On the big question – Der Spiegel:

‘Slowly, we're running out of comparisons for grasping the magnitude of what is currently happening. Just a week ago, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine brought to mind events like Saddam Hussein’s 1990 attack on Kuwait – a large scale and ultimately devastating military operation, but also one whose impact at first seemed limited to the region.’

(…)

‘Few spoke seriously during the Kuwait crisis about the possibility of an imminent third world war. Today, many are using that expression, from the German Green Party politician Jürgen Trittin to the British-American presidential adviser Fiona Hill, who says the global conflict began long ago – with the assassination attempts by Russian agents in the West, for example.
The same West that for so long seemed powerless in the face of Putin’s provocations has now been united by his attack on Ukraine in a way that neither the Kremlin nor Western politicians could have foreseen.
This applies first and foremost to NATO, the West’s central military institution. Only two years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron declared NATO to be "brain dead,” a comment which seems preposterous today. The alliance has instead solidified, from the U.S. to the Baltic states and from Brussels to Ankara. Even neutral states like Sweden and Finland are now considering joining.’

(…)

‘Even in Washington, the extreme domestic polarization of recent years is receding into the background, and most of the political establishment is rallying behind a president experienced in foreign policy. When Putin placed Russia’s nuclear forces on heightened alert last Sunday, Joe Biden avoided any rhetorical escalation. When he delivered his first State of the Union address on Tuesday night, invoking America’s unity, even Republicans in Congress clapped. It seemed as though the United States was indeed back as the leading power of a strengthened West.’

(…)

‘How China, as a world power, behaves could be decisive in the question of whether the war in Ukraine develops into a global conflict. As recently as February, Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping rehearsed a closing of ranks at the Olympic Games in Beijing. But the world’s near-unanimous condemnation of Putin’s war has also created a new situation for Beijing, with China now finding itself confronted with a unified determination of the West that it isn't accustomed to.
When the United Nations General Assembly voted Wednesday on a resolution demanding that Moscow "immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine," 141 countries voted in favor, with 35 abstaining. Only 4 countries other than Russia voted against it: Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea and Syria.’

(…)

‘In recent weeks, a number of NATO member states have sent troops and equipment to Eastern Europe or announced their intention to do so. Since the invasion, the U.S. has already deployed another 15,000 troops to Eastern Europe. The British recently sent another 1,000 troops to Estonia, and Italy has increased the number of its Eurofighter fighter jets in Romania to eight. Belgium and France are sending soldiers to Romania, and Germany is stationing a company in Slovakia.
"If President Putin thought he would divide NATO, he was mistaken," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed to DER SPIEGEL. "NATO is more united than ever."
The question as to what purpose NATO actually still served has been asked time and again since the end of the Cold War. When Donald Trump took office as U.S. president in 2017, he called the alliance "obsolete." Putin is now providing NATO with precisely what the military alliance urgently needs: an opponent.’

(…)

‘Speaking to the French in an address to the nation on Wednesday, with the French, European and Ukrainian flags behind him, Macron declared that Europe would have to have a different dimension in the future. He said that war in Europe is no longer just to be found in the history books.’

(…)

‘For the U.S., this is all the more pleasing because it had largely refrained from publicly putting pressure on its allies in Europe, especially Germany. "Leading from behind" has been the motto of Biden’s people. Internally, they made no secret of how unhappy they were with Germany’s stance on many issues.
But the new government didn’t want to appear as bellicose as Trump, also because it knew that would only trigger fresh anti-American sentiment among Germans. Ultimately, the power of the facts was strong that the German government toed the Americans’ line on almost all points. "The time was just right," says Michael Werz of the Center for American Progress.’

(…)

‘Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said that it is time to provide stronger protection to Taiwan. And Go Myong-Hyun of the Asian Institute in Seoul says, "Before the Ukraine crisis, we nodded when Beijing declared that Taiwan was part of China. We completely ignored the other side. But now we realize that we can’t just accept this." The invasion of Ukraine fundamentally changed international relations. "The future will be more confrontational."
The view is similar in the U.S. On Wednesday, Mike Mullen, the ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, landed in the capital Taipei at what he described as a "very difficult and critical moment in world history." Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen responded that her country, like Ukraine, is on the front line when it comes to defending democracy. "History teaches us that if we turn a blind eye to military aggression, we only worsen the threats to ourselves."’

(…)

‘Beijing has applied "five principles" to its foreign policy: territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit as well as peaceful coexistence. Each of these points is being kicked into the dust by Putin in Ukraine right now.
So which way is Beijing leaning in his crisis? Toward its stated principles – or toward the geopolitical advantages it expects from its strategic partnership with Russia?’

(…)

‘Victor Gao, vice president of the pro-government think tank Center for China & Globalization, is more specific. He argues that Ukraine should permanently declare itself to be a neutral country "like Switzerland." The alternative to such a move would be "a nuclear Armageddon," Gao said. You could call it "unheroic," but in his view, such a compromise is "the right way to save human civilization."
China can thus be ruled out as a partner of the West in the confrontation with Putin. This could also be seen on the outer wall of the Canadian Embassy in Beijing on Wednesday. Staff there had put up posters in the colors of the Ukrainian flag with a slogan written in Chinese characters: "Stand with Ukraine."
Like all diplomatic missions in Beijing, Canada’s is well secured, guarded around the clock by the People’s Armed Police. Nevertheless, on Wednesday, someone managed to smear one of the posters in broad daylight. Police officers must have been looking the other way when the vandal left their message: "Fuck NATO."’

Read the article here.

Yes, nothing unites better than an enemy.

And, as has been noticed before, the difference between NATO and EU is slowly disappearing, for the time being at least.

The illiberal governments in Hungary and Poland are small worries compared with Putin in the early spring of 2022. Especially Poland doesn’t trust Russia at all, but also Hungary decided to stand with the EU against Putin. So Poland and Hungary are welcomed back. The past is the past.

The US is a different chapter. The US is still leading from behind, and the US is back as leader of the West, according to this article. Is both at the same time possible?

China might be decisive, and Taiwan is on everybody’s mind. Well, everybody.

Would Putin be satisfied if Ukraine would become ‘neutral’? Whatever that means, if yes, that seems a reasonable price to pay for avoiding a world war.

Comparisons with Hitler are still very popular. In the realm of that metaphor any deal with Putin is naïve.

I’m highly skeptical of this approach.

How do you want to defeat Putin militarily? When NATO is not willing to fight for Ukraine, and understandably so.

The unheroic approach is dirty but often better than heroism that leads to a series of catastrophes.