Russia has failed to occupy less than 20 per cent of Ukraine (including Crimea,

Isn't it the access to the Black Sea what this conflict is really all about ?

Hey Indyvidual,
Your cluey mate, you might be one of the only ones I've seen that actually gets it.
- Gets why Putin instantly moved on Crimea after the coup.
- Understands Russian national security interests in the Black Sea
- Understands the Wests objectives and why they went nuts over it.

So...
- like was the objective of the west for Ukraine to oust Russia from their naval base in Sevastopol in Crimea and to make it a NATO naval base as part of the objectives of their western sponsored coup?
To confine Russia into the Sea of Azov and deprive them access to the Black Sea?

Hmmmmm....
- Good job, smart cookie.

Hi AC,

Ukraine needs Crimea to be able to export goods and be a functional economy. Russia can use the Black Sea without Crimea. Russia is already breaking its agreement to allow Ukraine to export wheat. Peace based on Russia allowing Ukraine's ports to function would be unlikely to hold given Russia's history of violating agreements.

Some of the posters on this thread really ought to take a better look at the map! Neither Russia nor Ukraine needs Crimea for access to the Black Sea.
And if Ukraine had joined NATO, the Sevastopol base would've remained a Russian naval base, not a NATO one. Ukraine had a contract with Russia, and joining NATO would not have been a reason to breach that contract.

Putin has a Voldemort mentality: he sees no right or wrong; only power and those too weak to use it. And that's the only thing the wars he started have ever been about.

Hi Aidan,

Ukraine needs Russian cooperation to export its grain via the Black Sea, and it is an uncertain cooperation whilst Russia illegally occupies Crimea.

I wonder what the US would say if China or Russia did a deal with Texas or Alabama to anchor or even base a fleet in the Gulf of Mexico ?