Like a ravenous Russian bear emerging from hibernation, Russian President Vladimir Putin is gobbling geographic territory and political turf.

But to what end? Is the Russian President intent on reclaiming his satellites, or trying some sleight of hand to take his citizens’ attention off his perilous domestic concerns?

And in the end, as the Western world continues to hone its response, do Putin’s intentions matter, or should the agenda simply be to push back as hard and as frequently as possible?

As always, it’s complicated.

The Russian president’s illicit actions and disingenuous statements have resulted in the dismemberment of Russia’s neighboring state of Ukraine, with Crimea taken and more slices threatened in the industrial Ukrainian east.

The latest chapter in Putin’s geopolitical blitzkreig against Ukraine was the illegal sovereignty referendum held in two provinces of eastern Ukraine, which went forward even after Putin himself made a last minute and faint-hearted appeal to the pro-Russian separatists to delay the vote to purportedly give dialogue a chance.  

Just days earlier, Putin claimed that he had withdrawn the 40,000 Russian troops which he had massed on Russia’s border with eastern Ukraine.  But the White House and State Department say surveillance satellites prove that Putin was indeed lying about the troops, which remained ensconced to intrude on the militarily weaker Ukraine’s political independence and territorial integrity.

Previous to that, in the afterglow of his $50 billion extravaganza of hosting the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Putin supported armed gangs of “pro-Russian” separatists, who took over government buildings in Crimea, and engineered a secession referendum in Crimea.

The reasons posited for Putin’s aggressive incursions are many. Some believe he is hell-bent on either physically or culturally reclaiming the turf lost two decades ago in the dismantling of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And he does not relish Ukraine’s leaders aligning with the West.

Others, however, contend that Putin is well aware of the economic difficulties facing those within Russia, and so conjures up whatever distractions he can to engender the famous and fierce tradition of citizen loyalty to Mother Russia. Take away oil, and the Russian economy doesn’t look so hot.

The other thing Putin is intimately familiar with is the way his petroleum can be used as a shield in fending off international displeasure.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel, once regarded as the new “Iron Lady” of Europe, has been unwilling to support stronger sector sanctions against Russia for fear of retaliation by Putin, who controls the flow of Russian oil and natural gas to much of central Europe.

But the United States has imposed aggressive sanctions on a variety of those within Putin’s inner circle. The 2012 Magnitsky Act adopted by Congress requires sanctions against those in the Russian government who are guilty of human rights violations. So by next Monday, the White House is required to answer Congressional leaders about two more officials they want to add to the sanctions list. And more could be on the way.

Some have said the sanctions are having an impact, particularly with respect to overseas assets that senior Russian leaders cannot access and are concerned about losing. Putin himself is thought to have several billion dollars in overseas stashes, and what he is at risk of losing could impact his next steps, or even his current conduct in not yet invading Ukrainian soil.

Others scoff at this impact, citing Putin’s continued aggression. The outward conduct, however, cannot be taken as a sure sign of the success or failure of sanctions — bombast is the way of Russia and its ursine leaders through the ages, and they lash out most aggressively when things seem to be most bleak.

But the skeptics point to one thing that is abundantly clear — Putin is a ready liar who will say anything to advance his version of Russia’s interests. With that understanding, the answer becomes clearer; the world cannot rely on whatever his true intent might or might not be, in forging an effective international response.

Having reached that conclusion, the most pressing matter is for the European Union, NATO and the U.S. to forge as cooperative and substantial a package of economic punishments as are available to them. Those who have access to capital and petroleum from other sources should support Ukraine and those European nations who are reticent.

The resolve of such an approach would tell Putin that no matter whether he’s trying to distract Russians from domestic economic and human rights strife, or seeking pan-European dominion, his thrusts are wholly unwelcome. A united West is the only answer to an utterly pathological Putin.