I couldn't find a HN rule against reposting flagged comments, so here it is (with my edit after being flagged). I want to reiterate my point of view is entirely neutral and fact based (from what I've read so far about the conflict).

IMO, what the West has done is shown an incredible display of power, killing multiple birds with one stone:

1.) Attempt to prevent Russia from accessing new found gas/oil reserves. [3]

2.) Continue to press Russia into a corner as the West continues to expand its influence. [1]

3.) Show and tell China the consequences of economic sanctions and economic war, and our willingness and ability to do so. [speculation]

For one, the Ukraine invasion is the US's fault. This has been covered in depth by John Mearsheimer in 2015 in his lecture "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?" after the Orange Revolution and Russia capturing of Crimea [1]. And there is also some rational speculation here regarding the discovery of natural resources. [3]

What the US (which has major influence over Europe/NATO, so it's not clear how much of a choice Europe had here)[2] has essentially done is shown the world that we can manipulate and control the status quo (i.e. win a "war") without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. The new tools of war are economic control, and we're the heaviest guerilla in the room [4].

What's brilliant is the US's ability to make Putin appear much more evil than he really is. Yes, he is a dictator and isn't a good person, but he's been bringing back Russia from the dead and lifting its people out of poverty. Some of Putin's invasions occurred because we, the West/NATO, offered membership to those countries, when Russia made it clear that was a big no-no [1]. Forcing Russia to invade Ukraine is brilliant because Putin is evil in the West's eyes, but it was 100% necessary for Putin to invade because having that much of his boarder exposed to NATO is an incredibly vulnerable position to be in, and he made that clear to us years ago [1]. Note, the US would react just the same. We have the Monroe Doctrine and the Cuban Missile Crisis to show for it. [5][6]. So Putin is forced to play the worst hand, invading his sibling country (which makes him appear more evil), spend billions of dollars to do so, and lose many of his economic connections to the world. I think the West's goal here is to deliver the final blow to Putin and topple his regime, even if it requires killing innocent people along the way.

Other notes:

Russia's economy is strongly linked to natural gas and oil, and earlier this century a huge deposit of both was found in Ukraine and in their economic coastal zone/area. [3]

Mearsheimer notably distinguishes the West and East's methods of international politics into "21st century 'walk in and do whatever we please'" and "19th century 'balance of power politics'". The US is such a powerful country that it wont face any negative repercussions for interfering with the world order nor invading smaller countries.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

[2] The US contributes over 10x the funds of the 2nd largest contributor (Germany) to NATO, and represents about 70% of the total pot. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/this-is-how-much-nato-count...

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE . Note, this video is a bit too pro-western to be fair/balanced. It does not consider the possibility that the US wants to get into Ukraine for oil/gas.

[4] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

</armchair>

Edit: Wow, people are flagging my sourced backed, neutral view comment? Can someone at HN please unflag the comment? @dang