I agree. Putin is acting completely rationally. Consider this comment by totoneila, reposted here because it appeared so late yesterday that many may have missed it:

First off, IMO, I don't think Putin would be doing this unless he believed his country was going postPeak. He must easily see how a export reduction can still generate the same revenue, and hoarding for the home team is politicaly wise if he decides to go to Max Peak Outreach and early Paradigm Shift in-country. From my prior weblinks: he has already told his people to grow their own food and has refused to expand phosphate[P] shipments to another country, forcing them to buy more expensive P from Morocco.

Second, his KGB may have the inside scoop on KSA's spare capacity [or lack thereof]. Putin's cutting of Russian exports, only to have KSA ramp up their exports [to negate the Russian decrease], would only make him look foolish and cost his country billions. If the KGB does have the crucial, full audit info on KSA's oilfields-->they accomplished something that Matt Simmons requested years ago [Recall that Matt called for full audit transparency in his book, 'Twilight in the Desert'.

If Putin goes ahead with this cutoff scheme immediately driving prices upward AND KSA CANNOT sufficiently ramp up exports to cover this shortfall--> then, the jig is up-->the rest of the world will quickly figure out that KSA is now on the Hubbert Downslope too. This will add even more upward pricing pressure to oil, which of course will cause even more rapid demand destruction to poor crude consumers.

I know nothing of geopolitical strategy, but it is morbidly fun to watch. Have we rolled the tape back to 1900? Will Turkey Abandon NATO?

Georgia won't be a very useful USA/NATO ally if Turkey goes with FSU

Actually the breakthru happened at the end of Yeltsin, when some
wise man in the Kremlin, sent that Russian Brigade to the Pristina airport
ahead of the British. The world to this day doesn't know how close
the British came to firing on the Russians .

Here's General Mike Jackson's account of how General Wesley Clark tried to start World War 3

Gen Sir Mike Jackson: My clash with Nato chief

"Sir, I'm not going to start World War Three for you." Again Clark stated what he wanted done. I said to him: "Sir, I'm a three-star general, you can't give me orders like this. I have my own judgment of the situation and I believe that this order is outside our mandate."

"Mike, I'm a four-star general, and I can tell you these things."

He insisted that he was giving me a direct order. I told him that I would have to talk to my superiors in London. He telephoned Charles Guthrie, the chief of the defence staff, and outlined the discussion that had just taken place. Guthrie asked to speak to me. I took the phone and moved away from Clark to speak to Guthrie in private.

"I cannot go on," I told him, "I'm going to have to resign."

"For God's sake, Mike, don't do that," Guthrie replied hastily. "It would be a disaster." He asked to speak to Clark again.

"Well, I must say, Wes," he said, "that I agree with Mike - and so does Hugh."

Clark was visibly nonplussed. Hugh Shelton was his boss, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff. He had gone out on a limb, and now he found that he had gone too far.

I left the room so that he could call Shelton in Washington. I later gathered that Shelton told him that Washington did want the runways blocked, but not at the expense of a confrontation with the Russians - which seemed to me an outright contradiction in terms. When Clark said that I was resisting his orders, Shelton suggested that he had an "authority problem".

The death of over 100,000 persons? Try over 1,100,000, with perhaps 5,000,000 more displaced and you'll be much closer to depicting the gravity of the situation.

I do agree with your sentiments, however.