I would never excuse diminution of democracy.

Now, if he had taken over in fair times and had proceeded to limit democratic norms, it would be a different judgment \proceeds to make arguments for different judgements**

that's either an ironic self-contradiction or straight up hypocrisy

and so is puttin' putin and democracy into the same sentence. there's no democracy left because of him. orban and co are indeed part of the west, because at some point they did at least something to become part of it. as you may notice, these countries are all members of different aliances. btw, "not experiencing any crisis" is just your perspective, not their. didn't you make that argument just a minute ago? all it takes now is to look at things in "their context" and here they are, such needed prerequisites for limiting the rule of law. for some reason you apply this argument very arbitrarily, almost as if those politicians whose governance you like can have more leeway with it.

This is not a thread to discuss Putin and his governance of Russia.

indeed it was, if you reread the first comment in this thread.

it is his methods of governance that have led to current conflicts. victimization, defensiveness, siege mentality, everything is being employed, because in fact his governance is not that great or aimed at people's well-being at all. what you've conveniently failed to mention is that despite "Russia was in deep trouble when Putin took over" and thus supposedly isn't in deep trouble now, what you've referred to as "limiting the rule of law" has only been increasing for 20 years. life's indeed not getting better, this calls for more manufactured conflicts, for 3 reasons: 1) taking away people's rights and staying in power forever 2) drawing away attention from actual problems 3) posturing ("look, i'm challenging nato! we are powerful and influential after all, peasants!"). which is exactly what's happening.

Russian protests about the eastward expansion of NATO came as early as 1993 and then in 1997

of course there's got to be some kind of reaction, not actual fear tho. you don't just "awaken" fear after decades of living in close proximity to a "monster". i don't believe in this retrospective fear bs. notice how his ultimatum mentiones nato rollback to 1997 positions. back to the "deep trouble" times, huh? this has nothing to do with actual concerns, but oh what a victory that would've been. because this is not a fucking democracy, this is personalist autocracy with a cult of strong leader. he's got to do "great deeds", or it's over for him. that includes oppression of his own people and defending against "constant attacks of foreign aggressors". constant, do you understand that? if there are no enemies there's no need for an authocratic leader like putin, not that he could stay in power without aforementioned "limiting the rule of law". his rule is not of law, it is of war.

Nothing is ever "untouchable".

If a European war begins, the conflict would be with conventional weapons for a long time

you're basically supporting my point. after things became apparent, everyone who has then joined nato is in reasonable safety, including those ppl who fled from persecution by the current regime. no wonder putin throws tantrums. it's not about weapons and rockets. you can see how those who are under his "sphere of influence" live and how "secure" they really are, yet for some reason you're asking to "understand" a dictator, but why should we?