Flagged?<p>I don't know if everything in this article is factually correct. But at least it "does compute" in a way the mainstream explanations do not.<p>I don't know what scares me more. That I get to read this interpretation of events only on some obscure blog. Or that, even on Hacker News, such interpretations immediately get flagged as apparently not fit for discussion.
<i>with the US and Western media loudly proclaiming (since November) that Russia is planning an imminent invasion of the Ukraine, though Russia has repeatedly denied that fact and it's not exactly clear what Russia is waiting for, or what advantage it could expect to derive from lying about its intentions at this point…</i><p>welp.
I'm always scared of such articles/narratives. Because they are internally consistent and seemingly explain the complex reality, they easily seduce rational readers giving them specious feeling of understaning.<p>In my opinion, this article has been written by an intelligent pragmatist that clearly has not lived in the Russia vicinity. I'm not arguing ad personam — I'm just stating that the article shows no understanding for the the Russian mentality. It's a common error to treat Russia as a Western country, while it... is not and never has been. Rationalizing the Russian behavior in accordance to their official statements is naive and historically made many countries suffer terrible fate.
> Since that time, NATO has been steadily expanded and pushing closer and closer to Russia's borders, notwithstanding the said assurances, which the West is quick to point out were not in any way binding.<p>Is it NATO "expanding" or post-soviet countries begging on their knees to be accepted into it for protection?<p>If Baltic states, Poland would not have been accepted into NATO - I think there would be soviet union 2.0, either by straight annexation like with Ukraine or parts of Georgia and Moldova or with economic/political control, like with Belarus and Ukraine before Maidan.<p>Many post-soviet countries after freeing themselves from soviet shackles went running straight to bang onto EU and NATO doors. Some have been lucky to be accepted, some were not.<p>Since forever Germany, US and alike do not "get" russia. Time and time again the west works with russia with optimism and attempt to establish relations like it would be any other liberal democracy.<p>US being assholes does not forgive russia to be an asshole, with old-school bombing of civilian properties. russia has a choice to be a proper global economical player, but chooses not to - time and time again.
Two out of the three most likely scenarios according to the author were NATO / Ukraine aggression towards Donbass, seems like this one is closest to what came true:<p>> Secondly, US & NATO allies continue to heavily arm the Ukraine, and Russia concludes it is inevitable that the Ukraine will eventually try to seize the Donbass with (covert) NATO backing. Putin fears the longer he waits, the harder it will be to secure the Donbass and the bloodier the eventual conflict will be, and feels that in the long term it is better to annex the Donbass now (or secure its independence) than wait. This is the scenario I have been most concerned about from an investment perspective over the past several weeks, as it would entail inevitably brutal sanctions. It would likely result in very little bloodshed though as it is unlikely at this point that the Ukraine will want to go to war over the Donbass; they will inevitably lose. In addition, there will be no local opposition - indeed the locals will likely overwhelmingly support Russia taking this action.<p>We'll see if Russia limits its attacks to only tactical bombing of airports and other installations, which could still be explained in that they'd otherwise be used to "retaliate" against Donbass, or whether they'll move ground troops into Western Ukraine as well, that will decide whether we will indeed see "very little bloodshed" or a horrifying civil war.<p>And if Russia splits up Ukraine into an Eastern Russian puppet state and a Western Ukrainian part, Putin will really have a zealous Russian hating NATO member right at his doorstep.<p>> [Some people] likened his activities and putative designs on Ukraine to Hitler trying to seize the Sudetenland<p>And I believe time will prove those people right. No matter how hard the author is trying to show understanding for Russia's actions, Putin is an authoritarian leader with oligarchical backing, who can't fix his economy, partly because oligarchy means corruption and lack of economic creativity. A declining economy is every despot's worst nightmare, because he'll very rapidly lose whatever popular support he has. There's no way Putin and the oligarchs were just going to wait for their inevitable demise.
“ When you properly understand the situation, it becomes clear that Putin's actions are not mystical or unpredictable at all - they make perfect sense, and frankly, in many situations they are even justifiable.”