TC,
I tend to agree with your analysis. Everything Putin has done has been measured and calibrated to see what the reaction is from NATO and the EU. The Annexation of Crimea and the interference in Ukraine have provoked opprobrium, but little concrete reaction. Likewise, he strolled right over Obama's "red lines" in Syria, doubtless encouraging Assad to use WMD to see if the West had the "Minerals" to push back. Obama didn't - and his weak, disastrous Foreign Policy is now unwinding dramatically with a nuclearised NK, an emboldened Iran, a Russia basking in external successes (conveniently hiding economic and social deprivation at home....) and a number of allies now nervously worrying if they're next....yes, I'm looking at you Baltic States. Putin is assiduously trying to destabilise NATO; he's courting Turkey and, effectively, buying large parts of Greece. Trump was installed as he preached isolationism - doubtless Putin considered he'd not risk trading New York for Vilnius. However, Trump has not exactly followed the script - his retaliation for the last Chemical attack gave Putin pause to think, as has his sabre rattling with NK and China. What Trump and NATO do next has to be carefully thought through, and backed up. The time to contain Putin has passed by, how we deal with him now is very finely balanced as there is much "face" in the game......My opinion? A co-ordinated missile strike to "punish" Assad and warn Putin - who'll likely be in the Baltic States this time next year anyway......NATO/EU should not have become so greedy and pushed so far East - it enabled Putin to mobilise Russia's greatest fears, encirclement and invasion, to shore up his own position and that of his sponsors and supporters.