The New Yorker articles always feel like I'm reading a very expensive blogpost from a new college graduate. Some opinion on a topic is repeatedly characterized

The New Yorker articles always feel like I'm reading a very expensive blogpost from a new college graduate. Some opinion on a topic is repeatedly characterized as fact, just because they have a lot of facts on hand. This feels like propaganda for a cause that NATO doesn't really believe in enough to stop -- having never folded Ukraine in after the breakup of the USSR. > The first day of the invasion was just that—the first day. > In the eyes of the world and almost certainly history, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on Thursday was an epic miscalculation From a Russia-first point of view, it's straightforward. Ukraine will eventually join some sort of western coalition (NATO or by some other name in 100 years). He also would like the resources. It's a borderland (an English Channel of sorts) for Russia. Putin thinks he can run things like the USSR did and hold it. I think he can too. Would 200k US soldiers hold texas? Probably, at a cost. When Putin negotiates to pull back, he'll keep his borderland and the fields with resources and Ukraine will be a bit smaller. Seems like a good bet.