Apologies for the controversial question, but this is something I'm curious about.
Historically, and particularly in recent history, invasions of one country into another are generally justified as "it will be better for the residents of country B if they are ruled by country A instead of their current rulers". This was the case with both Iraq and Afghanistan, and, as it's played out by history, has actually somehow more or less turned out to be true in those 2 examples. Now, the situation in Ukraine is confusing, because news media are alternately claiming Ukraine to be a Western-style democracy but also a corrupt oligarchy (not that those two things are entirely incompatible with one another, but I digress), so it's difficult to determine to an outside observer.
So my question is: If Putin were to make a similar claim to the above, that the lives of Ukranians would be better under Russian rule as opposed to their own rule, what evidence to we have to defend or falsify that statement? What (do we believe) would change significantly in the lives of ordinary Ukranians under Russian rule? Obviously the right to self-governance has its own value, and randomly attacking your neighbour because you want to own their house is not a civilized way of doing things, but aside from those notions, which are obviously bad, what are the repercussions for Ukranians to be governed by Russia?