Background motives of Mr Putin

In trying to understand Putin´s motives behind the current skirmish in Ukraine,  it is important to look at the broader picture and understand what are the deeper motives for Putin´s behaviour and actions.

He has been in power for a long period of time and has ruthlessly cleared his path also domestically and even inside the ruling elite in Kremlin. He has placed his confidantes in important places in the bureaucratic machine as well as in the Russian government-controlled business machine. His grip on power is an iron grip and he has masterfully silenced dissent and free speech of which a perfect example is the latest initiative by Putin-controlled parliament of a law criminalising dissent a.k.a wrongful reporting. In other words, if a reporter writes something Mr Putin dislikes, he/she can be conveniently convicted and put away.

If a minor slap on the wrist is deemed adequate, the end result could remind us of Khodorkovsky, Pussy Riot etc. with a few years or decades behind bars. If Mr Putin is most dissatisfied with an individual, the end result could be more final like in the cases of Anna Politkovskaya, Aleksei Litvinenko etc.

I have long ago independently surmised that Vladimir must also have accumulated wealth along with his quest for unrestricted power, but the book "Mafia State" by BBC correspondent Luke Harding nicely corroborates it. I have also long ago realised that he must be afraid of giving up power and possibly facing the same fate he fed to Khodorkovsky. So, Vladimir and his band are facing an enormous problem in the future they are desperately trying to figure out.

I believe Vladimir is not going to be able to successfully resolve this future dilemma. I also believe the Ukraine skirmish is not going to end well for him. If it ends in a humialiating defeat for him, he may yet face a successful Russian Revolution at home absolving him of power. That must be a source of nightmares for this KGB-educated dictator.

This excerpt from Mafia State by Luke Harding sums thing up perfectly (pages 27-28):

"In the dying days of 2007, then, the question of who will succeed Vladimir Putin as the president preoccupies the Kremlin´s twitchy elite. This isn´t just a question of political preferences but of financial - possibly even personal - survival. In theory, any new president can take away the old elite´s assets, just as Putin did with Yeltsin-era oligarchs like Khodorkovsky. Yeltsin was canny enough to strike a deal with Putin, his successor: Putin´s first act as president was to grant Yeltsin and his family immunity from prosecution.
"Once Putin leaves power he will be accused. Inevitably. It´s the great tradition. When Putin quits he faces the question of how to legalise his funds, and all his friend´s funds and assets in the West."
...
But for Putin, Medvedev´s selection is entirely logical. In an illuminating Wikileaks dispatch, the US deputy assistant secretary of state David Kramer refers to Putin´s "hidden assets", and suggests that they play a crucial part in Russia´s Byzantine succession process.  Citing opposition sources, Kramer repeats the view that Putin won´t stay on as president for an unconstitutional third term. Instead, Kramer writes to Beyrle, Putin is "nervously trying to secure his future immunity from potential law enforcement investigations into his alleged illicit proceeds."

How to handle Pussy Riot in Sochi Olympics the Putin way...