Russia/Ukraine tensions - Any concern?

I as the Ukrainian myself, currently living in Ukraine, see the biggest problem in quite that that before the 2014 events Western Ukraine, Eastern/Southern Ukraine and moderate (that is, the most sane) Central Ukraine somehow managed to keep the balance. Even when/if the political power shifted the leverages left and right, the media, the ordinary people, the popular showmen, the sportsmen managed to repair the machine. It was Euromaidan that broke the balancing mechanics, not going to discuss here who's wrong and who's right. Just giving a fact. 

You may easily notice that if there are people in the USA or the UK or elsewhere in the world who consider themselves Ukrainians, Ukrainian diaspora abroad, I give 95% chance they or their ancestors came from one out of five westernmost Ukrainian provinces: Lviv (Lvov), Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk (aka Stanislav), Volyn, Bukovyna (Chernivtsi) ones. These 5 borderland provinces. There are 24 provinces in current Ukraine, then... 

Take Candice Night - a Jewish woman, her granma was from Odessa, she has never heard any words about Ukraine from her granma. Odessa is the south of Ukraine. Candice's granma considered herself Russian.

Take Walter Pallance - yes, his forefathers came to the USA from those now-westernmost Ukrainian border provinces: his father from Ternopil province, his mother was from Lviv. He's a handsome and brave guy. I have no problem with him or his identification. He considered himself Ukrainian. But I also have no problem with Candice Night and her identification as A Russian Jew from Odessa, Ukraine... 

The biggest problem of the modern Ukraine is to me that the views of the inhabitants of 5 provinces are somehow considered more right, more accurate, more patriotic than the views of the rest of the population. Why? Because the rest of Ukraine kinda used to be Russified for centuries. Ehm, and those 5 provinces in return kinda were Polonised and Romania-ised and Hungarised for centuries - why is it better in terms of looking for a clear Ukrainian identity? If we're building a truly Ukrainian Ukraine, let's then amalgamate, calculate the average number, take from both sources or simply create something new. Instead, only the will, the traditions, the language of the western regions are considered tru-style nowadays. Are you going to tell me that the Polish rule over western Ukrainians was less de-Ukrainising than the Russian rule over the eastern part of Ukraine? Both Russia and Poland made their best to incorporate Ukrainians in their empires without a trace. Why should Polish influences be more preferable than Russian, in this respect?

You are always very meaningful and very laconic. Two treasures I don't have in my purse. 

Once caught, any big enough country won't let the territories out in times of war - even if the war is titled Cold. The territories were caught at the time it was possible to act so. Sure, the owner at the time of Communism vs Capitalism worldwide contest won't let the territories go away. Look at Vietnam, North Korea or Cuba - the USA let them go only after much blood shed. Much more blood than in Budapest or Prague uprisings...

You may also look at how the times changed: Budapest 1956 was extremely terrible with lots of blood, tortures of the Communists (they say, the protesters scarred the five-angled star on the bodies of the Communists), killings on both sides; Prague 1968 was also terrible but way less so than Budapest events; martial law in Poland was simply different for the Polish elite solved the situation without the invasion of Soviet troops... Though it was still the same Brezhnev in office in the USSR in 1968 and 1981, these three times of tension were different. 

The January 1991 events just ended unsuccesfully for the Soviet power - unlike the previous mentioned here attempts. So, indeed, there must be some difference... After all, the country protected its integrity. The means used in Budapest or Prague were impossible to apply in January 1991. The protesters won. What's the use of being scared then? Were there any threats after 1991? Just the ghosts from the past. 

It's simply inertia, to me. The modern world is very different from those times. It's thirty years now since 1991. Living in the past may be favourable for the people of art, not for the whole population of the country. What can this occupation look like? How this invasion is possible? I can understand how invasion is possible in the Crimea that had been Russian for centuries, then it was illegally even by the Soviet law of the time "gifted" (kinda like gifting a child to another family by a husband, not asking the will of the child or the mother) to Ukraine with all its population that never lost its links to Russia anyway, then 60 years after it came back with the overwhelming majority of its population visibly (even without any referendums) wanting to go back to Russia. I can understand how invasion was possible in Afghanistan... Three Baltic countries were needed by the USSR because at the time a lot of European countries had pro-nazi, pro-fascist views/power. The USSR understood that the pro-nazi governments right near Leningrad would be too dangerous for national security. National security is a magical word combination that makes miracles come true... 

Nowadays there are missiles and bombs (and even lasers they say)! What's the use of occupying the country where the overwhelming majority of the population would visibly hate your presence in the 21st century? Especially if you have numerous connections with other Capitalist countries in each and every branch of economics. If you occupy some other Capitalist country, essentially the commercial ties, the economical connections would be broken - even without sanctions. This is the way it works in Europe and North America. The political ties would be broken, undoubtedly. What is it for then? I don't think Russia just wants to enlarge its territory to boost the morale of its citizens or to feed the ego of the president - Russia hasn't played these games since the beginning of the 20th century, I think. These days, it's all pragmatical calculations. Sure, you can invade the territory that want to be yours itself in the times of powerlessness (right after Euromaidan there were a few days when e.g. the police in the whole country was inactive not to say absent, so the citizens gathered in vigilante groups to protect the order in the streets) - especially if it's been yours voluntarily for centuries! The Baltic states which is well-known in Russia and elsewhere were not voluntarily-Russian. They do not want to be parts of Russia, Russian population in them is at first a real minority and not all of that minority eager to join Russia anyhow... 

These are hues, nuances - yet true analysis is impossible without reckoning them. Again, I was pleasantly surprised when I first saw the James Bond movies featuring the character of General Gogol. He is just a human being in his office, not a sadistic villain: