> The closest comparison might be the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
It’s not as unprecedented as you make it sound. In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia, marched their tanks all the way to their capital, then proceeded to annex 30% of the country.
Can you explain a 40% drop? Seems high. I understand the general concept of escalation / pull back cycles as a way to "farm" resources; historically Russia (and even North Korea) does this often. However, it does seem like there might be a regime change here given the physical troop movement, which is a fairly costly signal (both in resources and international attention) to make these negotiations work, unless there was some good reason that *this* is the time for a costly display of escalation.
I realize I'm not comfortable updating newsletters that already went out except in the case of clear errors, so I'm reverting this to the original post. You can always follow any updates to my thinking in between newsletters on Twitter @rdeneufville.
> The closest comparison might be the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
It’s not as unprecedented as you make it sound. In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia, marched their tanks all the way to their capital, then proceeded to annex 30% of the country.
Can you explain a 40% drop? Seems high. I understand the general concept of escalation / pull back cycles as a way to "farm" resources; historically Russia (and even North Korea) does this often. However, it does seem like there might be a regime change here given the physical troop movement, which is a fairly costly signal (both in resources and international attention) to make these negotiations work, unless there was some good reason that *this* is the time for a costly display of escalation.
I realize I'm not comfortable updating newsletters that already went out except in the case of clear errors, so I'm reverting this to the original post. You can always follow any updates to my thinking in between newsletters on Twitter @rdeneufville.