A few items of importance — in order of importance:
1) Ukraine has no oil. Every once in a while someone claims they do. They don’t. Here is the bible of energy for 70 years of tracking. It shows 0 reserves for Ukraine:
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review (scroll down to download the spreadsheet (not the .pdf)) UNDERSTAND THIS. Ukraine has no oil.
2) Ukraine’s natgas reserves are 1.1 Trillion Cubic Meters. This is essentially nothing. It represents 0.6% of the world’s total. Russia’s natgas reserves are 37.4 Trillion Cubic Meters. Russia has no need for these.
3) The attack on Ukraine had nothing to do with oil or gas.
4) Russia’s planted hectares are more than double that in Ukraine, and there are vast expanses of land presently not planted that can be should there be a need. In contrast, 3/4 of Ukraine farmland is planted yearly. Farmland had nothing to do with the attack.
So proceed with whatever theories based on these indisputable facts.
To me, it’s always been obvious Russia wanted annexed land to the sea.
It is not obvious that Russia wanted the rest of Ukraine, which doesn’t have much going for it, of which I agree, with you.
I am on your side.
Man to think that the Ukraine could have set a trap for Putin before the attack. A longer drawn out conflict just may have given Vlad the time to think twice about what he’s gotten into. His back against the wall 2 years later just may have forced him to read the tea leaves. More escalation and the rest of Europe comes around to it’s common interests instead of their individual ones.
Vlad doesn’t have too many friends. Is Belarus gonna have his back?
So proceed with whatever theories based on these indisputable facts.
**************
Good post.
Russia didn’t invade Ukraine over natural resources or economics.They invaded because they don’t want a hostile western puppet on their border from a country with a pro Russian history.