Putin doesn’t want a fight with NATO which is the whole reason he is moving on parts of Ukraine now, before it can become part of NATO.
I don’t think that the ((NATO) would. NATO troops setting foot on Russian soil would be really risking Armageddon. If Putin attacked Poland, I think they would kick him out of Poland, move Troops right up to the border, and then economically isolate him and anyone who trades with him. As part of the Poland liberation campaign they might launch some air strikes at airbases inside Russia but even that might be too much of a risk of being confused for a nuclear attack.
In any case there is no point way in which an attack to try to annex Poland ends with Putin/Russia better off than where he started.
Canada’s fleet of CF-18 fighters is largely deployed as defensive interceptors, so unless the Russians send bombers over, they have little to worry about. We do not have the capability to project force to anything in Russia that matters.
Arctic warfare, if it happens, is strategic nuclear warfare.
Canada’s military is in a shambles, to be honest.
My lack of knowledge of the state of the Canadian military aside 
, I don’t see how Putin can come out ahead if he takes another step past Ukraine. Other than Finland and / or Sweden, his only other options for further empire building would be invading his allies or invading a NATO country. I can’t imagine any scenario in which Putin or Russia would benefit from either one of those actions. Maybe he really believes he can beat NATO in a conventional war, but I doubt he’s that deluded.
He won’t outright invade someone like Poland. He’ll foment dissent in border regions. “Polish” separatists (or Lithuanian, or wherever seems his best bet) will start a low level civil war, he’ll support it, and he will see how far he can go.
There are more ethnic Vietnamese in Poland than ethnic Russians.
Yeah that strategy would work on the Baltic states but not in Poland I think.
Best for Russia would be: Conquer Ukraine, Moldova, annex Belarus (via dubious referendums or peaceful means,) then mass lots of forces on the Baltic state and Polish/Romanian/Hungarian borders but not actuallly invade; just muck around with NATO minds.
IOW, Iron Curtain II, Nuclear Boogaloo
Or, do some of those things and threaten (or hint) to do the rest, and then back off in exchange for easing of the sanctions which were imposed when you did the first bunch. So you get much of what you want and end up paying little to no price.
There’s little in common between the US in 1940 vs the US today. In 1940 we were not the hegemon of the world nor were global economies linked to any degree close to what they are today. And naturally there was no NATO.
Why would Putin attack countries (like Moldova and Belarus) where he has installed stooges in leadership? Russia wouldn’t be invading or annexing anything in Ukraine if his puppet Yanukovych hadn’t been run out of the country 8 years ago. Annexation and invasion were plans B and C.
The Baltics sound a better bet. 1/4 to 1/3 Russian speaking, undefendable.
Good article in the WSJ: Why Putin Is Outfoxing the West - WSJ
The West has two problems in countering Mr. Putin. The first is a problem of will. The West does not want a confrontation with Russia and in any crisis the goal remains to calm things down. That basic approach not only makes appeasement an attractive option whenever difficulties appear; it prevents us from thinking proactively. When Russia stops bothering us, we stop thinking about Russia.
The second is a problem of imagination. Western leaders still do not understand Mr. Putin.
Mr. Putin is, first and foremost, a gambler who is accustomed to taking large risks against long odds with a cool head. He is not infallible by any means, but he has years of experience in taking calculated risks, defying the odds, and imposing his will on stronger opponents. Like Napoleon Bonaparte, he can surprise and outmaneuver his opponents because he is willing to assume risks they would never consider, and so to attack in times and ways they can neither imagine nor plan for.
Mr. Putin is an immensely skilled ruler, the most formidable Russian figure since Stalin, but he has his problems, too. Russian power remains limited by material and demographic constraints—and the rise of China is a geopolitical factor that no ruler in the Kremlin can permanently afford to ignore. If Western leaders can overcome their posthistorical parochialism and develop coherent strategies for the actual world as opposed to the world of their dreams, effectively countering Vladimir Putin is an eminently achievable goal, though in no way a simple or a trivial one.
(The author omits the impact of European dependency on Russian energy.)
So how much can/should the West impose in the way of sanctions? I think the first WSJ problem - lack of will - is the greatest. Not sure why Nord Stream 2 was even considered.
How realistic is the fear that we will drive them closer to China, or that we will lose what influence we have?
Hell, what we really want is access to their markets and cheap resources. And we’ll bluster but fail to do much more to retain those.
I am by no means an expert on Putin. I only know what I see and read, and that’s incomplete. But, and I have posted this before, in Frontline’s excellent series of interviews “The Putin Files,” those interviewed do not present him as this master strategist. They present him as a thug uniquely adapted to the Russian way things work. This is how I take Masha Gessen’s interview in particular.
These interviews are on YouTube and I really recommend them.
I didn’t say Russia would only be fighting Poland and Romania.
Blinken has cancelled the planned meeting with the Russian foreign minister on Thursday, which was supposed to pave the way for a hastily planned summit between Biden and Putin that French president Macron had tried to arrange. Looks like diplomacy is pretty much off the table now. Putin is a blatant and shameless thug and has no qualms about it. Anything Putin ever said about encouraging a diplomatic solution was clearly a ruse.
That seems to pretty much always be the conclusion - and then everyone forgets again.
Does everyone forget, or do they just prefer their creature comforts - so long as it isn’t their own personal ox being gored?