> This type of article is the international relations equivalent off economists have predicted 5 of the last 3 recessions. I don't see why being able to predic

> This type of article is the international relations equivalent off economists have predicted 5 of the last 3 recessions. I don't see why being able to predict events is important here because for this particular conflict, the key take away is how the knot became entangled since the late 90s and how we get can back to a more predictable, less paranoid Russia by untying it the same way we tied it. > Notably absent from this article is any discussion of "why now?" "Now" is a relative term in big history time scale, Putin's plan and might have been in action for a while, and now is just the time some strategic factors happen to be in their favour, or so they thought. The "why now?" question doesn't seem to be very important to me comparing to "how to get out of this?". And you don't get out of this simply by addressing some recent trigger. Sounds like what Dr Mearsheimer said is that we should reverse course. > why the Baltics entering NATO did not trigger the same reaction Ukraine is the last straw, well, before Belarus that is, if that ever happens. They have always been calling for NATO to stop expansions for 20 years, > agency of Ukrainians in this article Could you give me the name of a country in the world that doesn't side with a great power? There should be some, but what they did is fundamentally different than what Ukraine is doing.