A well-conceived analysis, Andrew. My only criticism is that it may be too well-conceived.

You said that the ‘truth’ is one of the first casualties of war, but so is the ‘plan.’ If war breaks out so will all-hell and no one will be able to control cause and effect events.

You seem to give Putin too much credit, KGB background notwithstanding. Rather than master-class chess he may be too clever by half. I think he’s bitten off more than he can chew – to use yet another metaphor – and he can’t figure out a graceful way of vomiting.

Putin is hardly popular at home (and certainly not abroad.) Ask the millions in Russians who silently support the poisoned Navalny. They may not be so silent if Putin’s mistakes become manifest. Ukrainians also are more disposed to be Ukrainians rather than Putin puppets.

Lastly, the neo-Sino-Soviet détente is a farce. Which one of these self-serving autocrats actually trusts the other? Neither! Putin thinks he’s using Xi to safeguard his own eastern flank, Xi is using Putin to distract the US from China’s economic aggression. Each is using the other, either would throw the other under the bus at a moment’s notice.

I will make one more comment, about the Biden administration’s approach. I don’t think it is as reactive as you make it out to be. Biden has played the hand he’s been dealt reasonably well, especially after Trump’s world embarrassing ass-kissing of Putin, and his disgusting ‘Love Letters’ with another dictator, encouraging our enemies to further disgrace us on the world stage and reinforcing their justifiable opinions of pusillanimous America.

Other than that, kudos for an incredibly complex critique of an incredibly complex crisis.