You make a very valid point. I dealt with it to a degree in the article. Said it was a very difficult position and so that the real and crucial error was letting things get to this point, in fact pushing them to this point. The deal could have been made easily at every point before. However, I still believed a deal would be made anyways (and apparently was right), and so you are making it "after the writ of the state was challenged" AND you stated so yourself. It looks even worse.
I believe there was a way to distinguish insubordination from treason, from differing Russia and the Sate, and likewise the Ministry of Defense and the Presidency. But I agree, that morning Putin's words were reasonable and alternatives would have been difficult (though not impossible) to find.
Amazing! But possibly you can comment on what I am going to say. You said
that Putin's speech in the morning was in (strategic) error.
It’s hard to understand how else he could have reacted as the writ of the state was challenged. How can he allow any other reaction other than that .
Thank you sir.
You make a very valid point. I dealt with it to a degree in the article. Said it was a very difficult position and so that the real and crucial error was letting things get to this point, in fact pushing them to this point. The deal could have been made easily at every point before. However, I still believed a deal would be made anyways (and apparently was right), and so you are making it "after the writ of the state was challenged" AND you stated so yourself. It looks even worse.
I believe there was a way to distinguish insubordination from treason, from differing Russia and the Sate, and likewise the Ministry of Defense and the Presidency. But I agree, that morning Putin's words were reasonable and alternatives would have been difficult (though not impossible) to find.
Thank for your reply.