Russia invades Ukraine

[Belperpete]

I'm pretty sure Medvedev has no real power these days: he's in the Russian Security Council, which is basically where Russian politicians who remain loyal to Putin, but have no practical use to him, are sent to.

When he was in power, Medvedev was notably more friendly towards the West than Putin. I suspect that his anti-Western stance since then has been largely to avoid himself accidentally falling out of a window. The best way not to be seen to contradict Putin is to appear even more extreme than Putin.

Nowadays I suspect it may also be to keep himself in the public eye, just in case a replacement is needed for Putin, as there doesn't seem to be much of a succession plan in place if they do.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Nowadays I suspect it may also be to keep himself in the public eye, just in case a replacement is needed for Putin, as there doesn't seem to be much of a succession plan in place if they do.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's exactly that. There's no obvious successor right now to Putin, and he's notorious for making comments that are along the lines of "we could do something if we wanted to". It's absolutely nothing to be concerned about. The same story still applies: those with power want themselves and their families to live, not to die for the sake of a pointless war.

In related news, it seems pretty clear now that Ukraine has returned to destroying Russian infrastructure that they need for the war, including oil refineries and other businesses producing things like telecommunications for the military. It's likely in response to Russia attacking civilian targets. Trump is talking about imposing sanctions, and to be honest, at this point, it's hard to see why NATO doesn't simply shut off the Baltic Sea to anything travelling towards Kaliningrad/St Petersburg.

 

[Belperpete]

at this point, it's hard to see why NATO doesn't simply shut off the Baltic Sea to anything travelling towards Kaliningrad/St Petersburg.

Because the naval action needed to achieve that would be seen as direct aggression against Russia?

 

[Annetts key]

Because the naval action needed to achieve that would be seen as direct aggression against Russia?

Russia is already attacking the west. They are just using unconventional methods.

If the west did stop all the shadow fleet tankers (which Russia pretends are nothing to do with it) passing through European controlled waters, would Russia really want to start a shooting war with NATO countries? I don't think they would. And anyway, the Russian Navy has never been much good. So would Putin really be prepared to see even more of his navy converted to being permanently relocated to the sea floor?

 

[Belperpete]

Russia is already attacking the west. They are just using unconventional methods.

If the west did stop all the shadow fleet tankers (which Russia pretends are nothing to do with it) passing through European controlled waters, would Russia really want to start a shooting war with NATO countries? I don't think they would. And anyway, the Russian Navy has never been much good. So would Putin really be prepared to see even more of his navy converted to being permanently relocated to the sea floor?

I think the question is more do we want to start a shooting war with Russia? Because that is what enforcing such a blockade would entail.

And the moment we started enforcing such a blockade, I have no doubt that China would use that as the excuse to similarly enforce blockades of parts of the South China Sea that we are currently trying to keep open. And perhaps even to provide full-scale military and naval assistance to Russia.

Why not just drop a nuke on Moscow?

 

[Yew]

I think the question is more do we want to start a shooting war with Russia? Because that is what enforcing such a blockade would entail.

And the moment we started enforcing such a blockade, I have no doubt that China would use that as the excuse to similarly enforce blockades of parts of the South China Sea that we are currently trying to keep open. And perhaps even to provide full-scale military and naval assistance to Russia.

Why not just drop a nuke on Moscow?

Not that I particularly want to, but I have noted a trend amongst the older generation to conflate "the Soviet Union at it's most powerful" with "present day Russia, exhausted after years of fighting" in these type of discussions.

 

[edwin_m]

Neither does Trump. They were noted recently at the Heard and McDonald islands spying on those pesky penguins.

Perhaps the penguins were stealing the burgers?

There was a story a few months back of a British sub surfacing near a Russian vessel behaving suspiciously, but it's pretty unusual (and probably even more so for the UK given how few we have).

 

[Railwaycat]

Changing the subject, but how many drones do we think the UK has supplied to Ukraine....100, 1000, 10,000...

It's this number:

UK drone support to Ukraine tops 70,000 in expanding effort

The UK has delivered more than 70,000 uncrewed systems to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began revealed Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The UK has delivered more than 70,000 uncrewed systems to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion began, according to a written answer to Parliament from Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard.​

Didn't know we had a drone 'industry'!

 

[Cloud Strife]

And the moment we started enforcing such a blockade, I have no doubt that China would use that as the excuse to similarly enforce blockades of parts of the South China Sea that we are currently trying to keep open. And perhaps even to provide full-scale military and naval assistance to Russia.

China has no interest in starting a war over anything, because they're playing the game in hundreds of years while we're thinking about tomorrow. Right now, they're doing a grand job of luring countries like Serbia into horrific debt over projects that they don't need, and that's more than enough for them. They can and will expand further into Europe when countries need infrastructure and they don't have the means to pay for it, or if China offers a 'deal they can't refuse' such as new motorways to rural areas without financing costs.

And let's not forget: weakening Russia further is very much in the Chinese interest, as Moscow will become even more dependent on them.

Not that I particularly want to, but I have noted a trend amongst the older generation to conflate "the Soviet Union at it's most powerful" with "present day Russia, exhausted after years of fighting" in these type of discussions.

Russia couldn't even achieve air dominance over Ukraine, which rather says it all. The only thing keeping Russia in this war now is the fact that they really don't care about human life or about the future of their country.

In related news, Ukraine has seemingly taken out yet another plane, this time a Su-30M in Crimea, along with damaging another. They've also managed to damage three SU-24s. All of this shows just how weak Russia is, because they can't even protect Crimea against drones. It seems that Ukraine is also going after Russia's railway infrastructure in a major way, and now that the attacks on Russian energy infrastructure have resumed, it's going to get even more difficult for Russia. Yes, they're still making progress, but it's very clear that they're not only losing horrendous amounts of men on the front line, but they've also got to deal with repairing infrastructure that isn't easily repaired or brought back online.

All of this is exactly why we need to shut the shadow fleet down once and for all.

 

[brad465]

China has no interest in starting a war over anything, because they're playing the game in hundreds of years while we're thinking about tomorrow. Right now, they're doing a grand job of luring countries like Serbia into horrific debt over projects that they don't need, and that's more than enough for them. They can and will expand further into Europe when countries need infrastructure and they don't have the means to pay for it, or if China offers a 'deal they can't refuse' such as new motorways to rural areas without financing costs.

And let's not forget: weakening Russia further is very much in the Chinese interest, as Moscow will become even more dependent on them.

China also needs Russia to remain a dictatorship that can bend to its will, because it doesn't want its citizens bordering Western democracies. This is why they prop up North Korea, despite it being an absolute basket case.

 

[J663738]

In related news, Ukraine has seemingly taken out yet another plane, this time a Su-30M in Crimea, along with damaging another. They've also managed to damage three SU-24s.

I see Russia has now just started to build protective structures for their aircraft. I am amazed how slowly they seem to learn lessons. Or is it more likely no one wants to inform the Kremlin of any aircraft losses so the money was never forth coming to build the structures in the first place, Tractor Production is again at a record high comrade!

 

[Belperpete]

China has no interest in starting a war over anything, because they're playing the game in hundreds of years while we're thinking about tomorrow.

I never said that China wants to start a war. I said that our blockade would justify Chinese blockades in the South China seas, and giving greater support to Russia.

 

[Killingworth]

What we don't know is how effective Russian sponsored activity can be if they really set their minds to taking out interconnectors for electricity, oil and gas pipelines and telecommunications systems. There seems to be far too much of that happening by chance but so far we're allowing a degree of doubt.

Back in 1983 we were staying in a rented cottage beside the sea just outside Bergen in Norway. We had use of a rowing boat and talked to the owner, a fisherman. Lots of tales he told but one sticks firmly in the mind. In that area there are deep fjords and leads where fresh cold glacial melt water meets warmer salty sea water. The two don't immediately mix creating layers some way out towards and into the open Atlantic. Fishermen know this and trawl for fish in the most likely spots.

Back then he spoke as if it were an an acknowledged fact that Russian submarines hid in those waters because electronic surveillance was thrown by the unseen barriers created between the layers. Of course if they could do it so could we we. Maybe modern technology has resolved that, but there are an awful lot of Norwegian fjords to hide in and to protect.

 

[edwin_m]

China has more chance of success in taking Taiwan if Russia attacks somebody in Europe at the same time, thus dividing the forces of the collective West. This is a good reason for the West to continue supporting Ukraine in keeping Russia tied up and deplete their forces so they can't mount a full-scale military operation anywhere else.

 

[Roast Veg]

China also needs Russia to remain a dictatorship that can bend to its will, because it doesn't want its citizens bordering Western democracies. This is why they prop up North Korea, despite it being an absolute basket case.

They'd be more than capable of keeping a land border with a democratic Korean Peninsula under control. Chinese support for North Korea is actually a vehicle for slave labour.

 

[Cloud Strife]

China has more chance of success in taking Taiwan if Russia attacks somebody in Europe at the same time, thus dividing the forces of the collective West. This is a good reason for the West to continue supporting Ukraine in keeping Russia tied up and deplete their forces so they can't mount a full-scale military operation anywhere else.

I still don't think China would risk attacking Taiwan. If they do, TSMC (the silicon chip manufacturers) would almost certainly have plans in place to destroy everything, and that would cause a huge amount of damage to the Chinese economy. I think I've read somewhere that TSMC already have plans to destroy the foundries so that they would be beyond Chinese use, so what would China gain? Xi is not Putin, he understands perfectly that they can wait another 100, 200 or more years to reunify Taiwan, and he doesn't need to take Taiwan to have his place in Chinese history.

There's also no guarantee that any attack will succeed, because although Taiwan has been doing a less-than-stellar job with defence, it's still very difficult to take an island if that island has all their defences aimed squarely at you.

There's also another issue: some analysts think that China might implode sooner rather than later, as they have some serious structural problems that they can't seem to address. They have lousy relations with most of their neighbours, there are some who might well help out Taiwan (Vietnam, India, Japan, South Korea), and there's also the US and their allies who might want to step in as well, like the Philippines. Then there's the naval issue: China is unbelievably vulnerable to naval blockade, and their navy has no hope in hell against any competent navy as it's simply not designed for anything more than coastal operations.

Then you've got the debt issue, which has been caused not by the government, but by cities and provinces taking out massive amounts of debt to pay for huge infrastructure projects, and while their high speed railways are well used, a lot of the other projects have been nothing short of a disaster. Then there's the looming demographic disaster: they have a huge population over 50 and nowhere near enough young people to pay for them.

The more likely scenario, IMO, is that a weakened and thoroughly humiliated Russia has another revolution, and China uses it as an excuse to annex Siberia.

 

[brad465]

There's also another issue: some analysts think that China might implode sooner rather than later, as they have some serious structural problems that they can't seem to address. They have lousy relations with most of their neighbours, there are some who might well help out Taiwan (Vietnam, India, Japan, South Korea), and there's also the US and their allies who might want to step in as well, like the Philippines. Then there's the naval issue: China is unbelievably vulnerable to naval blockade, and their navy has no hope in hell against any competent navy as it's simply not designed for anything more than coastal operations.

Worth remembering that the CCP part of Chinese history is relatively small, and that China has a long history of repeatedly breaking apart and reforming again, so an implosion in the near future would merely be a continuation of this cycle.

Then you've got the debt issue, which has been caused not by the government, but by cities and provinces taking out massive amounts of debt to pay for huge infrastructure projects, and while their high speed railways are well used, a lot of the other projects have been nothing short of a disaster. Then there's the looming demographic disaster: they have a huge population over 50 and nowhere near enough young people to pay for them.

This is something those who praise China's vast and rapid infrastructure construction fail to notice/be aware of, and if the big bust comes very soon, I think the arguments about "oh if this were China they'd have built [insert delayed overbudget project] by now and more" will evaporate.

The more likely scenario, IMO, is that a weakened and thoroughly humiliated Russia has another revolution, and China uses it as an excuse to annex Siberia.

While this wouldn't be a brilliant situation overall, that would be stellar poetic justice for Russia: Ukraine had a revolution which Russia used as an excuse to annex Crimea, then Russia has a revolution and loses Siberia the same way.

 

[DustyBin]

I still don't think China would risk attacking Taiwan. If they do, TSMC (the silicon chip manufacturers) would almost certainly have plans in place to destroy everything, and that would cause a huge amount of damage to the Chinese economy. I think I've read somewhere that TSMC already have plans to destroy the foundries so that they would be beyond Chinese use, so what would China gain? Xi is not Putin, he understands perfectly that they can wait another 100, 200 or more years to reunify Taiwan, and he doesn't need to take Taiwan to have his place in Chinese history.

There's also no guarantee that any attack will succeed, because although Taiwan has been doing a less-than-stellar job with defence, it's still very difficult to take an island if that island has all their defences aimed squarely at you.

There's also another issue: some analysts think that China might implode sooner rather than later, as they have some serious structural problems that they can't seem to address. They have lousy relations with most of their neighbours, there are some who might well help out Taiwan (Vietnam, India, Japan, South Korea), and there's also the US and their allies who might want to step in as well, like the Philippines. Then there's the naval issue: China is unbelievably vulnerable to naval blockade, and their navy has no hope in hell against any competent navy as it's simply not designed for anything more than coastal operations.

Then you've got the debt issue, which has been caused not by the government, but by cities and provinces taking out massive amounts of debt to pay for huge infrastructure projects, and while their high speed railways are well used, a lot of the other projects have been nothing short of a disaster. Then there's the looming demographic disaster: they have a huge population over 50 and nowhere near enough young people to pay for them.

The more likely scenario, IMO, is that a weakened and thoroughly humiliated Russia has another revolution, and China uses it as an excuse to annex Siberia.

I agree with you in regard to the issues China faces, they’re very real. My only slight concern is that they could also be the reason Xi does order an invasion.

 

[Annetts key]

An invasion by sea to an island like Taiwan would be very risky as the potential losses by the attacking force could be extremely high.

We have already seen in the past how destructive sea skimming missiles can be. And more recently how effective drone boats can be.

Exactly how many enemy landing craft /assault ships do you think would even get close to Taiwan without being sunk or badly damaged?

Yes, an enemy could make the coast of the island (as well as other parts of it) a living hell with a bombardment. But you can't sink an island.

Even if some enemy landing craft / assault ships make it to land, most of the coast is a difficult area for troops and machinery (tanks etc.) and so should be defendable. Especially now that FPV drones and grenade dropping drones are a thing. Unless the enemy can get a large number of troops ashore, any invasion is doomed to failure.

I'm not saying it's not possible. Just that I think it's not very likely. And if China did want to attack during the time of Trumps presidency, the clock is ticking. Meanwhile, most European countries are increasing their defence spending.

And you can bet that other countries around the world are watching carefully. If Russia, which had a massive amount of military equipment can't take Ukraine, why would they think they have any chance against an opponent who could do the same as Ukraine has done?

 

[edwin_m]

Just by threatening Taiwan, and other measures such as occupying and fortifying islands in the South China Sea, Xi is creating international tensions which he may consider suits his wider interests. One side-effect, which may or may not be part of his "plan", is diverting weapons that might otherwise have gone to Ukraine, as Hegseth did a few weeks go until apparently overruled by Trump. However, it's also part of the reason Europe is re-arming, due to the risk of having to deal with future Russian actions while the US is focusing on the Indo-Pacific. This might be seen as counter-productive from China's point of view, although they may consider they benefit from Europe diverting resources from other activities. But those activities might involve buying Chinese goods...

 

[RailWonderer]

And you can bet that other countries around the world are watching carefully. If Russia, which had a massive amount of military equipment can't take Ukraine, why would they think they have any chance against an opponent who could do the same as Ukraine has done?

If China was lining up a naval invasion of Taiwan, would NATO be sending weapons to Taiwan? It's not in the Western geographical sphere of influence, besides for the US and even then an entire ocean seperates them. The US might fight China alone in Taiwan while Europe has to tackle Russia alone in the far future. In the case of Russia, it's remaining an anti-western power for decades to come.

 

[Killingworth]

Older readers may recall Quemoy and Matsu islands. Now known as Kinmen they're under 6 miles off the coast of mainland China and 116 miles west of Formosa.

In the 1950's and 1960s they were an international flashpoint because the communists had failed to take the islands and still wanted to do so. They regularly lobbed shells across the narrow channel between the islands and the mainland. The islands remained under military rule for decades but peace was restored and there are now civilian ferries to Formosa.

In the US 1960 Presidential election debates Nixon and Kennedy clashed over defending the islands. Nixon's view prevailed, see

Now I think as far as Quemoy and Matsu are concerned, that the question is not these two little pieces of real estate—they are unimportant. It isn't the few people who live on them—they are not too important. It's the principle involved. These two islands are in the area of freedom. The Nationalists have these two islands. We should not force our Nationalist allies to get off of them and give them to the Communists. If we do that, we start a chain reaction, because the Communists aren't after Quemoy and Matsu, they're after Formosa. In my opinion, this is the same kind of woolly thinking that lead to disaster for America in Korea, I'm against it, I would never tolerate it as President of the United States, and I will hope that Senator Kennedy will change his mind if he should be elected.

We seem to have forgotten Kinmen. Xi won't have. He's pragmatic, or so we must hope. They want the wealth of Taiwan. Smashing the place up to get it would be counterproductive. Seduction is another matter.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Seduction is another matter.

And this was really the biggest mistake of all that Russia made in 2014. Yes, people got rid of a corrupt wannabe dictator, but Russia had a huge block vote in their hands, and history showed that Ukraine would elect a new Western-orientated president, experience huge regret and then they'd swing back to a pro-Russia candidate. They really didn't have to do anything, but seizing Crimea and parts of Luhansk/Donetsk effectively forced Ukraine to adopt Western reforms and to finally deal with their myriad of corruption issues.

I remember before 2014 (and especially before 2010) when it was absolutely normal for the traffic police to take bribes. You could just hand over $10 and the problem would be solved, and Maidan effectively caused the end of that. All of the things that Russia had in their favour only started to exist because of their actions in 2014, and tactically, they could have simply left Ukraine alone and waited for it to implode again under a new pro-Western president. Realistically, they could have had a new pro-Russian president in power by 2019, invade in the second half of the year (to avoid losing control for a second time) and Ukraine would be very much in the Russian sphere of orbit today with minimal losses.

The Ukrainian Army was in no position to fight in 2014, and it was a massive mistake on the part of Russia to give them 8 years to get up to speed.

 

[RailWonderer]

And this was really the biggest mistake of all that Russia made in 2014. Yes, people got rid of a corrupt wannabe dictator, but Russia had a huge block vote in their hands, and history showed that Ukraine would elect a new Western-orientated president, experience huge regret and then they'd swing back to a pro-Russia candidate. They really didn't have to do anything, but seizing Crimea and parts of Luhansk/Donetsk effectively forced Ukraine to adopt Western reforms and to finally deal with their myriad of corruption issues.

I remember before 2014 (and especially before 2010) when it was absolutely normal for the traffic police to take bribes. You could just hand over $10 and the problem would be solved, and Maidan effectively caused the end of that. All of the things that Russia had in their favour only started to exist because of their actions in 2014, and tactically, they could have simply left Ukraine alone and waited for it to implode again under a new pro-Western president. Realistically, they could have had a new pro-Russian president in power by 2019, invade in the second half of the year (to avoid losing control for a second time) and Ukraine would be very much in the Russian sphere of orbit today with minimal losses.

The Ukrainian Army was in no position to fight in 2014, and it was a massive mistake on the part of Russia to give them 8 years to get up to speed.

When countries in eastern Europe have turned to the west, they don't turn back. Even Orban in Hungary and Vucic in Serbia are appeasing Putin but aren't joining unions with Russia and conspiring against the collective west. Russia undoubtably thought Maidan was a precedent, and would lead to Ukraine joining the western fold, so they took Crimea and the Donbas to protect their sphere of influence and waited for the right timing to seize more before Ukraine would be absorbed into NATO. Putin was repeatedly failing to get Western promises that NATO would never expand further.

Looking back at history, Ukrainian sovereignty was always a political tool of the US and the UK, while Germany and neighbouring eastern European countries weren't involved in the Budapest memorandum of 1994 and clearly weren't concerned about the threat of Russia. Putin and the Russian establishment sees the US and the UK as the orchestrators of the axis against them and sees time as of the essence, which to be fair, Russia has always been deceived by the west, as there was never any trust both ways.

 

[edwin_m]

If China was lining up a naval invasion of Taiwan, would NATO be sending weapons to Taiwan? It's not in the Western geographical sphere of influence, besides for the US and even then an entire ocean seperates them. The US might fight China alone in Taiwan while Europe has to tackle Russia alone in the far future. In the case of Russia, it's remaining an anti-western power for decades to come.

Probably not under the auspices of NATO, though the Afghanistan campaign in 2001 onwards was. But Japan, South Korea, Australia and others might intervene as well as the US.

The chip factories mentioned above give the US a motivation to intervene in Taiwan. The Biden administration wanted to get TSMC to manufacture in the US to secure their supply chain, and at least one factory has been started, but I guess the Taiwanese are a little reluctant to throw away a card that might buy more US support in the event of attack.

 

[Cloud Strife]

When countries in eastern Europe have turned to the west, they don't turn back. Even Orban in Hungary and Vucic in Serbia are appeasing Putin but aren't joining unions with Russia

I'd argue otherwise: Ukraine went very much 'back' after the 2010 Presidential election there, and places like Kharkiv went very heavily towards Yanukovych. The result was quite decisive, even though Yanukovych was clearly the choice of Russia and heavily promoted by the Russian authorities.

The same story has repeated itself in Georgia now, and Orban has very much moved into the Russian sphere of influence. Serbia is a strange situation, but that's more because they've seen the value in allying themselves with China more than Russia for whatever reason. I also wouldn't ignore Slovakia, who lurched very hard towards Russia after the last elections, as well as the very pro-Russia Radev in Bulgaria. I wouldn't even rule out looking at Poland, where we just elected a new President who will be working very much in Putin's favour.

There's even the problem of Germany, where the BSW only needed 13,435 votes to get into the Bundestag and with it, forcing a very unstable CDU-SPD-Greens coalition that would have ended in tears. The AfD are very much in the Russian orbit, and with them becoming so dominant in East Germany, I'd say that they've very much returned to the East.

The Biden administration wanted to get TSMC to manufacture in the US to secure their supply chain, and at least one factory has been started, but I guess the Taiwanese are a little reluctant to throw away a card that might buy more US support in the event of attack.

I think realistically, if there is an attack, then TSMC are much more likely to simply blow up their foundries than to rely on US support. The odds of them remaining intact during any war isn't likely anyway, especially as China are unlikely to be stupid enough to believe that Taiwan will just surrender within days.

 

[DustyBin]

Serbia is a strange situation, but that's more because they've seen the value in allying themselves with China more than Russia for whatever reason.

Politically, Vucic has to balance aligning Serbia with the EU/Europe and "someone else" who isn't totally toxic to the former. With the Chinese offering investment and Russia being a pariah state, it makes sense to pivot towards China even though Russia is a more natural (and historic) ally.

Apologies as this is probably off topic, but Serbia is an interesting country!

 

[RailWonderer]

I'd argue otherwise: Ukraine went very much 'back' after the 2010 Presidential election there, and places like Kharkiv went very heavily towards Yanukovych. The result was quite decisive, even though Yanukovych was clearly the choice of Russia and heavily promoted by the Russian authorities.

Ukraine is a divided nation, and Yanukovich is from the Orthodox Russian speaking east which voted for him as opposed to the Catholic Ukrainian speaking west. The east has more trade ties to Russia and the west has more trade ties to central and western Europe.

This is a good article that mentions the Kosovo precedent but also Russia taking advantage of these divides and links to a book on the topic.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/kosovo-precedent-still-haunting-nato#

Those differences were creating serious tensions for years. It is no coincidence that the two regions were the bastion of political support for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russia president elected in 2010. Eastern Ukrainians deeply resented the pro-Western demonstrators in Kyiv who illegally overthrew his government—with more than a little support from the United States and several European Union governments. The ongoing rebellion in Donetsk and Luhansk soon followed.

 

[Cloud Strife]

This is a good article that mentions the Kosovo precedent but also Russia taking advantage of these divides and links to a book on the topic.

Kosovo is and was a massive problem in terms of international law. It was absolutely wrong to allow them to declare independence, and it should have been made clear to the Kosovan authorities from the beginning that the goal was to restore the pre-March 1989 state of affairs where Kosovo had substantial autonomy, but was an integral part of the Socialist Republic of Serbia. By doing this, they legitimised independence by force, and created a very problematic legal situation in Crimea where a similarly autonomous republic unilaterally declared independence.

Eastern Ukrainians deeply resented the pro-Western demonstrators in Kyiv who illegally overthrew his government—with more than a little support from the United States and several European Union governments. The ongoing rebellion in Donetsk and Luhansk soon followed.

I wouldn't say this is true. The LPR / DPR militants who took over were taking advantage of the fact that Ukraine was in deep financial and political trouble, and it didn't take many of them to seize power there. What data we have shows that people in those oblasts didn't agree with pro-Russian militants seizing power, and that a general majority didn't recognise Yanukovych as the rightful leader, but they also didn't agree with the new government having legitimacy either. The problem was that the security forces in Donetsk/Luhansk were in a mess, and Ukraine had no effective way of enforcing the law there. If the country hadn't been robbed blind for the past four years, they probably would have quickly dealt with the Donetsk/Luhansk issue, as Russia only had a few hundred people on the ground at the most in April 2014.

As for the overthrow of the Yanukovych government, well, Yanukovych signed a deal to end the protests with the opposition, but he chose to flee rather than implementing the deal. There was also a clear supermajority for removing him, including votes from his own Party of Regions. Essentially, he abdicated, and the only way out was for the Ukrainian Parliament to deal with it themselves.

 

[Annetts key]

Ukraine is a divided nation, and Yanukovich is from the Orthodox Russian speaking east which voted for him as opposed to the Catholic Ukrainian speaking west. The east has more trade ties to Russia and the west has more trade ties to central and western Europe.

This is a good article that mentions the Kosovo precedent but also Russia taking advantage of these divides and links to a book on the topic.

That may have been the case in the past, but the vast majority of Ukrainians, including Russian speaking ones, are now very much against Russia after seeing what the Russians are capable of.

And there can't be many "fighting age" Ukrainian men left in the occupied territory. Do you think their families that have been left without a father/husband will appreciate Russia now? Heck, in much of the occupied Donetsk and Luhansk areas, they don't even have a reliable drinking water supply.

Putin and the Russia government (and state) have now clearly demonstrated that they don't care one bit about human lives regardless of nationality or what language they speak. Putin only cares about himself and his own power.