Putin’s bets are not that of an erratic dictator but rather of a calculating leader keen to sustain his country’s finances and leverage

Even without downplaying the shock and disappointment most felt when Russia invaded Ukraine, it is perhaps more disheartening how many astute and highly-respected analysts/academics around the world deftly argued for a strategy that should have worked but was roundly shoved aside by Western powers: pushing for and explicitly formalizing Ukrainian neutrality might have entirely avoided this 8-year morass that has engulfed Ukraine since the Crimean conflict.

Negotiations will be admittedly hard, but the alternative is truly too dangerous and difficult to contemplate.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has underscored the warnings that the Kremlin has made for years that any attempt to give Kyiv membership in NATO or use Ukraine as a military asset would cross a dangerous red line.

First, a hodgepodge sample of the kind of recent news: (sorry for the chaotic presentation, I am going this all under time pressure)

The US shouldn’t have poked the Russian Bear. Now it is fully awake: after Ukraine, the Russians are likely to do a clean sweep of foreign belligerents poking around the East Med and the Black Sea.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shocked the world, but in many ways Vladimir Putin has been building up to this for some time.

On February 15 Professor John J. Mearsheimer gave a talk (video) about the Ukraine crisis. He starts out (at 3min) by explaining who has caused it: “The United States, mainly, and its allies are responsible for this crisis.”

It’s not easy to make sense of how the United States and Europe are responding to Russia’s aggression.