Oddbean

These maps show that, according to your theory, Russia is trying to steal coal and metals, but not natural gas or oil. Interesting. Can you explain why are they fighting down near the lower Dnipro river where there are no resources? I keep your theory in a superposition of possibilities, but it's not a strong one in my book. Russia has MASSIVE mineral resources that are untapped... the limiting factor is people and infrastructure, not underground resources. There is no logic to getting more resources when they can't harvest all the resources they already have. OTOH if these resource dots already have infrastructure pulling out resource that would be different but I don't tihnk WaPo used such dots. I think Russia wants to maintain it's Naval presence at Sevastopol and to never be cut off from it (via Kerch bridge attacks) and so they wanted a "land bridge" all along the north from Rostov-on-Don across and right down E105 to always have access to their critical naval port. I don't think they want to capture any more of Ukraine but are taking it because it strengthens their negotiating position. None of this means Ukraine shouldn't be fighting them back. If I were Ukraine I'd be doing everything I could to fight them back. But I'd also prioritize what matters most and understand what matters most to my enemy so that some kind of settlement could be made, and try to move the situation towards a peace. You also argue that "killing people is a part of self-defense." Turn that around. Perhaps (another theory) Russia killed people in Eastern Ukraine for self defense. We have even NY Times articles that the US was installing military right along the Russian border including CIA bases. I think this possibility is strong. I wouldn't be wed to just one explanation too tightly, and most things are decided based on multiple reasons.

Huh? Russia tried very hard to seize the areas on that map with oil and natural gas. They got pushed back to the border fortunately. But the plan was certainly to seize it all (Kyiv too). It's obvious why Russia would fight for the coast: access to the sea. Also not on those particular maps is the vast areas of prime farmland. Again, lots of it in areas they tried to occupy. Re: access to the sea, that was one obvious reason to take Crimea. But that unexpectedly backfired on Russia as Ukraine has developed their anti-shipping capabilities to the point where the Russian Navy has mostly been pushed out of the Black Sea entirely. Of course, that outcome doesn't change the fact that they obviously wanted to seize all those areas.

Re: Eastern Ukraine, Russia's claims of self defense are obviously bullshit. If they were remotely true, they wouldn't be taking troops away from NATO borders to fight in Ukraine You can no more arbitrarily claim you're concerned about an invasion than I can shoot you for arbitrarily claiming you are a threat to me.

Which NATO borders has Russia weakened? How is it hard to grasp that encircling a country with members of a hostile military alliance will be seen as a critical threat? Key reason for the conflict was the real prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, which was a stated red line for Russia.

Yeah, facts and logic allow people to be very certain. You're just looking for excuses to be contrarian. The world is often pretty simple snd straightforward, and people and nations often do things for obvious reasons (including evil reasons). Russian culture is just evil. Russia got to the size it is today through relentless invasions and subjugation. Which is not too uncommon in prior history... Except Russia continues to do this to this day, long after we decides it's unacceptable to invade sovereign countries to take their stuff.

That area of Ukraine is full of Russians. It used to be part of Russia. Odessa and Kharkov, and the rest, were created by Russia. Those people were getting shelled daily by Ukraine Bandera Azov nazis. The Bandera nazis wanted the donbass resources.