Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Ok so i believe a lot of you remember the thread i had made a few months back talking about the tensions and the big military buildup on the Ukraine-Russia border
(https://knowyourmeme.com/forums/serious-debate/topics/63483-a-new-war-is-probably-coming-to-europe)

The tensions are heated once again and there's big build up on the border and it appears to be linked with the border crisis on the Poland-Belarus the real difference is that Ukraine must not expect any real support from the US which is too preoccupied with China which will undoubtebly take advantage of a such conflict to take Taiwan here are some videos by  GTBT (my go to Youtuber about geo politics) discussing both of these events and how they are linked as well as more info on the crisis

What are your thoughts on this?

I don't think Putin has the balls to touch Ukraine and I'm fairly confident we can handle anything that occurs there. Last time we had this scare it got defused so I'm anticipating more of that.

Xi is the one I'm worried about because it seems like the CCP is constantly probing Taiwan. Their remarks during the 100th anniversary and increasing aggression makes me feel like they're readying their people to go to war to reclaim their disputed territories. I feel like they're going to go for a Denmark strat for a war-in-a-day but I don't see how they could achieve that under current global conditions. I worry about them succeeding but I also worry about them failing since failure means other people get involved and things get hotter.

Xi is the one to worry about. Putin will flounder in and out to garner vatnik support, but increased sanctions and the plummeting ruble will likely keep him from going Sudetenland 2.0 with Ukraine, or at least keep him from finishing said Sudetenland 2.0. Jinping's goal has been to "restore China to Maoist principles" and all the bellicose rhetoric and inflammatory saber-rattling that entails. In short:

"His wumao have multiplied. His fortress is rebuilt in the land of Shanghai. Jinping needs only this Island to cover all the lands of Asia in a second darkness. He is seeking it… seeking it, all his thought is bent on it."

And the only difference is that the Taiwanese do not yearn to return to the hand of China as long as it is controlled by the party that killed millions of its own people. The world can afford to sanction Russia, but China? It's played its hand all too well. They've got money everywhere, and money makes easy whores out of politicians and officials. It would be a better idea to step up to China, to set up the Pacific fleet around the South China sea and say "try me, bitch" than it would to deploy the Sixth Fleet. The British are keeping tabs on Russia for now, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Jinping on the other hand, is raring to shed blood, and unlike Putin, he's stupid enough to actually try.

Putin had no scruples to get involved in Georgia back in '08 and in Crimea in '14 – both times successfully. If one can take a lesson from these conflicts it is that Russia can and will chip away at its weaker, post-soviet neighbours when its expedient for them to do so. The Ukraine has no allies. NATO / the EU is only a weak deterrent, since Europe has no interest in a conflict with Russia – trade sanctions harm them as well, after all.

Ukraine's worst mistake was giving away their nuclear deterrent for security assurances back in the 90's. They exchanged nuclear weapons for a piece of paper.

Taiwan seems like a much hotter potato though. If the PRC should invade Taiwan the ball will be in the USA's court. If they retaliate we have a war of two global nuclear powers. If the US fold it will show that they're an unreliable ally and open Pandora's box (South Korea, anyone?). I hope Xi is all bark and no bite.

I think the main factor that a lot of people are overlooking is that the CCP is, historically, militarily incompetent.

All of their recent military operations and training are more like large theatre plays than actual combat exercises; because they are all given a script and have to follow it to the letter.

When they actually try to, you know, throw spanners in the works so they can actually train under quasi-realistic standards; it all just collapses into shit due to a far too rigid command structure and untested tactics and strategies.

You have to keep in mind that this is essentially the same army that somehow managed to have their own troops die of starvation 15km from friendly territory in a war that only lasted three weeks.

There's also the age issue, since China is running out of young people.

No really.

Also keep in mind that most of the men sent to fight will be from the One Child generation.

If they die, they're parents are screwed as they are relying on them to support them in retirement as China doesn't really have a public pension scheme.

This means that there isn't the public will there to fight.

Oh sure, if you were to ask them in public, they'd say that it'd be a worthy sacrifice for the greater good of the CCP.

But, in the privacy of their own hearts, they know it will only doom them.

Well, that and the vicious fighting for the presidency…

…the horrendous bodge jobs…

…getting water in your lead supply…

….and the local governments running themselves into the ground…

…means that China really can't afford to make things worse for itself.

Hell, even if they managed to take Taiwan, they wouldn't survive the sanctions and political blowback.

China is where is it now because it is convenient. And that's the thing with convenience. It's useful up to the point where it isn't, upon which you discard it and move onto the next thing.

What can China do, that India can't? Or Vietnam? Or any other rising nation?

The only thing China wants right now is stability in order to get it's shit in order; so there will be no war, not until after they pick their new leader in October 2022 anyway.

As for Russia?

Their strategy since 2008 has been one of bite and hold.

They take small chunks of land, wait for things to cool and then take another chunk.

This keeps conflicts small and localised, so it becomes much harder for allies to justify getting involved as it would look like they are the ones escalating the situation; which would then justify the Russians using more force themselves.

It also encourages allies to avoid joining in, because it's only a small border conflict. Surely they are strong enough to handle a few, green men. We don't have to get our people killed and lose face over such a small and insignificant conflict.

The Russians aren't stupid.

They won't go for all-out warfare whilst this strategy still works; and since the only one's on the continent with balls to stand up to them are the Estonians and Poles, I imagine they will continue with this strategy for some time to come.

A seabourne invasion over 110 kilometers over open ocean against a first world millitary that has been preparing for invasion for over 60 years. Trying to take out Taiwan quickly would be a nightmare for the CCP and quickly is thier only option:

The CCP's navy is a joke when compared the USA's; thier only chance of success is to be in control of all taiwan before the americans can get thier shit in order and any blockade gets swatted out of the water and invasion force left stranded without supplies.

With the sheer degree of influence the CCP holds over the current american government; that could be a long time coming but each day past 1 would still be a gamble and those generals will be betting thier lives on not having to tell thier boss thier first domestic carrier has become the world's most expensive artificial reef.

As stated above jinping is far less stable than putin, it's clear that putin is trying desperately to stay relevant on the world stage

and the prc has no more influence over the us than russia does

I said it was a shit play, whether they are nuts enough to try it is another matter.

God I hope not, we havent even gotten out of an nearly dystopian worldwide pandemic that forces everyone to wear masks or die and now we are going straight to ww3?

Like godamn one horrible economy and life destroying shit at a time

…Ukraine is doomed, isn't it?

Eastern Ukraine is doomed. Yes.
The facts on the ground:

-Russia has 94,000 troops at the Ukraine border.

-Russia is bringing shoring up supply lines and bringing in medical units to the Ukraine border, this isn't just heavy artillery, or show of force, this is a set up for a full on invasion.

-Putin views the EU as incapable and unwilling to defend Ukraine if push comes to shove, and he's right. The EU is in no realistic position to offer any aid, indeed up to 60% of all energy imports in the EU come from Russia, if they act, Russia turns off the gas that light the heating of hundreds of millions of Europeans every day.

-Putin views that the US is in no realistic position to help or defend Ukraine either, and he's right. The country is politically divided, the current President is seen as weak, the American people are war-weary and have no eagerness to defend a country they have no realistic attachment to. There is no realistic political will for the American people to support Ukraine.

-Russia has been making itself sanction proof since 2014, so it's not that much in fear of Western sanctions – primarily from the US.

-Russia's control the natural gas pipelines that run through Ukraine and shut down the flow – creating absolute panic in Ukraine and Germany. Giving Russia the perfect leverage in any ceasefire negotiations.

Visual representation of pipelines that go through Ukraine and into Europe.

So why is Natural Gas the big lever that Russia has? Let's look at energy costs this year alone:
Winter temperatures in January in Germany is averaging -2C i.e. below freezing point.
Winter temperatures in January in Ukraine is also about -2C.
Turning off the gas flow would be catastrophic to the people in Germany and Ukraine.

And the biggest one? 2022 Winter Olympics begin in Beijing, and with increasing number of countries boycotting it, if a blitzkrieg like war begins with Ukraine, it would divide attention from the war. It worked before for Putin, why wouldn't it work again?

So yeah.
What is going to happen most likely is that Putin will offer an ultimatum: promise from the west that Ukraine can't join NATO, promise that no Western military weapons in Ukraine (an impossible promise for the west to make as it undermines sovereignty of nations). If the West says no, that gives him ample reason to invade. If the west agrees, he'll do a victory lap, and somehow or other, find a way that the west broke their promise in the near future. Putin loves nothing more than to have a reason given to him to act, that it wasn't Russia that started, but it is Russia that will end it.

And in the end, a solid question, every advantage is in Russia's hand right now. Why wouldn't you invade?

Well there are some reasons:
If the war goes poorly and young able bodied Russian boys come home in body bags it could be politically disastrous for Putin. If America does intervene, or helps out, it would prolong the conflict for a long time and would be extremely costly.
But it's a game of risk vs reward, and frankly, the risk vs reward here is favoring Russia hardcore.

Great ..ww3…just great

Question.

In the event of invasion, why don't we just bomb the Russian gaslines?

If they're going to turn it off anyway, why wouldn't we destroy these clearly vital economic assets?

It would suck in the short term; but it would mean that Russia no longer has the same power over western Europe that it currently does; and it would surely do more financial damage to them than any sanctions would.

The energy problem can be solved by simply buying supplies from other places.

Sure it would be expensive, and they may have to swallow their pride and temporality recommission their coal-powered power plants, but it would be very effective and come at minimal military and political cost.

If the Russians don't clean out the pipes properly, or fast enough, the blow back from a bombing run on a small isolated part of the pipeline could destroy large stretches of it.

Of course, the biggest impact will be that it makes the entire Russian command staff do a double take, which might make them call off the invasion then and there; because if they just did something that everyone knew they wouldn't do, what on Earth are they going to do next?

The EU are a bunch cowardly bureaucrats, but do not expect the individual countries to hold back when Russia rolls right up to their doorstep. I'm pretty sure no Pole is going to have trouble sleeping at night because the price of securing themselves was that Gunther had to switch from Gas to Electric heating.

The point is there wont be a world war 3 over Ukraine, because Europe and America doesnt have ths stomach for it.

There will however likely be a war between Ukraine and Russia because the current leader of NATO has turned out incapable of effectively pretending a willingness to fight over chunks of Ukraine.

Russia will bite and hold, Europe will blink over gas and the American political system will sieze up at the prospect of another war over bumfuck nowhere as the asterisk administration is faced with a choice between inaction or suicide.

Oh….Welp… Ukraine is fucked yeah

Wonder if we're gonna get another round of "Gamers in WWIII" memes.
At this point, with all this world tension, I think people are gonna start setting up Deadpools betting where a major war will happen first

That's a great question. So I'll lay out some statistics, first.
According to the EU official website, the following is stated about their energy sources: In 2019, the EU produced around 39% of its own energy, while 61% was imported. In 2019, almost two thirds of the extra-EU's crude oil imports came from Russia (27 %), followed by Iraq (9 %). A similar analysis shows that almost three quarters of the EU's imports of natural gas came from Russia (41 %), Norway (16 %), Algeria (8 %) and Qatar (5 %), while over three quarters of solid fuel (mostly coal) imports originated from Russia (47 %), the United States (18 %) and Australia (14 %).

Effectively, the European's entire energy grid is utterly dependent on Russian energy provisions. But that's not all.

I am going to speak about Germany, because it's EU's biggest economy.
Germany imports nearly half of it's energy. Of that, 20-50% of the energy it imports comes from Russia Germany isn't alone in this, Italy, Belgium and Netherlands also import about 25-50% from Russia.

Now let's talk about Russia's energy exports. While it is true that Russia's energy exports are it's major bread and butter for it's federal budget, the EU isn't it's only major market. China is a massive importer of Russian energy. If the pipeline to Europe goes dead, it doesn't mean production will – and China is energy starved and more than happy to buy it from Russia.

Here is the map of all the Russian pipelines that go to Europe: so as you can see, there are even some that go through the Caucasus mountains, and Turkey. Which means bombing one a pipeline that shuts down all the arteries, means that you're also affecting the export/import structure of countries like Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey.

It's true that EU has pipelines from Algiers, and the ME that bypass Russia:

But, here's the thing. It's not a short-term couple of day thing for Europe to switch it's entire energy infrastructure to import more and more from the ME, and Norway. First off, you're also forcing these countries to the following: massively ramp up their oil producing capabilities, which means building more wells, pumping larger, harder, or, selling more to EU than to other places, which brings even more countries into the conflict. Second, Russia can live without pumping energy to Europe for a long time. The EU – being largely Democracies – would face civil and political unrest from an energy crisis that would absolutely devastate it internally.

The EU, effectively, has far FAR more to lose from losing energy from Russia, than Russia has from Europe. If those pipelines are bombed you're literally effecting the entire world's energy supply systems, and everyone will be involved.

And neither recommissioning, infrastructure, demanding and paying for more energy from other sources is going to be an overnight solution. It would be a minimum of years before it can ramp up the demand for energy it suddenly got cut off from. Months to switch the infrastructure supply lines, months more to recommission plants – hire the crew – make sure new supply lines are met, while months for exporting countries to either ramp up production (which is a major investment), or switch trade.

The question here is: will the general EU voter (keep in mind they are Democracies) be willing to live with several months, if not years, with extreme energy crises? Daily blackouts, rationed energy use, effectively live like they do in North Korea? Are they willing to pay the kind of prices even when they do switch?

Now here's even a bigger issue. Without energy supply, how do you even run a modern military? Without oil, how does your modern mobile infantry function? Without energy how does your technological statetigic apparatus handle? Russia will still have that energy, they will still have that oil to use for their own military. The Polish, the Latvians, Finnish, Estonians, would be even bigger targets due to their military unable to function like Russia. The EU would not be able to help either because again – their military also relies heavily on oil, energy, to function. The entirety of the EU strategic systems, it's militaries capabilities would be instantly crippled while Russia – who, at this point, would have every reason to do whatever land-grabs it wants to rebuild the USSR, would be at it's fullest supply might.

This will give impetus for a global conflict if Russia takes advantage of a crippled European power.

As far as Gunther is concerned, Gunther isn't switching from gas heating to electric heating. Because there is no electricity for Gunther to switch over to. The gas they use isn't just for heating homes, the gas imports from Russia is to power their electricity.

AP News

"Administration officials have suggested that the U.S. will press Ukraine to formally cede a measure of autonomy within its eastern Donbas region, which is now under de facto control by Russia-backed separatists who rose up against Kyiv in 2014."

However: " The administration officials made no mention of ceding any territory, and Biden has said that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are not on the table for the U.S."

"Biden also will have to finesse Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. The U.S. and NATO reject Putin’s demands that they guarantee Ukraine won’t be admitted to the Western military alliance.

But senior State Department officials have told Ukraine that NATO membership is unlikely to be approved in the next decade, according to a person familiar with those private talks who spoke on condition of anonymity."

Chamberlain 2, appeasment boogaloo, this time without the excuse of buying time to rearm.

But hey, at least he aint making mean fucking tweets!

That implies trump would do any different
the us doesn't give two shits about Ukraine, it has no valuable business assets there

Dont insult my intelligence by telling me trump wouldnt do any different like you believe it, I like to maintain the fiction noone is that deranged.

Trump ran madman doctrine so hard he could kill 200 russian solders in syria and snipe an iranian general and neither would do anything but bitch. The man exuded such a willingness to fight over anything he even got the North Koreans to sit down and shut the fuck up, and they literally eat off madman doctrine!

If you think this would be happening under Trump you must practically breathe kool-aid

not going to lie. in a world so maddening the madman doctrine works extremely well.
It's hard to believe but Trump would have been more proactive. To him it would be an assault on his ego. After all, it was under Trump that new and stricter sanctions on Russia were made. It was under him that anti-Tank missles were sold to Ukraine. Putin being brazen so hard, would be an insult to his ego, and at the end of the game, his ego influenced his decisions, for good or bad.

I hope we're not doing the same thing where people missed Bush because of Trump.

Trump ran the gamut of madman doctrine of aggression to putting a question on mutual defense from NATO and abandoning the Kurds (maybe due to some compliments from Erdogan, that's the weakness of ego based approaches). I still recall when Russians moved into abandoned American bases from that last move.

I wouldn't trust him to be anything but erratic, the man could be a liability. Quite frankly, I prefer that Trump not be here. I don't know anyone who wasn't a direct supporter who misses him for his foreign policy. I also remember Trump supporters hopes that we get invaded, or their general attitude towards Europe (and other 'allies'), so I don't trust any pretensions of them being allies to anyone.

Whatever the case, France and the UK, two countries with nuclear weapons is warning Russia. It's now their move on whether they're going to attack. Hope the 'West' won't sell Ukraine out.

I recall the Main Stream Media and many Democrats suddenly warmed up to Bush Jr in the last year or so of Trump's era, precisely because they'd prefer the neoliberal, neoconservative game that Trump "allegedly" put a wrench to. The abandoning of the Kurds was by far the most atrocious thing of his foreign policy – although I can't say the same about putting NATO in jeopardy. I have mixed feelings on it. It's hard for me to make the case why NATO is relevant in today's world – given that much of Europe and NATO allies are literally beholden economically to the very entity that NATO was formed to bulwark against.

There were some things about Trump foreign policy I supported. But my bias comes in that. Acting on nearly 2 decade long decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv was one. Fostering the Abraham Accords is another – and I will say that those accords are going to be remembered in massive ways decades from now. Actively positioning the political will of America against China in such a way that even after a year into Biden's Presidency, the one non-partisan issue in the US is it's hostility towards China.

Do you honestly think the French are willing to risk nuclear war with Russia over Eastern Ukraine?

It's another reason why I don't trust democrats, they were also gung-ho about Middle Eastern 'Interventions', lest anyone forget. I hope the subject of the Kurds remains in public consciousness, it's a black mark on Trump. I still think a lot of suffering and instability could have been avoided if Turkey had been confronted then. Now, years later Erdogan has run the country to the ground.

Then again, when there was trouble in the East Med it was only Greece, Cyprus, France and the US who addressed it. So who knows how reliable everyone is.

As for NATO? Look, the US made up some bullshit about the Kurds to justify their betrayal. They did the same security concerns when they started a trade war against their allies, before attacking China. The US will always make up an excuse, it's almost visible when they're gearing against someone. Under Trump they racketeered South Korea, and tried the same with Europe with Cost plus 50. France is above 2%, but De Gaulle was right to kick the Americans out, just so they wouldn't have the influence to do that.

I would prefer if Germany had a better military, but I trust them more than other 'allies'. Americans will always have an excuse, and I trust them less because I know they'll betray us and be self-righteous about it. A big military that is unreliable is useless to us.

Russia? Pff, they're even more economically dependent and tied to Europe, it's a smaller economy by several orders. The utility of their fuels is also growing smaller every year. How's the spate with Bibi anyway? Apparently there's been a falling out with Trump.

Do you think the Americans are willing to risk it? … Are the Russians willing to risk it?
As for the French Administration? Who knows, no one wants a nuclear war, but this may be a red line to stop Russia's salami slicing tactics.

We'll see if Ukraine and Georgia can count on the 'West'.

Not to say that Russia's control of exports of oil and gas isn't important, but it's not as important to France, which has nuclear power, and the Atlantic. Russia's second biggest import source is also Germany, which is machinery, pharmaceuticals, electronics, components and foodstuff.

A hit to thermal energy in winter may be dramatic, but it's also a lose-lose situation for the most apocalyptic scenarios for Russia's oligarchs, especially if Russia ruins itself in this scenario.

Thus, we'll see how it goes, or if this spills into a larger conflict.

Nukes will probably not fly here the ​reason is very simple it hurts the narrative

Just like all modern wars the Ukraine-Russia war has narratives and propaganda that paints one side as the defender and the other as the aggressor with the objective of gaining legitimation from the rest of the world the overall narrative sprouted by Moscovites and Putin sympathisers inside Ukraine is that Putin is a "hero" that stands against the "evil and aggressive" NATO and the "Illegitimate Neo Nazi Regime of Ukraine" now you are probably gonna ask what does this have to do with nukes? Simple thanks to decades of Cold War propaganda the whole current world views nukes as evil objects and whoever uses them as an evil person and for this exact reason Putin will not dare to throw any Nukes (which he would only do if NATO intervenes because Russia is perfectly able to plow through Ukraine on its own) because he would then appear as the aggressor and his sympathisers and the rest of the world would not be so willing on supporting him(and there's also the fact that it would open possibilties for retailation by the West) NATO and the West on the other hand will also not dare to throw any nukes for the exact same reasons it would make them appear as the aggressors and "prove" the Putinist narrative "right" in the eyes of the world

Overall a conflict in Ukraine would be conventional nukes are just not practical in this scenario

God I wish Putin just died from a heart attack or something but you know people like that never die young for some awful reason.

Survival of the fittest is a bit more literal in russia.

I don't think Russia is as economically dependent on the Europeans as the Europeans think Russia is. China is Russia's biggest market in exports/imports, and in fact, Russia imports nearly twice as much in value from China than it does from Germany. Furthermore – I pointed out in this thread the deep dependence the Europeans have on Russia for their energy – maybe not the French – since y'all still use Nuclear (Like you should). Russia can do without importing major amount of machinery from Germany (in fact the amount they import has drastically fallen anyway), and the Russian oligarchal authoritarian system could withstand the political fallout of such a move. West Europe, and the EU nations are mostly Democracies, and we've been seeing a lot of political unrest simply from the cost of energy. I cannot even imagine the kind absolute damage that would do the economies in politics in Europe if Russia decides to turn off the spigot – which it constantly threatens to do.
I support European energy independence.
The US has already signaled that it won't do anything about Ukraine – there is no political will in this country to do so. This will fall on Europe to do something about, and I doubt they will. Even if nukes were off the table in any major war, I doubt that France, Germany, or any other European power would put troops on the ground for Ukraine. I'd be incredibly impressed if they did though.

How much do you wanna bet that Belarus is gonna be the next to be annexed after Ukraine?

Genuinely surprised it hssn't been yet

Update

It's already pretty much under Russia's thumb. It's a vassal state, why even bother?

Mostly a show of force and to secure it against the opposition there

Good point. European nations need to get off their dependence on Russian exports as fast as possible. The way the Gilets Jaunes partly erupted due to an increase in the price of fuel was worrying, so Russia definitely still has a usable weapon.

Oligarchical authoritarian systems can withstand economic pressure in different ways than a democracy, but unlike other Authoritarian systems (maybe China under the Deng System), it's still a system which can be hit the wallets of individuals instead of demographic groups. Technically, counting Germany and other EU states the trade is equal to China. China itself is also on the opposite side of the populated part of it's country, so shifting trade won't be that easy for Russia. Or for any country, Autarky was difficult even for the fascist countries of WWII, and that was before the current global economy.

To acknowledge some points however, Russia has been under heavy sanctions since the initial invasion of Crimea and hasn't collapsed, so economic warfare has proven to not be enough to unseat Putin. It's pretty obvious now that there has to be some kind of force deterrence, not just economics at work.

I hope the Europe (not just the EU, the UK has been pleasantly proactive recently) will actually back up their talk of acting. Otherwise a scenario of a splitting of Ukraine or a continued policy of salami slicing may feasibly continue. We'll see, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

ON AN INVASION OUTSIDE OF UKRAINE:
Earlier in this thread there was this scenario that Russia cutting off oil would be enough for it to conquer the whole continent, and I don't think that will happen. Not only because of the resource requirements for Russia, but because the nukes would start flying before then.

Of the three nuclear powers that are involved, two would have their country threatened, and the third and largest one would let a rival get access to the Atlantic by inaction.

Any annexation would have to be done with the consent of Lukashenko. He's one of the oligarchs in a way, and intruding on his 'fiefdom' without it wouldn't work out well for Putin, I'm guessing.

That was one of the issues with Ukraine, Russia's attack completely knocked them out of its 'sphere of influence', so they now only have hard-power to deal with it. The explanation given was that they were afraid of Ukraine joining NATO with the change in power prior to the invasion. but the actions of Russia's administration may have the opposite effect.

I part of me wonders how much of a danger the current Russian incursion in the Ukraine is to the fundamental element of post WW2 world order. I.e. The deep hostility for war of conquest, i.e. a war for territory and expanding a state's borders. Especially among larger powers.
The world ignored Russia's annexation of parts of Georgia. They stood by as Russia reclaimed Crimea, and they now will watch eastern Ukraine transform into Russian territory. If the US, the EU, NATO ignores this, allows this to happen what signal does this send?
Is the international prohibition of war of conquest disappear?
I think this is the question that is not being asked. What good is the idea of preventing war of conquest if a party like Russia is able to effectively given the ability to get away with reclaiming territory – even if it's through extremely complex diplomatic means?

Putin wants 2 things most of all:
1) the obliteration or nullification of NATO as an anti-Russian bulwark.
2) fix the demographic issue plaguing Russia.

Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia, solve #2 in many ways.
The embarrassment and explicit revelation of ineffectiveness of NATO is going to be the prize of this invasion.

We're swiftly returning to a pre-WW2 era in many ways. The US is retreating. The international global order is fading. For good or bad, the pax Americana is ending, if not already over.

you know what would be fun? If the Russians on the border got infected by Covid and would have to retreat due to that. Wouldn't be the first time a war has to be called of because a crippling pandemic.

I doubt russia would, you'd need something with like 50% death rate