[Goose]

Russia has not continuously attacked Georgia since taking control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

True, but consider Georgia 2008 (small), Ukraine I 2014 (medium), Ukraine II 2022. Russia can take all of Georgia it wants anytime it wants. The Georgians know it, NATO knows it, and Russia knows it.

It’s not clear to me that Russia will keep attacking until it takes most/all of Ukraine.

Me either, but if you look at this whole war for a "rational" explanation, I doubt you find one. So far, Russia has been unwilling to just stop. From that, I would conclude they won't stop until there are internal reasons that compel them to stop.

Would that make Russia more defensible against NATO?

In a "classical" military sense, absolutely. There is the military geographic argument that the path from Europe to Russia starts in the narrow Fulda Gap and gets wider the farther east one goes. Defending a wider boundary is obviously more difficult than a narrower one. Having to defend Belarus and Russia with a NATO aligned nation to the south also would be a nightmare. The western border of Ukraine is much shorter, is further west so it is in a narrower part of the "geographic path" and has the advantage that it sits on the flank of any NATO advance toward Moscow. Is this worth a war like exists now? Not in my opinion, but there are definitely advantages. Poland would be better. Maybe that is why they are worried.

Would it help Russia’s economy?  Other than a notch in someone’s belt, what does it do for Russia?

If the invasion had been met with flowers, one can make an argument that Ukraine and Belarus are both "better together" within the Russian Federation. Obviously that didn't happen, and after 2014 was certainly not going to happen. The "why" of all this is just unknowable, just like the "why" of WW I is unknowable. A major miscalculation probably.

Given the enormous losses Russia has suffered to date, I assume Russia would be content to have another frozen conflict. Ukraine obviously is not okay with giving up 20% of its territory. But is there a smaller percentage, along with NATO membership and significant long-term military aid to deter future attacks, where Ukraine is willing to compromise? With the casualties Russia has suffered, and the additional deterrents right on its border, would Russia consider the invasion enough of a success to warrant a repeat event in the near future?

IMO it is difficult to envision Russia will be content with a frozen conflict exactly because of the enormous losses Russia has suffered to date. The leadership is going to have to justify its actions, maybe not immediately, but relatively soon. They had a frozen conflict. Spending all that blood and treasure without tangible result is going to be a real problem. Similarly, politically and economically Ukraine absolutely can't justify giving up part of their country to "freeze" a conflict that can "thaw" at Russia's discretion. I would attempt to answer your question "would Russia consider the invasion enough of a success to warrant a repeat event in the near future?" when you can answer the question of why they considered the original invasion warranted. I really don't know, but it doesn't much matter. Nobody is going to invest in Ukraine if it is in the midst of a "frozen" conflict. Ukraine has lots of other problems. Adding a potential invasion at Russia's discretion is pretty much a deal-breaker. The collapse of oil exploitation in Ukraine after 2014 basically demonstrates that. Would Russia allow a truncated Ukraine with which it has a "frozen" war join NATO? Would NATO accept Ukraine in such a situation. I suspect the answers are Hell No and Probably Not.

[Goose]

Russia has not continuously attacked Georgia since taking control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

True, but consider Georgia 2008 (small), Ukraine I 2014 (medium), Ukraine II 2022. Russia can take all of Georgia it wants anytime it wants. The Georgians know it, NATO knows it, and Russia knows it.

It’s not clear to me that Russia will keep attacking until it takes most/all of Ukraine.

Me either, but if you look at this whole war for a "rational" explanation, I doubt you find one. So far, Russia has been unwilling to just stop. From that, I would conclude they won't stop until there are internal reasons that compel them to stop.

Would that make Russia more defensible against NATO?

In a "classical" military sense, absolutely. There is the military geographic argument that the path from Europe to Russia starts in the narrow Fulda Gap and gets wider the farther east one goes. Defending a wider boundary is obviously more difficult than a narrower one. Having to defend Belarus and Russia with a NATO aligned nation to the south also would be a nightmare. The western border of Ukraine is much shorter, is further west so it is in a narrower part of the "geographic path" and has the advantage that it sits on the flank of any NATO advance toward Moscow. Is this worth a war like exists now? Not in my opinion, but there are definitely advantages. Poland would be better. Maybe that is why they are worried.

Would it help Russia’s economy?  Other than a notch in someone’s belt, what does it do for Russia?

If the invasion had been met with flowers, one can make an argument that Ukraine and Belarus are both "better together" within the Russian Federation. Obviously that didn't happen, and after 2014 was certainly not going to happen. The "why" of all this is just unknowable, just like the "why" of WW I is unknowable. A major miscalculation probably.

Given the enormous losses Russia has suffered to date, I assume Russia would be content to have another frozen conflict. Ukraine obviously is not okay with giving up 20% of its territory. But is there a smaller percentage, along with NATO membership and significant long-term military aid to deter future attacks, where Ukraine is willing to compromise? With the casualties Russia has suffered, and the additional deterrents right on its border, would Russia consider the invasion enough of a success to warrant a repeat event in the near future?

IMO it is difficult to envision Russia will be content with a frozen conflict exactly because of the enormous losses Russia has suffered to date. The leadership is going to have to justify its actions, maybe not immediately, but relatively soon. They had a frozen conflict. Spending all that blood and treasure without tangible result is going to be a real problem. Similarly, politically and economically Ukraine absolutely can't justify giving up part of their country to "freeze" a conflict that can "thaw" at Russia's discretion. I would attempt to answer your question "would Russia consider the invasion enough of a success to warrant a repeat event in the near future?" when you can answer the question of why they considered the original invasion warranted. I really don't know, but it doesn't much matter. Nobody is going to invest in Ukraine if it is in the midst of a "frozen" conflict. Ukraine has lots of other problems. Adding a potential invasion at Russia's discretion is pretty much a deal-breaker. The collapse of oil exploitation in Ukraine after 2014 basically demonstrates that. Would Russia allow a truncated Ukraine with which it has a "frozen" war join NATO? Would NATO accept Ukraine in such a situation. I suspect the answers are Hell No and Probably Not.