Russia kept Crimea, but lost almost all of Crimea's value as tourism plummeted, their rice crop failed, and they have to sink billions into infrastructure because Crimea was dependent on mainland Ukraine's water and utilities.
That may be true, but the invasion of Crimea (née Ukraine) had absolutely nothing to do with acquiring a valuable piece of real estate. The Kremlin paid out under $10 billion USD to reintegrate Crimea - that's chump change, which will have likely paid for itself in a year's time if we're analyzing things from strictly from an economic perspective. That being said, it wasn't a financially motivated invasion, so it's impossible to put a figure on the value of the conquest from Russia's perspective. What is known, however, is that Russia won ... in a very short time, with very little by the way of military investment (they basically sent special forces units in).
Russia's interests may have "broken" the recession, but we're talking about a country with a GDP of 2.2 trillion before the invasion, a GDP of 2 the year of and a GDP of 1.3 the year after. Losing over a trillion dollars is a big ****ing deal. More importantly is the value of the ruble which had been hovering in the 30 cents per USD range, has since dropped to as low as 12 cents and hasn't seen 20 cents since November 2014. I'd say the massive impact on it's economy has been huge.
You are looking at the economic impact of international sanctions against Russia in a vacuum and significantly overstating their impact. What I think you need to focus on is the recovery in spite of those sanctions. Also, don't forget that the weaker a country's currency is against the dollar (or euro, or pound), the better it tends to be for that country. Influx of capital via tourism, export, etc. This is especially true for large countries - it's like buying low on an investment. Everybody knows that Russia has a sound infrastructure and capable economy.
Also Russia tried to advance further into the Ukraine, and failed. Ukraine held onto most of it's other assets. Including some other pro-Russian territories.
Not really. Russia is big on bluster, but they weren't seriously entertaining going past Crimea.
Russia hasn't done much in the middle east. They're still pretty much where they were a few years ago. Syria was their puppet but they're weakened. Which is why Russia is getting more directly involved. Me Personally, I hope they get directly involved. Because **** the Middle East. It's the worst. ANd trying to control it without massive genocide is impossible. And Russia is sneaky but in the era of the internet getting away with the horrors of that is almost impossible.
Russia can be better positioned for future growth in the Middle East. Middle East is a failing region. It's only asset is oil. Which oil consumption in the US has been falling, and with the proper handling by our government we could easily become energy sufficient and have ourselves and Canada both be major exporters of oil. Which if we are, the middle east's influence is almost non-existent in the Western World. Russia and CHina can have the middle east as far as I'm concerned.
Without 'massive' genocide? What exactly do you think has been going on in Syria the past several years?
I see what you are saying about the Middle East being a failing region. I don't entirely agree with you, because the United States isn't doing nearly enough to be energy independent in the way that you describe. I see the country needing access to cheap oil for a long, long time.
