zlacker

I would be very very careful with your analysis of what is and is not "in the Russians' geopolitical interests." Almost every analysis based on "what was in the Russians' geopolitical interests" ended up concluding that Putin was not going to invade the Ukraine, because doing so was transparently a terrible idea[1]. And he did it anyway, because his calculations of what was in the Russians geopolitical interests were done differently. So before you opine on what the Russians might or might not have done based purely on your calculations of what is in the Russians interests, you need to show that your calculations are similar to Putin's in other ways. Without that, one should be really really skeptical that anyone is doing their calculations of what is in Russia's geopolitical interests the same as Putin.

[1]: Whereas analysis based on what Russia was actually doing was largely correct before the war. This is why there was such a large chasm between what the US was saying then- based on their ability to hack Kadryov's phones and hear what was being said at those levels, along with their satellites to observe what the actual Russian army was doing- and what the French and Germans were saying based largely on 'that would be a dumb thing for Putin to do'.

>>mandev+(OP)
Many, many realist analysts were of the opinion that Russia invading Ukraine was a possible outcome of the geopolitical moment.

It is now known that Putin's decision to invade was due to bad intel from his intelligence services that reported that Ukraine would not be able to mount significant resistance. In that light it was reasonably self-interest-pursuant.

Acting on incorrect information is not the same as being irrational.