"Putin Goes to War" - David Remnick, The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/03/putin-goes-to-war-in-crimea.html
"Vladimir Putin, the Russian President and autocrat, had a plan for the winter of 2014: to reassert his countrys power a generation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He thought that he would achieve this by building an Olympic wonderland on the Black Sea for fifty-one billion dollars and putting on a dazzling television show. It turns out that he will finish the season in a more ruthless fashion, by invading a peninsula on the Black Sea and putting on quite a different showa demonstration war that could splinter a sovereign country and turn very bloody, very quickly.
Sergei Parkhomenko, a journalist and pro-democracy activist who was recently detained by the police in Moscow, described the scenario taking shape as Afghanistan 2. He recalled, for Slon.ru, an independent Russian news site, how the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, in 1979, under the pretext of helping a fraternal ally in Kabul; to Parkhomenko, Putins decision to couch his military action as the protection of Russians living in Crimea is an equally transparent pretext. The same goes for the decorous way in which Putin, on Saturday, requested the Russian legislatures authorization for the use of Russian troops in Ukraine until the socio-political situation is normalized. The legislature, which has all the independence of an organ grinders monkey, voted its unanimous assent.
Other critics of Putins military maneuvers in Ukraine used different, but no less ominous, historical analogies. Some compared the arrival of Russian troops in Simferopol to the way that the Kremlin, in 2008, took advantage of Georgias reckless bid to retake South Ossetia and then muscled its tiny neighbor, eventually waging a war that ended with Russia taking control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
In a recent Letter from Sochi, I tried to describe Putins motivations: his resentment of Western triumphalism and American power, after 1991; his paranoia that Washington is somehow behind every event in the world that he finds threatening, including the recent events in Kiev; his confidence that the U.S. and Europe are nonetheless weak, unlikely to respond to his swagger because they need his help in Syria and Iran; his increasingly vivid nationalist-conservative ideology, which relies, not least, on the elevation of the Russian Orthodox Church, which had been so brutally suppressed during most of the Soviet period, as a quasi-state religion supplying the government with its moral force."
-------------------------snip-------------------------------
worth reading - I was led here by a TPM article -
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-to-read
....which is also worth reading for the many links within.