Maybe a month ago this would have been dandy and he would have badly damaged NATO political unity, which is what seemed to be the case with the Germans opposing any involvement.
Right now its a defeat.
If Putin thinks so, then I’ll guess his options are to take the defeat or invade, I’m guessing he either doesn’t think so or he thinks he can spin it as a victory at least enough not to lose too much face/power/prestige.
Its all NATO’s fault anyway. They need to recognise Russians legitimate security needs and sphere of influence extending to the Dniper, err the Rhine,wait the Channel,no, the West Bank of the Mississippi.
Actually the real mistake was the US’s. Its foolish to leave a defeated foe reeling, humiliated but stull strong. The US should not have put all the efforts in perserving Russian unity in the 1990’s. The world should gave seen the nations of Pacifica, Siberia, Trans-Urals, Caucasia and Greater Muscovy emerge rather than supporting Yeltsin.
Or heck, if we’re saying Russian shenanigans are all due to American weakness, maybe we should have turned Patton loose and let him go to Moscow in 1945!
Putin’s saying that it was a mistake to allow the Soviet republics to get independence. That Ukraine is a stooge of the USA. Seems pretextual.
Not weakness, Stupidity. Its bad form for a Great Power to let a defeated rival the chance to recover and rebuild. Everyone who has done that has regretted it.
And the USSR in 1945 was much stronger relatively than the Russian Federation in the 1990’s
[Cartography brought to you by Donald J. Trump and his pet Sharpie] 
To be fair, it was. It was also very stupid of them to believe any assurances NATO gave them.
Assurances NATO gave Russia or Ukraine? Which are you thinking of?
Pretty much all assurances given turned out to be worthless.
ETA: By all sides i mean.
There’s the LNR/DNR recognition everyone assumed was coming. And if Ukraine doesn’t stand down (Russia had been instigating all the violence) in the Donbas, Ukraine will be responsible for the ensuing bloodsheed.
Basically exactly what you would say if you’re needing an excuse for invasion.
I’m revising my prediction to add a greater probability of, in addition to recognizing the independence of the separatist republics, actually pouring Russian troops into them.
May be eventually annexing them.
What false assurances do you think NATO has provided? AFAIK the only assurance NATO has ever given is that NATO wouldn’t attack Russia if Russia didn’t attack first, and so far they’ve held to that.
Russia’s only reason for being butthurt is that it wants to invade surrounding countries around it for “security reasons”, and a number of those countries instead joined NATO out of fear of being invaded.
The US has done a lot of shitty things on the world stage, to be sure, but don’t let that confuse you into believing any of Russia’s lush tapestry of bullshit.
I think there were informal assurances that NATO would not expand eastwards.
Of Western Europe. He was one step removed for calling for the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany to be reconstituted
I don’t believe Russia’s bullshit. I don’t believe the US’s either, unlike you.
It also does’t matter what or who I believe. Thats irrelevant. Or about feeling “butthurt” Its about being a realist. It was foolish of the Russians to believe that the US would not look to try and integrate E Europe into its settlement post 1991, whatever assurances might have been made. It was foolish of the US to think that Russia would accept the US moving into its old sphere of influence. without pushback. Its one thing to do something over an adversary’s protests. Its quite another to be flabbergasted by said adversary’s efforts to counter that, as most Americans seem to be.
There were some informal assurances made toward a friendly(ish) Soviet Union. This would not under any interpretation qualify as any sort of treaty obligation with a hostile Russia.
Maybe NATO overstepped by admitting the Baltic countries. One could argue it would have been smarter to make some sort of explicit treaty with Russia that these would remain neutral, occupied by neither Russia nor NATO. But it’s just dishonest theatrics for Russia to run around crying that it’s got a knife in its back because of something James Baker said in 1990.
I see my outlook of the situation and AK84’s are very similar, perhaps because both Pakistan and Argentina were members of the non-aligned movement…
Well, no. There was an express provision in the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany that no foreign troops were to be stationed on the territory of the former East Germany. But nothing beyond that (technically the Warsaw pact still existed then so it was a moot point).
Maybe NATO overstepped by admitting the Baltic countries. One could argue it would have been smarter to make some sort of explicit treaty with Russia that these would remain neutral, occupied by neither Russia nor NATO.
Or all of WP.
But it’s just dishonest theatrics for Russia to run around crying that it’s got a knife in its back because of something James Baker said in 1990.
The <<checks notes << US Secretary of State
That and mid level powers are usually weary of Great Power machinations and very disinclined to take anything they say at face value.
I was being facetious, in fact your explanation is the correct one.