So, regardless of the story being true, your point is that it is just a display of strenght? Seems quite irrational for a head of stat… well, then I look to US and realize that heads of state could do or be anything…

But really, it looks quite irrational from someone that supposedly is “clever”.

Somebody else commented that it could be a coercive action to push countries away from the war, so they stop supporting Ukraine. That seems more plausible to me.

Anyway, thanks for commenting rather than simply downvoting :)

I guess I see your point: (with russian accent) “if you stop supporting Ukraine, we will let you alone”. So abandoning Ukraine becomes an easy exit to the aggression.

But I also think that those same attacks could incentivize the support for Ukraine. Motivating other countries to work to “maintain the war in Ukraine” rather than leaving enough headroom for Russia to expand the conflict. The rationale being that if things are complicated enough for Russia in Ukraine, then they wouldn’t dilute their own forces in sparkling conflicts with other nations.

Also, it is cheapper for those nations to support a proxy war rather than getting directly involved.

I guess Russia has tried that for long enough and this is an attempt to sabotage the support (?)

Please educate me here: why would Russia want to attack nato if it can barely stand in its feet?

My, most likely hort-sighted, thought is that this can only mean one of two things: a. Russia is not as weak as the west try to portrait it. Or, b. Somebody is manufacturing consent to attack Russia “back” and “finish the job”

Again, I am not educated in the matter, this is a genuine question. Thanks.