Thread by @nicktolhurst

Putin’s logic is completely sound & rational.
Much of what's written about the conflict is simply wrong.
There's no danger of some new invasion..simply as the invasion already started 8 years ago.
Roughly 15% of Ukraine remains held by Russian military.

& the West accepted this.

Since 2014 the UK has consolidated London as the center of Russian finance, residence & education for the elite families of Putin’s regime, while US had the most pro Putin govt in West under Trump.

Russia supported Brexit & Russians the biggest donors to the ruling Tories.

Then Putin saw the West simply abandon Afganistan - The US's major foreign policy undertaking of the last 20 years...in a matter of days.

What was Putin supposed to think?
That the US was committed to sending US soldiers to die in Ukrainian areas with large Russian populations?

But the real key to understanding Putin's thinking on this lies in a rather place....football...and even...rugby.

Its one thing to commit troops, who may die.
But the West couldn't even be bothered to impose the softest of punishments on Russia.

It is absolutely grotesque that Russian teams & clubs take part in national football or UEFA competions while it is militairily occupying another UEFA member - Ukraine.

Would you expect English teams to travel to Paris to play football matches if France was occupying Yorkshire?

The World Cup was held in Russia with Russia even lobbying for the Rugby World Cup.

If the West couldn't be bothered to impose punishments on Russia that have zero consequences for the West itself....why would Putin think that it would send its own soldiers to die for Ukraine?

This is not a thread to argue we must wage war on Russia..but rather to simply observe that the West has simply already accepted Russian invasion of Ukraine but without formalising the new borders for form's sake.

So what has changed?

2 things..

1. Putin wants to ensure Ukraine (even while partially occupied) doesn't become a successful democratic EU-influenced state - as this reflects badly on Russia

2. Putin doesnt believe the West is bothered/determined enough to commit serious help to Ukraine

But here's the key...

The real key is doing a good case/bad case scenario:

think, what's the likely outcomes:

1. The good case for Putin: he picks up extra bits of Ukraine while weakening Ukraine as an economy & recognised entity

...and the bad case...?

The bad case:

2. Putin's larger incurssion plans have to be called off & so he does a deal to extract concessions (inc. formalising status of Crimea & eastern held areas).

There's no real downside for Putin, so long as he keeps within the "trigger point" of US entering the war.

Thats why breathless reports on the News about full invasions are silly.
Putin doesn't want his troops to be street fighting in downtown Kiev for control of kiosks & roundabouts.

This wont happen.

He wants to weaken Ukraine and get militia proxies to peel bits off.

So the question is not so much about war, but about commitment.

..And so next year if you see Russian football clubs in the Champions League & Russians bankrolling the UK govt & media it wont be normality...it will be an admission that we can't really be bothered about Ukraine.