An important thing to keep in mind is that Putin is an excellent tactician but a lousy strategist. That's why he often tries to substitute tactics for strategy, and his tactical victories don't get him what he really wants.
Until 2014, it was easy for Putin to meddle in Ukrainian politics because Ukrainian public opinion was divided about…
An important thing to keep in mind is that Putin is an excellent tactician but a lousy strategist. That's why he often tries to substitute tactics for strategy, and his tactical victories don't get him what he really wants.
Until 2014, it was easy for Putin to meddle in Ukrainian politics because Ukrainian public opinion was divided about evenly between pro-Western and pro-Russian. Putin often took advantage of this fact to keep Ukraine off balance and unstable. But, with his 2014 invasions, he peeled off the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine - Crimea and the Donbas. More important, people's opinions shifted in a westward direction: formerly pro-Russian people became ambivalent, and ambivalent people became anti-Russian. Thus, Putin entirely lost his leverage within Ukrainian politics.
If Putin invades Ukraine on a large scale, attempting a military occupation of the whole country, I think NATO should launch a preemptive counter-invasion of western Ukraine. The eight western oblasts of Ukraine were NEVER under Russian domination before Stalin conquered them during WW2. They had been under Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary for centuries before that. They are culturally Western and anti-Russian. Supporting a democratic Ukrainian rump state and promptly admitting it to NATO would deal Putin the worst defeat imaginable.
An alternative strategy would be to create a NATO-supported underground resistance in western Ukraine. It would be supported by the whole populace of the region and could make holding the region more trouble for Putin that it's worth.
An important thing to keep in mind is that Putin is an excellent tactician but a lousy strategist. That's why he often tries to substitute tactics for strategy, and his tactical victories don't get him what he really wants.
Until 2014, it was easy for Putin to meddle in Ukrainian politics because Ukrainian public opinion was divided about evenly between pro-Western and pro-Russian. Putin often took advantage of this fact to keep Ukraine off balance and unstable. But, with his 2014 invasions, he peeled off the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine - Crimea and the Donbas. More important, people's opinions shifted in a westward direction: formerly pro-Russian people became ambivalent, and ambivalent people became anti-Russian. Thus, Putin entirely lost his leverage within Ukrainian politics.
If Putin invades Ukraine on a large scale, attempting a military occupation of the whole country, I think NATO should launch a preemptive counter-invasion of western Ukraine. The eight western oblasts of Ukraine were NEVER under Russian domination before Stalin conquered them during WW2. They had been under Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary for centuries before that. They are culturally Western and anti-Russian. Supporting a democratic Ukrainian rump state and promptly admitting it to NATO would deal Putin the worst defeat imaginable.
An alternative strategy would be to create a NATO-supported underground resistance in western Ukraine. It would be supported by the whole populace of the region and could make holding the region more trouble for Putin that it's worth.