So Russia is worried about Ukraine because of some maps? Worried enough to wage war on Ukraine? I've got a map, too.
This analysis is incomplete even on a geographic level:
On the surface, very little of this makes sense. Geopolitics, however, can light our way – and can also help zero in on exactly how and why this should matter to global investors as well.
Here's the major map that supposedly explains Russian obsession with Ukraine:
So because so much of Russia's population is in the west, Russia naturally should want to control Ukraine to protect its people?
Objections only start with whether Ukrainians get a say in naturally enduring the Russian whip.
Where, I want to know, are the limits of that "natural" Russian urge?
[We're] to believe that Ukraine must be deferential to Russia. So what about Latvia? Lithuania? Estonia? Belarus?
What about Poland?
Is Sweden naturally expected to defer? Is Finland supposed to know their place?
And who believes that Russia thinks that even owning all of Ukraine would provide enough security on their western border when the Red Army sitting in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary wasn't sufficiently to the west for Russia to believe that their successful defense could rest on something less ambitious than a lunge to the Rhine River?
Face it, if Russia got Ukraine, suddenly having a deferential Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland would be something that Russia would naturally (as any great power would!) expect.
That's the way it works. If Russia gets a buffer that protects their territory, before long that buffer is their territory that itself needs a buffer to protect it.
Lather, rinse, repeat, and pretty soon Russia is worrying about Britain across the English Channel and figuring that Hadrian's Wall would be a nice buffer line.
There's another map of the flat terrain leading from the English Channel to Moscow. Which should mean Russia naturally wants to own Belarus, Poland, Germany, and France, among others.
I say there is another map that should turn Russia away from fearing and threatening NATO, which had no interest in Russia until Putin started issuing threats:
That's a map of territory owned by Russia today, taken from China in the 19th century. When China speaks of the "Century of Humiliation," this is the major territorial loss from those days.
Which explains the knee pads on Putin and his minions when it comes to dealing with China.
If Russia keeps needlessly turning NATO into an enemy, Russia's military will be too busy in the west to keep China from taking over either subliminally or overtly.
And taking Ukraine based on Russia's old maps certainly sets a precedent for China, doesn't it?
Who knows how much time Russia has to end their pointless hostility to NATO and Ukraine?
There's a lot of interesting geopolitical discussion in the article. But justifying Western acquiescence to Russian dominance of Ukraine isn't persuasive to me.
UPDATE: Stop. Don't. Come back:
Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Dmytro Kuleba that Beijing "deeply regrets that conflict has broken out between Ukraine and Russia, and is paying extreme attention to the harm suffered by civilians[.]"
Why do I feel China approves of Ukraine savaging Russia's military?
