike? Please remind yourself how it looked in the Kazakhstan in early January 2022 (you will get shot, just because you left your home to buy some food) and in Belarus 2021 (mass protests, thousands of people being thrown in jail for no reason, very often beaten, many found dead there). Coup d'état? Poor joke, especially if we look at the latest events in Africa (for example Mali), where armed Russia's Wagner forces helped to take over the whole country.
Edit: As a person who lives in Central Europe, your question made me sad, because it means western mass-media is crap these days - they cannot explain a very silly thing why this ongoing conflict for 8+ years takes place.
> As a person who lives in Central Europe, your question made me sad,
Reading the GP's other comments they're either a "useful idiot" (in KGB parlance) or a Russian-supporting astroturfer. There has been a lot of coverage of Russia's actions in Ukraine in "the West" for the past 8 years.
This isn’t a constructive comment. There isn’t a point to accusing people of being propagandists or <insert nefarious Soviet intelligence term here> unless you have proof.
Unhappy populations can be dealt with sufficient application of repression. Or, worst case scenario, genocide--history has shown that the international community is extremely reluctant to do anything about genocide other than moralize after the fact about how wrong it was. I mean, there's already precedent for Russian genocide against Ukrainians...
No one in the modern era has attempted to take a country with a population that's 1/3 of the invading country. If he incorporated Ukraine, that's 40 million angry citizens. It would absolutely be the end of him especially because most Russians see Ukrainians as brothers.
He justifies Luhansk, Donbass and Crimea because of the 2014 revolution and they fact they were always culturally Russian.
Edit - I should also add that it's in Ukraine's interest to simply let these regions go. Prior to 2014, Ukrainian elections always flip-flopped between pro-Russian and pro-Western factions... Now that most of the pro-Russian support no longer votes in Ukrainian elections (due to being part of Russian or breakaway), Ukrainian politics are almost entire pro-Western.
Most Russians very much don't see Ukrainians as brothers after 2014. Russian propaganda works reasonably well.
As for angry citizens... for one thing, not all of those citizens will be angry, especially in central Ukraine. Not the majority, but enough to supply informants etc to keep the rest in check.
But also, why do you say that no-one in the modern era has attempted that? This exact thing happened during WW2 - or is that not sufficiently "modern"? And if not, then what makes the difference?
All the Russians I know view Ukrainians as brothers and are against the idea of Slavs fighting Slavs. Anyhow I'm not spending the time to find a comprehensive poll but it's you believing the propaganda that a majority of Russians actually want to fight Ukrainians.
> Russian propaganda works reasonably well.
Yeah right, I've never met a Russian that believes any news, no matter the side lol. Ditto for Ukrainians. Distrust in authority is basically a cornerstone of Slavic culture...
That's simply not true. Many Russians are swallowing uncritically whatever Putin says. I've personally met on my Elbrus expedition in cca 2016 quite a few in our team (russian agency, I never go with western ones when mountaineering), who seemed otherwise smart, but praised him uncritically like some saint. I couldn't listen to it whenever we switched otherwise normal topics to this.
Not everybody gets their news from internet. And those young folks were from Moscow / St Peterburg and used internet like everybody else.
> are against the idea of Slavs fighting Slavs
Bullshit, army men do what they are told. In 1968 Soviet, mostly russian army invaded Czechoslovakia. Soldiers had no qualms with shooting to ie teenage girls riding across the street on their bicycle, harmless as one can be. Hundreds of cases like this, nobody was armed or posed any threat. Nobody was ever punished, there are tons of memorials across whole country(ies).
There is a lot of wishful thinking in your statement, and I hope its meant in optimistic way. I wish there was really this fabled slavic friendliness since I am also one of those, but I see it more a nice myth which works mostly on language grounds, and falls apart as quickly as problems arise, see ie Yugoslavia.
> No one in the modern era has attempted to take a country with a population that's 1/3 of the invading country.
Saudi Arabia invading Yemen. Syria invading Lebanon is I think around the ⅓ mark. Iraq invading Iran--note that Iran was the larger country then. All of these are conflicts that were intended to induce suzerainty if not outright conquest, and all of these are undeniably in what you'd call the "modern era".
Although I'll note that "modern era" is usually given as since about ~1789, which means we can throw in all of the wonderful aggression conflicts that make up World War II, such as Germany attempting to incorporate the populated bits of the USSR into its own territory, after killing off the current inhabitants of course.
> they fact they were always culturally Russian.
IIRC, he claims that Ukrainians are themselves no different from Russians, which means this gives him casus belli to incorporate all of Ukraine on the same grounds.
The Saudis aren't invading Yemen, they're just bombing and destabilizing it. Last I checked Lebanon is also still Lebanon, not Syria.
> IIRC, he claims that Ukrainians are themselves no different from Russians
Saying something and believing it are two different things. Also, it depends what you mean by 'no different'. Ethnically they're almost identical. Culturally close. But there is a bit of a difference, mainly that much of "Ukrainian" identity comes from regions that had been been invaded by both Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary and spread to the rest of the country since independence.
Anyhow, not even the Ukrainian President thinks Russia will invade all Ukraine...
> The Saudis aren't invading Yemen, they're just bombing and destabilizing it. Last I checked Lebanon is also still Lebanon, not Syria.
The word you said was "attempted" which includes failed attempts as well as successful. There have been no successful attempts post-WW2 that I can think of, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any unsuccessful attempts.
> Ethnically they're almost identical. Culturally close.
You can say the same thing about the US and Canada. Yet Canada successfully resisted both US invasion attempts, and even today, you would likely get a pretty vehement response if you suggested that the US and Canada ought to be part of the same country.
In an abstract sense, sure. But once they start putting the nuts on the bolts, they are going to get cold feet. The USA is vastly different from Canada is many tangible ways. It's not the conservative utopia people think it is.
Plus, given the political issues involved with integration of the two countries, I suspect serious concessions would need to be made by Canada.
> It's not the conservative utopia people think it is.
And Canada's not the liberal paradise people think. We're leaving, personally.
The quality of life here is pretty shit - think LA or Seattle cost of living (SF if you're in Vancouver or Toronto) with Nebraska wages (actually that would be generous)...
I think the bigger issue for Putin is his army and his support. That will beging to fade if he goes into an area that is not supportive and then Russian soldiers start dying. It's all good 'capturing' territory without a loss of life, but are the Russian people going to put up with dead soldiers just for them to occupy Kyiv?
For the "why" you would ask him, but didn't he stress in his speech yesterday, that he considers the whole Ukraine a part of Russia?
So yes, if the Russian troops do nothing beyond settling the status, it might be good for the local population. But what if not?
Why would he need such a huge army just to consolidate those regions, why army in the Belarus? I guess we will see what happens (and I wished things stopped where they are now).
Putin has repeatedly made clear his (weird) belief that NATO will base hypersonic nuclear missiles in a free Ukraine. Yesterday he claimed Ukraine will develop its own nukes.
These claims would suggest that Putin will stop at nothing short of total regime change in Kiev.
Invading a country is easy, occupying it and annexing it is extremely difficult. The only times it seems to be viable is when the local population is already within your cultural sphere, speaks your language, and is ethnically similar. Putin certainly could go on an annexation spree but he would be stymied very quickly by local resistance in places that aren't 80%+ ethnically and culturally Russian.
Why would he feed another country? Crimea is a strategic territory, LNR/DNR protect access to RF borders, and both are home of ethnic Russians, but the rest? Only throwing away good money.
In his strategic interest he would let the West to continue throwing finances here.
He would need support of local population for that. And if locals want it, why not? Right for self-determination, after all. At least that was the excuse when USSR/Yugoslavia/etc were broken down.
But it is not that simple; any such territory would be a drain on Russian economy. For now, it is tactical advantage to keep Europe and US to drain theirs here. (One of reasons, why opolchentsi stopped before Mariupol few years ago).
Ukraine is has fantastically fertile crop land, and Russia is today a net importer of food. Food has never been a trivial concern for Russia or Russians.
> Crimea is a strategic territory, LNR/DNR protect access to RF borders, and both are home of ethnic Russians, but the rest?
Odessa is the biggest port in Ukraine. Controlling it (and Mykolaiv) will make Ukraine a land-locked country, in addition to providing Crimea with reliable access to electricity, water and supply routes (in addition to connecting Russia with Transnistria). These are only the rational reasons, but Putin apparently has fears and complexes that go beyond those.
> Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea had 70%+ ethnic Russians with pro-Russia sentiment.
The absolute majority sans the single digit percentage of ethnic Russians hate Russia with passion.
And I am not even talking about ethnic Russians within Ukraine, but Russia itself.
Russian Far East very seriously wanted to seccede.
South Russians don't count themselves as the same ethnicity as Russians living in the Moscow at all.
People in Urals, besides attempting at Urals Republic in early nineties, are still very unhappy about Urals, and Western Siberia being the poorest part of Russia, while their resources allow Muscovites bathe in Champagne.
All other ethnic republics will secede in no time as well if given the opportunity.
Russia will be the next Yugoslavia. This is what we actually need to be talking about
Russia losing its oil/gas, or Putin getting assasinated, or just any major crisis = Yugo with nukes, and a civil war 10 times worse.
