>>63838928 (OP)> Was the 8 years of sanction proofing their economyIts not some sophisticated "sanction proofing", its the fact that the world loves them some cheap oil and gas and china is supplying 95% of consumer goods - the budget dont go empty, and average person dont really have to adjust their consumer behaviour. Long term sanctions might have killed some fancy stuff like domestic passenger jets and armatas and the like, or cut off long-term growth of prosperity, but short-term - they didnt do much to putin's beloved "stability".
> Would they have taken kyiv/kiev if they had gone in at 2014?Absolutely. Ukrainian army has been in steady decline all those years after fall of ussr up to 2014 because "who are we even gonna fight, nato? first - why, second - they'll stomp us. russia? again - why, and its not gonna end well too".
Someone mentioned georgia - georgia prepared for a fight of some kind, ukraine did the opposite, steadily decomissioning and neglecting stuff and happily letting ammo stockpiles burn every summer - treating it like a seasonal natural phenomenon.
> If they could surely hard hitting sanctions but a pacified Ukraine would be a lesser headache than what they have now no?If executed immediately after/during crimea, it probably would not even look like a war, something more akin to "csto" operation in kazakhstan in january of 2022 - roll in amid confusion, kick in the face few who resist, declare martial law, install yanukovich-mkII, make sure he has sufficiently supplied and loyal law enforcement(imported if needed), leave in a month or two.
Sanctions for that wouldnt even be that hard.