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:
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.
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.
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.
[Some people] likened his activities and putative designs on Ukraine to Hitler trying to seize the Sudetenland
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.
Comments
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:
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.
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.
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.