Is there any reason to think he's a geopolitical idiot? I wouldn't exactly go praise his actions at a dinner with political donors (cough cough), but his history doesn't strike me as one from someone who doesn't know how to play politics and power. Is there precedent for stupid actions? Obviously looking at it from the lens of a dictator's self-interest, not my Westerner's ideals of morality. I can see this being a self-destructive mistake from an otherwise intelligent autocrat. Could also be the descent of his sanity but I'd like to know why that'd be believable, and hopefully that isn't the case as it'd make him that much more dangerous with regards to the likelihood of.. well, flipping the table.

Russia cannot accept Ukraine to be in NATO hands. Just like US wasn’t able to allow Cuba to be in Soviet hands or how China would go to war if Hong Kong decided to want independence. It’s maths really, Putin or not it would be the same.

But dear MrRiddle: Ukraine wasn't even near getting Nato membership, was it?

Or do you have secret information that Nato would overnight change its rules to allow countries with disputed borders to join?

The problem with Ukraine seems to be that it was a successful democracy on the border of Russia and that due to the historically close connections between Russia and Ukraine, Russians could easily see themselves in Ukrainians.

I don’t think so, Ukraine is key strategic point for Russia. It’s provides access to only warm water port Russia has and it’s very close to Moscow.

Ukraine was getting armed to the teeth, and with good stuff from the West. Russia had to react before it’s too late.

Keep in mind Russia shares border with many successful democracies from ex-Soviet block, I can’t see how that can ever be an argument.

> Ukraine was getting armed to the teeth, and with good stuff from the West. Russia had to react before it’s too late.

You know why they were getting armed, don't you?

Because that fellow in Kreml kept financing terrorists in Donbas so they could shoot down airliners and shell kindergarten, right?

What makes you think that Ukraine was an example of successful democracy. I don't have this feeling of "successful democracy" even for some neighboring EU countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and to some extent Greece (since the debt issue and the subsequent change in government). Quite the contrary, to me it feels that it is all smoke and mirrors propelled by mass media to convince the people that they live in an actual democracy. Under the smoke it is all business and geopolitics.

Is being repressed by a puppet government paid by Russia a better alternative?

> Could also be the descent of his sanity but I'd like to know why that'd be believable

Well, I mean, he's 69. It's not that unusual to go downhill at around that age, and he's been acting very oddly RE covid.

Nemtzov said in 2014, literally, "Putin is deranged and you should know that". This is why he was killed in 2015, mostly. Because even then that was the truth.

All those discussions about morals, mistakes and the descent of sanity are beside the point.

How do you define an autocrat as "irrational" if not as one that's "lost sanity"? I interpreted your comment as meaning that, as well as this quote of being "deranged".

Sanity (Oxfod, 2nd def) :

>the state of being sensible and reasonable

Morality is indeed besides the point, I just added it as I feel dirty suggesting he's rationale 3 days after invading Ukraine without amending the idea.

As for mistake, I think speaking of a political mistake is relevant if we should consider your explanation wrong, i.e. he's sane/rational autocrat whose invasion backfired more than expected, should that be the case.

Let's start with that being an autocrat is irrational (or insane, or however you would have it) in itself.

I think we agree on that.

I guess that's the source of our disagreement as I don't agree with that despite living in a free democracy with no intention of leaving such a system (CC: my prior comment w.r.t. Western ideals).

Narcissist, certainly; immoral and corrupted, most likely; but still possibly rational [0], I see no reason they'd be de facto irrational despite how I feel about them. Born autocrats (or born in a line of succession) are a different story, but I'd argue it would even be unlikely for a commoner to ascend to absolute power without starting off as a rational, calculated and intelligent person (tho ofc not impossible, there are obvious cases). Not that there is any guarantee they'll necessarily remain so, seems unlikely after years or decades being surrounded by sycophants.

Feel free to disagree.

0: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/americ...

I'm not seeing any difference if one was born and nurtured into autocracy, or just happened to have it land in their hands. I'd say in either case the pressures are such that the resulting behaviour can not even be named as selfishness. It's just survival, and society needs/development/etc/etc be damned.

Survival breeds sycophants, ...

Shit, why am I reciting stuff from 8th century BC here?

Nah, that's bullshit, sorry. They hoped that UA will collapse inside 48 hours, but this didn't happen.

Not to say there aint no 6400 warheads. They, you know, require maintenance. 640 100kt range maybe.