Ukraine has long been on the menu, at least since the day of the color revolution. Perhaps even earlier, starting from when Clinton coaxed Ukraine into giving up its nuclear weapons.

Now, I don't really believe in Putin's reasoning about "NATO's eastward expansion." NATO has long expanded eastward to the Baltic states, and you Russians didn't make a peep. This time, with the invasion of Ukraine, Finland has joined NATO; why don't you go attack Finland?

To put it more bluntly, the Russians, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, foolishly gave Crimea to Ukraine, even though Crimea was a port that Russia fought for over generations of tsars. Just look at the map; Russia is a huge country with three sides facing the sea, but the Arctic Ocean was not navigable, the Baltic Sea is under the watch of NATO countries, and any fleet trying to pass through there during wartime would be bombed in an instant. To the east, there is the Sea of Japan, and during the Soviet era, there was always a desire to take Port Arthur—actually sold to the Soviets by Chang Shenkai, but the Russians insisted on taking it back, which was also one of the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split that led to the annexation of millions and even the threat of nuclear war.

In short, the Russians have a pathological demand for access to the sea.

From Ukraine's perspective, at least Ukraine's own attitude has pushed the war's progress. But even if Ukraine were very honest, could it avoid being invaded? No one knows, but I tend to think it cannot.

In this situation, sacrificing a generation of young people, if it can establish a boundary, could be considered a war of nation-building.

The current question is, will Russia continue to invade westward in the future?

At least the Ukrainians have proven their bravery…

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。