By Western standards it is probably seen as paranoia, by Russian standards it is seen as self defense. They have never really gotten over the implosion of the whole USSR.

But it's nearing mania .. if their own collapse is causing them to interpret negligible events to the point of invasion, anything is on the table ?

I know _nothing_ about geopolitics but don’t your questions presume that the “Ukraine joins NATO” is a real reason for the invasion?

If it’s an old fashioned land/riches grab then their current behavior makes perfect sense.

Agreed, anything is on the table. And that is what worries me, if you start assuming rational actors none of this makes sense but if you start assuming non-rational paranoid mafiosi with nukes it starts to all look a lot more plausible. Putin needs to succeed in subduing Ukraine or he will be thrown under a very large bus and then you have the next worry lined up: who will replace him, which could very well be worse.

People seem to make the mistake of thinking about this in some kind of game theoretic way where Russia would have something to gain or lose but that's the wrong perspective, Putin couldn't care less about Russia or the Russians, what he cares about is to cling to power until he's dying, if he can't do that then his lot could well be worse.

If you're American, try to imagine America partially breaking up and Washington, Oregon, and Idaho have joined an alliance helmed by China.

You're not loving it, you want to make some sharp moves to prevent more states from considering it, and you'd like to get those states back somehow in the long run.

This is a wildly imperfect analogy, but...

If you're American, try to imagine what other states must've done in order to get Washington, Orgon and Idaho to seek protection from China: wars, massacres, genocide.

Can you imagine resettling the whole Mormon population of Idaho to the furthest corners of Alaska? A knock on the door awakens you. You're given half an hour to pack a single suitcase, and then your whole family is pushed into a cattle wagon going to Alaska. No food beyond a slice of bread per day, no other supplies while traveling there over three weeks. If babies die, their bodies are just thrown overboard by soldiers. When you arrive, you're assigned a mine to work in for free as slave labor and a dirt mound to sleep in.

That's what took in Eastern Europe to seek isolation from Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...

You mean an alliance helmed by Canada? Ukraine is not allying themselves with a superpower on the other side of the globe, but their western neighbours.

I feel like "... and thirty years later ..." needs to be in there somewhere, also.

If the Pacific Northwest broke off tomorrow and tried to join Canada, I may still be opposed to war simply out of pacifism, but I wouldn't be terribly shocked if we had a Civil War II over the issue.

If the Pacific Northwest broke off tomorrow, the largest remaining Federal-ish government in the formerly United States recognized it as an independent country, and then thirty years from now it was contemplating an alliance with Canada...

I said it was a flawed analogy. =)

However, in this admittedly flawed analogy, I thought it was pretty clear that Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were meant to be analogous to the multiple NATO countries already sharing borders with Russia.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a dastardly war crime, but it didn't happen in a vacuum either. Was attempting to explain the (shitty) reasoning behind Putin's actions.