A short comment on the inadequacy of static model of this situation. The developments internal and external in Rus., the military aspect of the conflict as well

A short comment on the inadequacy of static model of this situation. The developments internal and external in Rus., the military aspect of the conflict as well as economic force-fields are in a state of very intense flux (and that is an understatement on the magnitude of how dynamic the situation is). So, there are going to be real and justified shifts in opinion, morality and facts (as they will be incorporated into models of reality) as time goes on, and, as well as in the final analysis when all is done. If the objectives Rus. declared were achieved in one week (basically regime change of Ukr. along with Donetsk+Luhansk+Crimea territorial concessions) not only the (geo) politics but also morality of the conflict would be most likely looked at a different angle (academically speaking). It looks like now that the conflict enters stalemate with guerilla warfare with lot inevitable atrocities (which will be counted for an aggressor) then objectively and subjectively the morality including all the other analysis layers will be in a yet different angle. If there is yet more escalation and the conflict will turn into global military conflict, then the actions preceding it as post-facto will be interpreted yet in a different manner. In other words, facts can only be interpreted within a context of a model (of the world - in a largest possible context including the subject itself). So, it is clear (and there are plethora peer-reviewed papers in for.aff. journals calling "NATO expansion a gross error in maintaining peace" starting in 1999-2000 already, and more published every year. They are trivially easy to find for those interested). However, these will be most likely looked at differently (as one commenter already demonstrated that tendency already).