What right does Putin have to consider democratic nation states that have elected to become NATO members as "puppet regimes"? This goes directly into Putin's delusion and paranoia. Your metaphor doesn't resolve the underlying question.

1. NATO was designed to prevent Soviet expansion. When the USSR collapsed, NATO strengthened and even expanded. Therefore, Russia sees NATO as an expansionist, anti-Russian force. Why do you think Georgia got invaded?
2. The Orange Revolution and the Euromaidan coup didn't exactly put the best face forward for "western democracy." But while I'd just consider that growing pains, the fact is that Russia viewed the recent democratic choices of Ukraine similarly to the way the US saw the democratic choices in the Bolivian election (that resulted in a coup, using the U.S.'s conclusion as leverage).

How do you think California would react if Mike Pence, along with the Capitol rioters, prevented Biden and held "new and fraud-proofed" elections, which this time registered a Trump win, and Biden fled for his life? Probably not very well.

Do I have too much faith in humanity to believe that Russian soldiers will just drop arms and tell Putin to shove it?

I wish it could be more targeted at him and his awful group of yes men and theocrats than the Russian people.

$1 million bounty on Putin offered by Russian businessman
The Russian entrepreneur said the Russian president came to power by "blowing up apartment buildings in Russia".

It should be noted that east Ukraine, not counting the separatist regions, DID vote strongly for Zelensky, but he ran as a peace/neutral candidate, yet his policies did seem to favor western interests more.

I'm already under the impression that public opinion and media at large make that distinction and target Russian leadership, not the Russian people. We know a dictatorship when we see one.

Putin deserves massive scorn and sanctions for that... although I wish it could be more targeted at him and his awful group of yes men and theocrats than the Russian people.

I'm not gonna say for sure whether or not sanctions should be used, but they will definitely hurt the average person in Russia.

Couldn't agree more. However, do you feel like you understand the other side better now? Because I still don't, and I don't like it at all.

But can we agree that he's paranoid and delusional? Both are psychological/mental disorders. Just a more civilised way of puttin' (see what I did there) things, I guess. In any case, it's important. As William Pitt the Elder stated: "unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it", aka "absolute power corrupts absolutely". It's unhealthy business to hold such a position for so long.

This should need no reminder, but this is how Putin got in power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings. At the very least, he has zero empathy, and that's bad enough.

But to assault Kyiv is shocking and unacceptable, and may go down as one of the dumbest geopolitical errors in modern history. Though I'd still argue that floating NATO membership for Ukraine ever, for any reason was even dumber.

Russia went in thinking they'd have the country under control within a day. We're now three days in and while Russian forces have wreaked serious havoc and made progress on a number of fronts, they've been held back, repelled, and forced to retreat in major parts of Ukraine. Third-party estimates have something like three or four times as many Russian soldiers dead as Ukrainian at this point. The Ukrainians are holding their own in the face of overwhelming odds-- I don't know how long they can keep it up, and it's horrific that they've had to sacrifice so much to fight for their country, but it's incredible to see.

Not to oversimplify things, but isn't this ultimately what the Ukrainian people want? They want more westernization. So far, these explanations of Russia's perspective seem educated and reasonable until they run into terms like "puppet regimes" that don't apply in the least and arguments that inherently treat these countries like tacks on a map and not decisions and desires of nations of people and their dreams of how they want to live. These arguments only sound like smart talk.

They haven't cut off his oil revenue. I heard about this the other day, but the piece didn't go into any detail. Doesn't that seem like filed down teeth to the sanctions? And this is where the cynics have footing in anti-American rhetoric. How much longer will this go on with hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into Russia for their oil? Back to oil. Unwilling to change how we live, and it costs other people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Ukraine has no natural resources besides farmlands in the east

I understand both sides, which I think is important. Doesn't mean I side with them both though.

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments

That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that even if, out of all of Putin's "throw shit at a wall" reasoning, fear of the west and NATO expansion is the one that stuck as the most pertinent one, and even if one is to entertain this reason as legitimate and valid - his actions still don't make any sense to me on any level.

Why? Because, on one hand, neither the west/NATO nor Ukraine's constitutionalized aspirations towards them are particularily recent, to say the least; and on the other hand, Ukraine is part of neither at this point in time, and unless there were some developments on that front (which I'm unaware of) that would make an abstract "threat" into a concrete one and thus justify the invasion, why attack now? Because of some bullshit "minority report" reasoning? Why wouldn't you guys bomb Finland then, just in the off chance they might team up with Russia at some point in the future and you don't want Russian weaponry close to your borders?

None of it makes sense to me.

That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that even if, out of all of Putin's "throw shit at a wall" reasoning, fear of the west and NATO expansion is the one that stuck as the most pertinent one, and even if one is to entertain this reason as legitimate and valid - his actions still don't make any sense to me on any level.

Why? Because, on one hand, neither the west/NATO nor Ukraine's constitutionalized aspirations towards them are particularily recent, to say the least; and on the other hand, Ukraine is part of neither at this point in time, and unless there were some developments on that front (which I'm unaware of) that would make an abstract "threat" into a concrete one and thus justify the invasion, why attack now? Because of some bullshit "minority report" reasoning? Why wouldn't you guys bomb Finland then, just in the off chance they might team up with Russia at some point in the future and you don't want Russian weaponry close to your borders?

None of it makes sense to me.

Putin is usually more cynical and calculated than he came across in his most recent speeches. There's evident visceral emotion in things that he said in the past few weeks justifying the war in Ukraine.

It’s reestablishing Russian dominance of what [he] sees as the Russian "Imperium". I'm saying this very specifically because the lands of the Soviet Union didn't cover all of the territories that were once part of the Russian Empire. So that should give us pause.

Putin has articulated an idea of there being a "Russky Mir" or a "Russian World". The recent essay he published about Ukraine and Russia states the Ukrainian and Russian people are "one people", a "yedinyi narod". He's saying Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same. This
idea of a Russian World means re-gathering all the Russian-speakers in different places that belonged at some point to the Russian tsardom.

What Putin is saying now is that Ukraine doesn't belong to Ukrainians. It belongs to him and the past. He is going to wipe Ukraine off the map, literally, because it doesn't belong on his map of the "Russian world".

Vladimir Putin's own family suffered during the siege of Leningrad, and yet here is Vladimir Putin doing exactly the same thing. [...] And he's blaming others, for why this has happened, and getting us to blame ourselves.

If all was peaceful and quiet, why would you need Vladimir Putin? [About Putin as a "wartime president".]

If people look back to the history of World War II, there were an awful lot of people around Europe who became Nazi German sympathizers before the invasion of Poland. In the United Kingdom, there was a whole host of British politicians who admired Hitler's strength and his power, for doing what Great Powers do, before the horrors of the Blitz and the Holocaust finally penetrated.

Reynolds: And you see this now.

Hill: You totally see it. Unfortunately, we have politicians and public figures in the United States and around Europe who have embraced the idea that Russia was wronged by NATO and that Putin is a strong, powerful man and has the right to do what he's doing: Because Ukraine is somehow not worthy of independence, because it's either Russia's historical lands or Ukrainians are Russians, or the Ukrainian leaders are — this is what Putin says — "drug addled, fascist Nazis" or whatever labels he wants to apply here.

So sadly, we are treading back through old historical patterns that we said that we would never permit to happen again.

In Athens there was a good big demonstration that started at the Russian embassy and ended at the American. This was to show that they take the side of the peoples, and do not take the side of any imperialists, neither Russian nor Western:

The NATO vs Russia feud has been ongoing for years and years. Its been a push/pull type situation. And remember that behind all this lies the Cold War and before that Word War II. I agree that the invasion right now, and to the extent it seems to be, seems like a misfire but it's not like there are no reasons for it. The article above (which I replied to) and the geopolitical video makes it easy to understand.

The likening with Finland isn't very good. Though Finland was a part of the Swedish empire the split between us happened some 200 years ago. In that time relations have been very good in general and neither of our countries have had opposing interests (compare to Ukraine where the east vs west divide has been a huge thing both in regards to general history but also of the ethnic composition of the country). "Finlands sak är vår" ("the Finish cause is ours") is very famous here as loads of Swedes were volunteers to fight for Finland in the Winter War. Traditionally, while violence has been shed between our nations, the big enemy in our part of the world was always Russia. The risk of Finland teaming up with Russia is not likely in any way shape or form.

As for Swedish interests we usually see Finland as a great buffer so that we don't have Russia on the other side of the border. To invade and bring us closer to Russia would be nonsensical from a geopolitical view as well. Right now we have the Baltic Sea in between. If Sweden and Finland were one we'd be much more vulnerable for attacks (as we saw in the Winter War). Sweden is quite blessed with our geographical position. Noway was take by the national socialists and Denmark as well. Russia invaded Finland but Sweden went mostly unscaved. A lot probably due to our geographical location. To bring us closer to the interest spheres of huge nations would make no sense in the case of a conflict.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/live-updates-fitch-downgrades-russias-074543182.html

The thought of a nuclear disaster that's worse than Chernobyl is downright horrifying.

Putin isn't trying to conquer Ukraine. That would be absurd and borderline impossible for a low GDP country like Russia. I also think a flat-out regime change in Kyiv would be unlikely, as that would require an occupation and the ensuing insurgency would basically create a Ukrainian ISIS whose #1 target would be Russia.

He's going to take the Donbas and hopefully not more and turn that area into a neutral territory with a leader he can control. The rest of Ukraine will technically be "free" but also extremely fucked up for a long time, and definitely not anything the EU or NATO will want in their coalition. He'll probably insert a lot of FSB operatives and they'll egg on the many different paramilitaries (possibly forming some of their own) to blame the west, Zelensky, other paramilitaries and the usual scapegoats for "letting" this happen. Russia would seem like the sole enemy everyone could unite to fight against, but it's never that simple in the micro, especially when you have a weakened government and a country armed to the teeth with U.S. and Russian weapons.

Blowback for all this fuckery will hit Russia (and sadly bordering countries), but the full effects will take years to come to light.

tl;dr he's trying to wreck Ukraine and build a buffer zone between Russia and the west.

The article and the video both clarify his reasoning - which I can understand - on a macro scale, and they do it well. What they don't provide, however, are actual reasons for his current actions and their timing. In other words - the beef with NATO and the aspirations towards restoring the Soviet Union are as relevant today as they were one year ago, or five, or eight, or ten years from now. What exactly pushed Putin to launch an invasion now, then, assuming he's not acting on a whim? That's the part that puzzles me the most.

I wasn't likening the two, however - I was making an exaggeration. Basically, unless Ukraine were current in the process of joining NATO (which they weren't), Putin's unprovoked invasion of it to scare off NATO is only slightly less absurd than Sweden bombing a close ally out of the blue to scare off Russia. If anything, you've basically proven that an example I pulled out of my ass (you live in Sweden, Russia is Russia right now and Finland is a common neighbor, that's as deep as I was going for) is actually closer to reality than I initially thought, since there's actually some historical enmity between Sweden and Russia that I was totally ignorant about, so thanks!

...And yet Putin is currently bombing one of his buffers against NATO to bits, and if he chooses to invade/reconquer it - he will literally be surrounded by NATO countries (and Belarus). Still makes sense?

That makes sense. Although it's hard not to see the unblinking destruction of civilian targets as something more malicious as well. Considering the constant threats from Lavrov and Putin himself, I think they're at least using the opportunity to make example of Ukraine, to intimidate countries like Finland.

It's going to destabilize eastern Europe and it's hard to imagine Finland won't feel some of the effects, but Russia knows better than to fuck directly with Finland. Finland wiped the damn floor with the Russians twice before and they'd do it again.

tl;dr he's trying to wreck Ukraine and build a buffer zone between Russia and the west.

It's hilarious people think that the GRU and FSB are crack team masters of international sabotage but wouldn't know how to invade a neighboring country they used to control and have had considerable presence in half of since then.

Ukraine has a vested interest in portraying that they're holding back the assault and giving 110% until other countries join in and media has a vested interest in making the underdogs and heroes to the west look great and that the superpower "got more than they're bargaining for."