The pattern you're looking for is "when I have an asset in the White House, I don't need to waste huge amounts of resources and global credibility on a stupid and brute military campaign, I can just use the asset."
Also perhaps "when I have an asset in the White House, I should not undermine his local image with a power struggle".
While you're wondering, consider the possibility that Russia had more convenient means than military force for achieving its policy goals during the Trump administration.
Then while you're specifically considering Crimea, consider which US president simply said "Oh yeah, Crimea is russian":
Nevertheless, if Ukraine was a thorn in the Kremlin's side, or at least a potential trouble source, it would have been rational for Russia to stabilize the issue with an invasion during a friendly US admin, rather than leave the situation uncertain, and then have to resolve it against the type of US admin such as exists today.
That strategic decision cannot be explained by your theory, discredited media stories notwithstanding.
If Ukraine was THE thorn in the Kremlin's side... vs one point in a constellation of concerns including undermining NATO [0], weakening the EU [1], weakening the US, affirming nationalist authoritarianism vs social democracy, etc etc.
> it would have been rational for Russia to stabilize the issue with an invasion
If invasions didn't have any risks and consequences (even absent US intervention). And at this point, it sure looks like those risks and consequences are on full display even if we only look at the military action.
Meanwhile 3 years ago it actually looked plausible that the US could be forced into having to sacrifice either aid to Ukraine or the candidate that eventually beat Trump.
> discredited media stories notwithstanding.
"discredited" needs citation. Especially considering that the introductory set of articles I linked to above isn't even the short list.
League is extremely fun and addicting. Its a huge dopamine kick. When I play, I stay hooked for hours on end and have to stop myself.
When I code, I'm mostly just thinking hard and not very happy. The best part is the "aha" moment, and the huge dopamine kick of solving the programming/debugging problem. It is also NOT addicting.
These are two completely different things. I'm not sure why you're so determined to compare the two. They are insanely different.
He takes Adderall my dude. I'm a developer and I use absolutely no cognitive enhancers. If I took Adderall I would be able to code for 20 hours straight. I took a small dose back in college and that stuff is insanely good for long hours at anything.
Also, I'm speculating here, but I think he is on Testosterone Replacement Therapy, which also has insane energy, mood and cognitive enhancements.
Lastly he takes a ton of stimulants.
I don't for a moment think he's working purely off "natural" energy.
We replaced a president that made mean tweets with one that has directly affected our lives via increased inflation and gas prices, to name a few. Crazy times.
Biden directly closed the Keystone XL pipeline after Trump had us at energy independence. Also, he and his democratic party pushed and passed the biggest spending bills in our nations history. You don't think that directly affects inflation and gas prices?
You must be living under a rock, or willfully blind.
