> A mistake many of us have made is to see Russia as a rational actor and think they will do what they should do. Meanwhile they insist on doing these irrational blunders.

In truth, there were plenty of things operating in support of Putin's judgement that you would describe as rational, which people seemed blind to. I'm not sure that the 'mad-man' thing really works to the extent that Reddit says. You didn't need to be privy to 'top secret' information to see how it built up either. You would be perfectly capable of looking at the chronology of events and concluding that the invasion was inevitable and the logical extension of what he'd be doing for a decade

1: Putin was known to have been furious about how NATO corrupted a peace-keeping no-fly zone in Libya and turned it into an offensive action, that picked a side. Never again, was his thinking. I feel this was a really important touchstone moment, the significance of which is often overlooked and gets absolutely zero media comment. Don't forget that Obama was persuaded to join this action at the prompting of Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. Vice President Joe Biden was known to have favoured non-intervention. Putin might be looking at Biden's lack of enthusiasm and mistaking good judgement for weakness. It needn't be the thinking of a mad man therefore, but rather someone who thinks he's got a read on Biden, and he's betting that this is Biden's default reaction

2: In 2014 Putin annexed Crimea with no serious consequences

3: America failed to involve themselves in Syria. Again it was Clinton who was more enthusiastic for action against Assad. It was first David Cameron (whose non-participation owed more to parliamentary mismanagement than any intent) and later VP Biden who persuaded Obama (during their famous 'rose garden walk') not to commit to Syria. Only the French formally adopted a proposal to engage, and they were left on their own

4: Russia by contrast did decide to intervene in Syria and enjoyed a modicum of success in doing so, even to the point where they attacked and helped destroy some western proxies (notably the FSA). This has to have served to embolden Putin, encouraging him to conclude he was more effective than he was

5: A new President (Trump) then handed over American bases in Syria to the Russians and allowed them to get on with it. Again, this has to signal to the Russian's that the American's will stand aside in the face of Russian aggression

6: Having co-opted the Kurds into the fight against ISIS, American foreign policy changed again when President Trump abandoned them and allowed the Turks and Syrians a free run on his erstwhile ally. You could easily be forgiven for thinking that when the chips were down, America would abandon another loose ally who is neither part of the NATO alliance nor particularly woven into the fabric of the west

7: Russia poisoned the Skripals and faced little more sanction than a few diplomats being sent back. Indeed, there's a been a whole host suspicious deaths occurring all over Europe and North American with no one making much effort to sanction Russia

8: During all this time of course, Trump is also working to undermine the western alliance, questioning the value of NATO and starting to open up fault lines

9: Throughout this period Russia is launching a series of global disruptions from political interference campaigns, cyber/ ransomware attacks against western infrastructure, cutting internet cables in Norway, or destroying satellites in space. None of this draws any retaliation from the west, indeed, it seems to generate approval in some quarters!

10: Putin then watches the chaos of another American withdrawal (Afghanistan this time). Crucially this is another Biden decision where Joe has signalled a preference to disengage, and having failed to train another army to add to the Syrian opposition and Iraqi's, Russia might be forgiven for thinking there is a structural problem here and America can't train a resistance

11: Although I doubt he ever regarded the EU as military threat to Russia, he has to have been further encouraged by the appetite in western Europe for his gas and oil. Was the EU (an organisation that tends to stay within its borders and has never engaged in any military activity of consequence) likely to face off under the threat of the loss of their gas supply in support of a peripheral state that wasn't even an official candidate member? It was Germany and France after all who led the western resistance against the Iraq war, Italy is of little consequence, and the most belligerent member state in the bloc is no longer a member

12: Finally he meets Xi at the Beijing Olympics to agree their 'no limits' pact

When you take all these incidents together over the 10 year + timeframe, I'm not sure you'd call it mad? There is plenty of evidence there to make you conclude its a calculated gamble, and plenty of fair winds blowing to indicate that Putin would get away with it. You can certainly say it was an error of judgement, but an error you can perhaps begin to understand the path that led him to make it. Making a mistake in judgement however needn't be the same as being mad

Let's be honest, had a handful of American states voted Republican, America's position today would be to denounce Ukraine and support Russia. That's how precarious this was (and still is to a degree).