The Western interpretation goes like this: Putin is a dictator;  he is obsessed with the restoration of the Soviet Union or the Russian empire;  or both. As a dictator  he can do anything, while you don't know what ordinary Russians think because they are afraid. This is superficial. Until a few days ago, the Russian media were still free. In an article that appeared in Krass & Konkret in the summer, I had warned: If you provoke Russia, which can happen in different ways, for example by sponsoring Navalny as a Russian Guaido, then tightening the screws will be a self-fulfilling prophecy

I agree with the sentiment. The problem is that despite the relative openness, there were only the trappings of democracy; no separation of powers; not the slightest possibility of electing anyone other than Putin; an extreme concentration of decision-making in a single pair of hands.

The problem with this (a functional dictatorship) is that it has led to a purely discretionary war, on the whim of a single individual. That a majority of citizens will support their country in a war is practically a given, at any time, in any nation. Doesn't make it right.

This could logically be Russia's "Vietnam moment", but the fact that there is no longer freedom of information works against that.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}