Refuses to understand?
Not "doesn't understand", nor "pretends not to understand"... but are actually internally blocking themselves from understanding?
You know, I've seen Western political analysts who perfectly understand Russian misgivings regarding current security configuration of Europe. The usual reply is "but you misunderstand us, NATO is not your enemy, we don't want to do anything to you." That a pragmatic political-military calculation takes into account what is known - capabilities, and not what is just stated - intentions, is then just summarily ignored.
Therefore I used the formulation "refuse to understand" - because they do understand it in principle, but make their own barriers against accepting it as valid. Those barriers have their clear reason - to make seem as irrelevant that which is actually relevant.
That's your Worst-Case Scenario?
The Russians re-assert military control over a region they've regarded for centuries as part of their empire, NATO backs down, and the world goes on?
As opposed to, say, the clowns in Washington DC deciding to go full retard and do Crimean War II, Thermonuclear Bugaloo?
Just as Kofman, I also don't believe into accidental war between two such great powers as the US and Russia. There would have to be a decision in Washington to go to war, and
for what? As Rufus observed recently, not even the EU has anything to win by defending Ukraine, let alone the remote United States, which don't even get the cheap labor force out of it. For the US, Ukraine is simply a tool of deterrence against Russia. Once that tool is gone, what is there to fight for? The pretty fireworks a 1 MT warhead of the R-36 can make? The cost-benefit analysis here is very clear.
The main problem with the "sanctions from hell" approach is that the more they resort of that sort of thing, the less effective it becomes, as they are incentivizing other countries to not be economically dependent on trade with the West.
I absolutely agree, that is the problem with all sanctions. The current situation around Ukraine is perfect illustration of that. If the US and EU weren't 'sanctioned out' in the areas where they could hurt Russia without taking a lot of pain themselves, they could react much, much better right now. But they did make their move, Russia adapted, now those options are lost.
Of course here NATO loses face, and some of those East European countries start to reconsider whether being part of that alliance would be worthwhile.
Will joining NATO protect them from The Bear, or just provoke the bear into calling America's bluff?
For Russia the total, best and IMO currently sought victory is to change the internal Ukrainian policy vis-a-vis NATO membership. NATO publicly and officially promising that it will not admit Ukraine would absolutely do it. NATO being shown ineffective, over a long time period, in deterring Russia, could do it - but it will take years.
You know, my personal opinion is that this is what Russia is currently doing. It is basically scaring Ukrainian politicians s**tless, slowly and deliberately, and letting NATO's statements to slowly lose their steam and trustworthiness. If NATO officials keep repeating for another year or two that they will do bad things to Russia while actually not doing anything and Ukraine being in total panic all the time, it may lead to enough people in Ukraine saying "to hell with it, we know that if
we promise the Russians not to try for NATO, they will leave us be; so let's just do it." Bortnik said it perfectly:
the sovereignty of post-soviet countries was guaranteed by the absence of threats for Russian Federation on their territory. And he is the best the Ukrainian political-analytical scene has.
And once Ukrainian NATO ambitions go away, Georgia and all the rest of the post-soviet space will follow, because Ukraine was in the best position of them all to get into NATO.