I don't think Russia is willing or able to occupy Ukraine. They most likely want to "poison" the region and make the country undesirable in NATO.
No superpower wants the enemy right at their border. The US didn't appreciate Russian missiles being put on Cuban land 60 years ago, Russia certainly doesn't want NATO forces and weaponry being put on Ukrainian land now.
It doesn't take a strategist to see that all superpowers want a buffer and if you take away that buffer spark will fly - whether a blockade or a full out war. I'm certain Europe (EU) saw this outcome the moment Ukraine was considered for joining any Western alliance or union. But different continents have different interests.
Former Warsaw Pact members, and former 'provinces' of the Soviet Union, want to get on with their lives. Russia is making it harder for them than the other way around IMHO.
Western governments made a good faith effort to support Russia (e.g., G8), and it was only after Putin got into power and started heading in his own direction that things started to sour.
Everyone who was abused by a superpower is nervous and would like the same help. What's the point in making that list to support your point if you're not going to paint the other half of the picture which is making the opposite point?
Cuba would have loved to not be cut off from the world for more than half a century for doing what the Ukraine was just enticed to do. Palestine could use some help in what has to be one of the most unbalanced displays of power in a conflict in recent memory. The Middle East or Western Asia would have looked decidedly different without the "explosive support system" they received over the decades. And the South China Sea countries could use a hand settling their territorial disputes.
If you can't see how Russia would like the West to stay away from their borders (Ukraine) just as much as the US wanted Russia to stay away from their borders (Cuba) then maybe it's a good moment to take a step back and look at this without thinking of the names. If you care more about allegiance then you can't care about objectivity or history.
Cuba became the enemy of the US the moment they showed any allegiance to Russia. Was there a doubt in anyone's mind that the exact same thing would happen again when the tables are turned? If you're not educated by mass-media then the outcome was obvious. And you are free to wonder why would anyone approach a an enemy superpower's neighbor for an alliance, knowing full well that probably without exception in the history of mankind this lead to war.
I am fairly certain the EU could live with Ukraine as a buffer zone if that means no conflict in Europe and not crippling them. There are forces far enough from Europe who have no such concern about poking a hornets' nest and sacrificing/destroying Ukraine in the process.
There's no NATO forces on Ukrainian land. But there are Russian ones. And they have already occupied large parts of Ukraine - and trying right now, right this very moment, to take more. So you can "think" whatever you want, but the facts are completely opposite to your claims.
No superpower wants the enemy right at their border. The US didn't appreciate Russian missiles being put on Cuban land 60 years ago, Russia certainly doesn't want NATO forces and weaponry being put on Ukrainian land now.
It doesn't take a strategist to see that all superpowers want a buffer and if you take away that buffer spark will fly - whether a blockade or a full out war. I'm certain Europe (EU) saw this outcome the moment Ukraine was considered for joining any Western alliance or union. But different continents have different interests.