I'm kind of hoping there might be a more objective way to address the issue such as what the long term consequences for Ukraine, Russia, Europe, the US, and the rest of the world might be. — dclements

We can speculate only so far.

Basically the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been a geopolitical earthquake that isn't at all over yet. Both NATO and EU have transformed a lot in only few days. And Russia has made a move that will define it's path for a very long time. The Russian Roulette has been played and the gun has fired. Who gets killed is the real question.

Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad.

An interesting dynamic of the Ukraine-Russia conflict is that China is observing what is going on over there in order to help them what some of the issues they will have to deal with if and when they finally decided to attack Taiwan in order to get it back. — dclements

Let's first think what Taiwan is for China.

For the PRC Taiwan is basically the last remnants of the Civil War where the Kuomingtang retreated. It would be like if during the US Civil War the Confederacy would not have surrendered, but had retreated to present Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and held high their flags on those islands to this day. There in the Caribbean the former secessionists would now have prospered and continued with everything the Confederacy was about. If not at the present having anymore slaves, they would still at least have some kind of Apartheid-type segregation. All this would simply annoy the hell out of US politicians as the Confederacy on a small island would be "unfinished business" and the liberals would demand to end finally such blatant racism and a stain in the Americas. To get public support and a notch in the history books by finally squashing the rebels and ending segregation would be obvious temptation for any "Northern" politician.

For China Taiwan represents a similar annoyance and temptation.

Especially when Taiwan is a) more prosperous per capita than mainland China and b) it's now a democracy. It's existence is this annoying remark how weak China still is and where the American "line of islands" start. Yet this jingoistic bait has also it's drawbacks. First, if the US responds and gets angry (let's say the Chinese sink an American flat top) your facing all out war with the US. Second, even if the US only gives materiel support, invading an island can end up in a huge "Bay of Pigs times twenty"-fiasco, a failure that wouldn't only threaten the present leadership but perhaps the position of the whole Communist Party itself. An invasion of Taiwan could basically result in an Chinese version of the Gallipoli campaign: a humiliating costly defeat. And then it could ruin the economy, the lucrative trade China enjoys. And thus China is extremely closely looking at what is happening to Russia now. How effective are the sanctions. And how willing is the West to arm Ukraine. China can also look at how Putin, who has tried from 2008 to truly modernize the Russian armed forces, is now performing against a determined foe.

I would just add

For the PRC Taiwan is basically the last remnants of the Civil War where the Kuomingtang retreated. It would be like if during the US Civil War the Confederacy would not have surrendered, but had retreated to present Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and held high their flags on those islands to this day. — ssu

That's weird that you put it that way because I see China as more like the Confederacy and Taiwan as more like the North. After all, China is the one segregating their population by means of the type of treatment the various groups receive, with some of the treatment bordering on genocide. China sees the capitalism and freedom that makes up the Taiwanese society as a threat to the Communist party, just as Russia sees the same type of representational, western-leaning societal engineering going on in Ukraine as a threat to the One-Party regime in Russia.

There is the problem of how the information Putin had about the kind of resistance he would go up against in Ukraine was inaccurate and China may be wondering the same thing about Taiwan, and the longer it takes for Russia to conquer Ukraine may inspire more in Taiwan to more fervently resist any invasion by China. It is to early to tell. I'm hoping for a rebellion in Russia given the declining economy, government crackdown on media sources and the death of many thousand Russian sons in a senseless war against their Ukrainian cousins.

That's weird that you put it that way — Harry Hindu

Oh I put that way for people to understand how it feels for Chinese communists that rule mainland China. Just to portray the hostility.

In my study of history, I came across a Chinese leader, who made it compulsory for his followers to siesta after the midday meal. They gave him a historical name that reflected this revolutionary idea, which changed the course of the nation. In the honour of his decision and decree, his historical name has been changed to Chew-n-Lie.

Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad. — ssu

Speaking of speculation, I'm currently reading the Kindle book by novelist Ken Follett : NEVER. It was published in 2021, so its geopolitics is quite up-to-date for a work of fiction. Instead of The West versus Russia, it's The West (US primarily) versus China. Yet the level heads of both of the major powers are trying to defuse an insurrection in North Korea, which threatens to use its nukes. forcing a confrontation of the big boys. Hence the title. So China necessarily plays the role of peacemaker.

Follett portrays the internal political struggles between Old Guard of saber-rattling us-vs-them conservatives (there's even a Trump-type presidential candidate), and the younger, more cosmopolitan & less aggressive people on both sides. The ineffectiveness of economic sanctions as a deterrent on bomb-toting bullies & desperate dictators is illustrated. But the major powers can't afford to play Russian roulette. So, there may be no viable alternative (literally and figuratively) to laying chips on Las Vegas roulette.

Apparently, the younger people of Russia are also less romantically nationalistic than Putin -- except for the neo-non-nazis (like the Olympic gymnast) who display a symbolic letter "Z", apparently as a remodeled Swastika. We can only hope that the younger more moderate people on both sides of the renewed Iron Curtain, will learn from history, that Putin's re-enactment of Hitler's invasion of Poland, will not turn-out as expected by the invaders. This unruly world resists being ordered even at the point of a missile. :smile:


The “Z” is regarded as particularly incendiary given it has been seen daubed on Russian tanks and vehicles in Ukraine and has come to symbolise support for president Vladimir Putin and the invasion.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/07/shocking-behaviour-russian-gymnast-shows-z-symbol-on-podium-next-to-ukrainian-winner

How the letter Z became a symbol for pro-war Russians "
https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/russia-z-tank-marking-how-letter-became-symbol-pro-ukraine-war-invasion/

Conflict is a constant in the world order, new or old. There are political / economic / ethnic / religious / cultural fault lines all over the globe that regularly result in conflict, casualties, disruption, famine, various forms of collapse, and so on. This has been the case for decades, if not centuries. Just for example, the civil war in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and Sinhalese between 1983 and 2009. Most people in the world were not greatly bothered about it, but for the people who lived there a bad time was had by all. JUST one example among many.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia bothers far more people than the Tamil Tigers vs. the Sinhalese ever could, A) This is taking place on NATO's steps, if not on its porch. B) Russia (and the former USSR) are/were big-name enemies to several big-name states. The people of Ukraine, unlike Iraqis or Afghans are democratic westerners. Thanks to Stalin (famine), Hitler (invasion and genocide), Chernobyl (reactors go boom!), and now Putin we have seen great suffering in Ukraine. We are more predisposed to think kindly of them than say... the people of Nagorno Karabakh.

At least 10,000,000 people were in the Ukrainian diaspora. They are a visible ethnic group in many places. There are roughy 2.5 million people of Ukrainian descent in Canada and the United States. Their presence in many countries makes their suffering, courage, and cause-in-general more accessible than that of Sudan or Yemen.

The remarkable unity displayed by EU and Nato member adds to the immediacy of their needs. If instead, only Cyprus, Portugal and Norway were helping the Ukrainians, we would probably care less about them.

It's another war. Don't worry, there will be many more after this one, and after those, and after those as well. Welcome to people. We are upset with our neighbours, so we fight. Schools have rivalries. Cities have rivalries. Counties. Countries. Once these rivalries get to the Country level then the leaders may, or may not, decide to go to war. As they are never the ones to actually fight, or face any appreciable hardship from their decision to go to war, it is a bit easier to elect to go that way. Put only the leader of the country in a field with the other leader, give them a mace each, and then see how eager they are to bash at each other. Methinks there would be less war. The concept of having your head bashed in with a mace is rather daunting, I say most world leaders would find an alternate solution fairly quickly.

We have been warring for millennia, why would we stop now?

countries that seemed like they often couldn't agree on anything are starting to be more willing to work together (at least in the short term) after they realize that Ukraine isn't the only country Russia is willing to occupy. — dclements

I thought we already had a pro-NATO thread (see Ukraine Crisis), so I for one fail to see how having two is going to make the discussion "more objective".

BTW, which countries is Russia "willing to occupy" and how have you "realized" this?

The “Z” is regarded as particularly incendiary given it has been seen daubed on Russian tanks — Gnomon

Yeah, right. Because the Guardian says it's "incendiary", it MUST be so. As for the "Z" being a "remodeled swastika", that's just too ludicrous even for Guardian readers to believe. The way pro-NATO rhetoric zigzags between claims that Putin intends to "restore the Soviet Union" and claims that he is a "Nazi" is simply hilarious and shows that the West has run out of arguments and is resorting to redundant and moth-eaten clichés from yesteryear that even Westerners (at least the more intelligent among us) don't believe .... :grin:

In regard to the EU, it will be interesting to see how the Far Right parties will respond to the attack upon Ukraine. There has been support for Putin from them for the last ten years or so. As Foreign Policy article puts it:

Calling the West’s response to the love affair between Putin and the far right an overreaction greatly underestimates the extent to which the Kremlin and its state-controlled media use support of European politicians to legitimize Moscow’s explicitly anti-western foreign policy agenda: far-right politicians not only vote for pro-Kremlin policies in the EU parliament, they also take part in election observation missions — most notably the referendum for the annexation of Crimea and the “elections” in Ukraine’s Russian-controlled “people’s republics.” The Russian media uses these events and far-right leaders’ visits to Moscow to tout European support for Putin. Even Le Pen was an unknown in Russia until the Ukraine crisis and her outspoken public support for Putin. Now she is paraded as proof that there is some support for Putin’s policies in Europe. — Alina Polyakova

It’s a well-known fact that the West backs political groups in Russia and Russia backs political groups in the West. And Russia also backs far-left Western groups, not just far-right ones, the obvious objective being to influence the position of major parties where their policies are antagonistic to Russia’s interests.

In any case, there is no shortage of far-left parties like Die Linke (Germany), Podemos (Spain), Syriza (Greece) that share Russia’s opposition to globalization and US world domination, so they tend to be on Russia’s side.

Gerhard Schröder, Germany’s former chancellor and leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), who has much more influence on German (and international) politics than any far-right group, is a well-known supporter of Putin.

The Telegraph has called him “the most dangerous of Putin's useful idiots” and there is no need to look for far-right groups when there is opposition to arming Ukraine within the current center-left government which, incidentally, has just announced that it will not discontinue gas and oil supplies from Russia.

Different countries have different interests that are determined by the majority, not by fringe groups.

My observation was not to claim alignments with Putin are all of a piece or of a party.

Gerhard Schröder is now getting a lot of criticism for his support. As a promoter of a certain kind of economy, his close connection to Putin is no longer connected to what centrists policies will be in the future.

The interests of national identity politics is not bound by the same language of win-win markets. You call them 'fringe' but they represent divisions that have been underway for some time. Russia itself is divided in that way.

My question is where will that kind of language go now that the level of violence in Ukraine has overturned the notion it is only an argument at a soirée.

In Germany, both the “far-right” (AfD) and “far-left” (Die Linke) have close links to Moscow. If mainstream opinion is strongly against Russia, then smaller parties will naturally become more careful about openly expressing support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Incidentally, the same applies to major parties. They may overtly distance themselves from Russia in a show of obedience to the US, but at the end of the day business and industry need links to Russia which is a natural economic partner of Germany. This is why England and after it America have always tried to drive a wedge between Germany and Russia. But Germany’s economy can’t afford to ignore a large neighbor like Russia.

It is to be hoped that the Ukraine conflict will soon be over and Europe can resume normal relations with Russia.

Apparently, the younger people of Russia are also less romantically nationalistic than Putin -- except for the neo-non-nazis (like the Olympic gymnast) who display a symbolic letter "Z", apparently as a remodeled Swastika. We can only hope that the younger more moderate people on both sides of the renewed Iron Curtain — Gnomon

I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, but is the way Putin's regime hopes to instill patriotic fervour to the war. And of course, many Russians will support their troops.

However if Trump divided Americans, I think that Putin has divided Russians even more. Yet when the country is falling into more authoritarianism, there isn't public discourse or honest polling. The sanctions are working and Russia could even face hyperinflation. Yet it's not so direct that hardships of the Russians will damage Putin's rule so much, when Putin simply says this is the way the West is attacking Russia (and not relate it to be the response to the invasion of Ukraine).

But more generally, the present situation where sanctions and likely counter-sanctions are already wrecking the global market, security of supply will become the new focus. The Corona pandemic already shaked the roots of the globalized supply chain, but now the idea of "Just on Time" logistics and things being produced in complicated global supply chains will be an idea of the past. However this crisis is going to end, the likelyhood of countries looking at having strategic reserves and maintaining domestic production. Also, China can look at Russia now and think carefully how they would cope when similar actions possibly are taken against them.

In a way, now the era of globalization is collapsing. It already suffered from a structural weakness which was made more obvious during the corona pandemic. The idea that an rich elite rules the world and the nation states obey their demands is just a fallacious dream when it comes to war and crises. It was a fallacy held before World War 1 and is proving a fallacy even today. The rich have influence in peacetime, but once a crisis happens, they will quickly fall in line.

The opponents of globalization might cheer about this at first, yet they ought to then first look at what the new not-so-globalized economy might be like.

I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, — ssu

Oh, I didn't mean that the crossed "Z" of a swastika (symbol of German nationalism) was literally or consciously re-shaped into a symbol of Russian nationalism. But the resemblance is interesting. :wink:

JAPANESE TEMPLE SYMBOL

NATIONAL SOCIALISM (NAZI) SYMBOL

AMERICAN FASCIST SYMBOL

TRUMP CAMPAIGN LOGO

AMAZON SHIRT SYMBOL

:yikes:

But the resemblance is interesting — Gnomon

The "resemblance" is very interesting, indeed. But could it be that it's only in your mind? IMO, if anything, the swastika looks more like two stylized S's than Z's. :grin:

Plus, Z isn't the only letter used. They're also using V and many other letters:

The Z was first spotted on Russian military vehicles, as were other letters including including O, X, A and V. They were often painted inside triangles, squares and other shapes. People also spotted other symbols, such as a triangle with two lines either side, a circle with three dots inside and a small triangle inside a larger triangle ...

What does the Z mean? Meaning of Russian symbol explained and why it’s on the tanks used in Ukraine invasion - I News

So then this one now is changed to : Put-in-pot-n-boil?

The most important thing is to avoid at all costs a NATO-Russia nuclear exchange. Everything else is secondary, and if anyone thinks differently - feel free to go and martyr yourself on either side, but don't drag the rest of humanity and its entire future with you.

The "resemblance" is very interesting, indeed. But could it be that it's only in your mind? IMO, if anything, the swastika looks more like two stylized S's than Z's — Apollodorus

Of course, the shape similarity between a graphic symbol of the invasion of Ukraine, and a symbol of the invasion of Poland is an inference in the mind of the beholder. I can't read the minds of the painters, so I'm just guessing. But the political significance of such a symbol may be obvious to anyone familiar with the history of Fascism. Do you see the connection?

The link in your post indicates that reporters are still trying to understand why Russians are using a letter that is not in their Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps it's meant to symbolize their "romanticized" mission of annexing a sovereign country into their reconstituted Russian empire. Since the intended meaning of the symbol has not been officially declared, I'm just offering my own personal interpretation : that it signifies Putin's dream of a "New World Order", with Russia as the dominant political & military player.. Do you imagine a different reason for the symbol.? :smile:


Why did Germany invade Poland? :
Germany invaded Poland to regain lost territory and ultimately rule their neighbor to the east.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-invades-poland

Swastika symbolism :
However, in the early 20th century, various right-wing adherents of the so-called “völkisch” movement in Germany, a movement in large part dedicated to uncovering a romanticized and largely mythical German/“Aryan” past, adopted the swastika as a symbol.
https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/swastika

Third Empire :
The Third Reich, meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire", alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

Regarding this Z business:

Why would people who normally write in the Cyrillic script use the Latin one?

Of course, the shape similarity between a graphic symbol of the invasion of Ukraine, and a symbol of the invasion of Poland is an inference in the mind of the beholder. I can't read the minds of the painters, so I'm just guessing. — Gnomon

That’s exactly what I’m saying. “Guessing”, i.e., making things up. :grin:

Obviously, you are free to imagine anything you want. I for one see no “resemblance” whatsoever between a “Z” and a German swastika. And, of course, there is no evidence that the Russian servicemen thought of one when they painted, “V’s”, "A's", "X's", "O's", and many other symbols on their vehicles.

Incidentally, the swastika was used by many countries, including Poland in the 1920's and before:

Federacja Polskich Związków Obrońców Ojczyzny - Wikipedia

Coat of arms of the Boreyko family, Poland, 14th/15th century - Wikipedia

Incidentally, the swastika was used by many countries — Apollodorus

The swastika symbol /.../ is an ancient religious icon in various Eurasian cultures. It is used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
/.../
In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

:up:

Sorry I'm late in replying....things have been crazy over the last few days and I haven't had time to get back to this thread.

Basically the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has been a geopolitical earthquake that isn't at all over yet. Both NATO and EU have transformed a lot in only few days. And Russia has made a move that will define it's path for a very long time. The Russian Roulette has been played and the gun has fired. Who gets killed is the real question.

Obviously China now sees how effective (or ineffective) the sanctions of the West are and will take that into consideration. And China is the obvious candidate to hold peace talks with Ukraine and Russia, as now Russia is quite dependent of China thanks to the sanctions. So for China, this all is good. Only if Russia collapses it's bad. — ssu

As far as I can tell, Putin and those in Russia that support his cause were hoping that they would A) be able to occupy Ukraine without much resistance and/or B) the West/NATO (as well as other countries wouldn't take much notice of the invasion.

Because neither of these things happened, Russia is having to take a larger bit of a sh+t sandwich then they were expecting to do. While some of this may help China in some ways, I think it makes China's realize it's plan of invading Taiwan and taking it through military force any time in the near future a more complex and difficult endeavor then they were hoping for. The US and her allies may not wish to get directly get involved with defending Ukraine while it is in a war with Russia, but I think it is a given that the same isn't true if China tries to start a war with Taiwan. I could be wrong but also Taiwan's army is a bit more prepared for an invasion than Ukraine was when Russia attacked, although I don't know if those in Taiwan could do a better job of repelling an invasion then the Ukrainians if and when the Chinese finally are able to get their soldiers to the island. The only way to really know is if and when China finally decides to go through with it.

Let's first think what Taiwan is for China.

For the PRC Taiwan is basically the last remnants of the Civil War where the Kuomingtang retreated. It would be like if during the US Civil War the Confederacy would not have surrendered, but had retreated to present Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and held high their flags on those islands to this day. There in the Caribbean the former secessionists would now have prospered and continued with everything the Confederacy was about. If not at the present having anymore slaves, they would still at least have some kind of Apartheid-type segregation. All this would simply annoy the hell out of US politicians as the Confederacy on a small island would be "unfinished business" and the liberals would demand to end finally such blatant racism and a stain in the Americas. To get public support and a notch in the history books by finally squashing the rebels and ending segregation would be obvious temptation for any "Northern" politician.

For China Taiwan represents a similar annoyance and temptation.

Especially when Taiwan is a) more prosperous per capita than mainland China and b) it's now a democracy. It's existence is this annoying remark how weak China still is and where the American "line of islands" start. Yet this jingoistic bait has also it's drawbacks. First, if the US responds and gets angry (let's say the Chinese sink an American flat top) your facing all out war with the US. Second, even if the US only gives materiel support, invading an island can end up in a huge "Bay of Pigs times twenty"-fiasco, a failure that wouldn't only threaten the present leadership but perhaps the position of the whole Communist Party itself. An invasion of Taiwan could basically result in an Chinese version of the Gallipoli campaign: a humiliating costly defeat. And then it could ruin the economy, the lucrative trade China enjoys. And thus China is extremely closely looking at what is happening to Russia now. How effective are the sanctions. And how willing is the West to arm Ukraine. China can also look at how Putin, who has tried from 2008 to truly modernize the Russian armed forces, is now performing against a determined foe. — ssu

You are right that Taiwan is very prosperous, but I think China wants it more for strategic purposes almost more than anything else. If they were able to A) take it without much of a fight and/or B) without much notice from the Us and her allies in the region, it would signal to the world that China is the new "super power" in the world in which even the US can't do really anything to stop. I know that kind of sounds silly (and/or crazy) to those of us that understand the situation but it was only a few weeks ago that almost EVERYONE was saying the same thing about Putin's idea of invading Ukraine. I could be wrong but I believe that if China thinks that they might be facing some or a lot of the same consequences that Russia is facing right now with invading Ukraine if they attack Taiwan, then it is likely they may not want to go through with it right now. However there is also the possibility they may want to seize on the opportunity while Russia is doing this to attack Taiwan while the world is distracted by that conflict and attack while the US (and some of our allies) is weakened by the sanctions we are imposing on Russia.

Again I know that sounds crazy but given that most of us in the West thought Putin trying to invade Ukraine was crazy, I wouldn't put it past those in power in either Russia or China to try ANYTHING in order to gain more power given the current state of affairs.

Conflict is a constant in the world order, new or old. There are political / economic / ethnic / religious / cultural fault lines all over the globe that regularly result in conflict, casualties, disruption, famine, various forms of collapse, and so on. This has been the case for decades, if not centuries. Just for example, the civil war in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and Sinhalese between 1983 and 2009. Most people in the world were not greatly bothered about it, but for the people who lived there a bad time was had by all. JUST one example among many.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia bothers far more people than the Tamil Tigers vs. the Sinhalese ever could, A) This is taking place on NATO's steps, if not on its porch. B) Russia (and the former USSR) are/were big-name enemies to several big-name states. The people of Ukraine, unlike Iraqis or Afghans are democratic westerners. Thanks to Stalin (famine), Hitler (invasion and genocide), Chernobyl (reactors go boom!), and now Putin we have seen great suffering in Ukraine. We are more predisposed to think kindly of them than say... the people of Nagorno Karabakh.

At least 10,000,000 people were in the Ukrainian diaspora. They are a visible ethnic group in many places. There are roughy 2.5 million people of Ukrainian descent in Canada and the United States. Their presence in many countries makes their suffering, courage, and cause-in-general more accessible than that of Sudan or Yemen.

The remarkable unity displayed by EU and Nato member adds to the immediacy of their needs. If instead, only Cyprus, Portugal and Norway were helping the Ukrainians, we would probably care less about them. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, I don't know much about what use to be called "The Harvest of Sorrow" where it has been estimated up to 20 to 30 million people died in Ukraine and other places in Russia from starvation from Stalin stealing wheat and other food from his people, but I'm pretty sure the descendants of those that went through it haven't forgotten.

To be honest, I'm not surprised by the constant wars and conflicts in this world but more surprised by the lack of it since WWII. Often those in power rarely are happy with the wealth and comfort that such power (and money) provides for them and instead of being content with what they have they more often than not seek dominance over those who they do not already have dominance over. And the lose of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives of soldiers under their command and the lands they invade are a small price to pay if it helps cement a bigger place in the history books for them.

The only thing I imagine prevents more wars from happening since WWII is the existence of nuclear weapons, but I believe that as new leaders from various countries start coming on the scene in the coming decades the risk of nuclear war is going to be less of a deterrent than it use to be since it is much more difficult to get one's place in the history books (and/or elevate your country to "super power status) without invading other countries that are unlikely able to stop your own armies. Whether this will increase the chances of nuclear conflict then it has in the past remains to be seen, but something tells me that either those that are planning on invading other countries don't think the US and her allies will resort to nuclear weapons if they do invade or perhaps they just no longer care.

I'm hoping for a rebellion in Russia given the declining economy, government crackdown on media sources and the death of many thousand Russian sons in a senseless war against their Ukrainian cousins. — Harry Hindu

In a way I would like to see that happen but I have a feeling that is unlikely to happen. Putin is incredibly paranoid and I don't think anyone that doesn't like him can get anywhere near him. On top of that, it is hard to say what would happen in Russia if someone else seized power. It is hard to imagine someone worse than Putin, but there exist the possibility if Putin wasn't in charge then whomever replaced him might be just as bad.

I guess it is just best to hope that whatever the results of the conflict in Ukraine is that it puts a wet blanket on Putin's/Russia's dream of taking over other countries and rebuilding something like the former USSR. Of course even that might be to much to hope for.....and even if that happens there is still the problems with China's plan on more or least trying to do the same thing.

it is much more difficult to get one's place in the history books (and/or elevate your country to "super power status) without invading other countries that are unlikely able to stop your own armies. — dclements

My guess is that the size of their entry in Who's Who or a history book is probably not their main motivation, but ego is certainly a factor.

The main thing is power and its attendant benefits -- cash, land, population, control, etc. How does this apply to Putin's case? He already has tons of cash, land, population, control, etc., so it isn't clear to me how wrecking Ukraine would benefit him and his various apparatchiks. Has he been taking steroids? Is he suffering from raging hormones? Is he mentally unstable? Is there some sort of obscure economic motive here? Ukraine is a major grain producer; so is Russia. Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? (I'm grasping at straws here)

As far as I can tell, Putin and those in Russia that support his cause were hoping that they would A) be able to occupy Ukraine without much resistance and/or B) the West/NATO (as well as other countries wouldn't take much notice of the invasion. — dclements

..which tells what kind of a clusterfuck and a brainfart this "special military operation" has been.

, I think it makes China's realize it's plan of invading Taiwan and taking it through military force any time in the near future a more complex and difficult endeavor then they were hoping for. — dclements

China has a frontline seat into looking how the US and the West respond to these kinds of actions. And what ought to be noted that Taiwan (or the Republic of China) is for the US a Major non-NATO Ally. That means it will respond far more aggressively to defend Taiwan than with Ukraine.

I could be wrong but also Taiwan's army is a bit more prepared for an invasion than Ukraine was when Russia attacked — dclements

If you mean when Russia attacked in 2014, yes. If you refer to the current "special military operation", then I'm not so sure.

Maybe Putin wants an even bigger share of food commodity markets? — Bitter Crank

Absolutely. That's why Putin created the World Bank, IMF, G7, WEF, WTO, NATO, EU, Twitter, Facebook, etc., etc. which, incidentally, all are headquartered in Russia and under Putin's total control.

All he now needs to fulfill his long-cherished dream of world-domination is to get his hands on a few Ukrainian cities transformed into rubble ...

Amazing how Putin managed to do all that without anybody noticing.

I think an additional reason for the invasion is to wreck the economy of Ukraine, and control it so that it will not seek, and will not get, membership in either the EU or NATO. Whether that strategy will pay off for Putin remains to be seen. Putin would not want either organization to have an even larger presence on Russia's borders than they already have,