A guest post by Bill Foster of the Northern Action Group:

The Government’s 3 Waters proposal is an ideological proposal to centralise control of
water infrastructure; share governance with unelected (appointed) representatives and Iwi;
and permit extensive nationwide cross-subsidy of water services provision.
To promote and sell a proposal that has no benefits for ratepayers and water users (other
than for those who might benefit from having others pay for their costs), the Government
has offered bribes to local councils, and put forward (at least) three lies to scare and coerce
the public!
The Three Lies
1) There is a water crisis
2) The proposal will result in lower water infrastructure costs and charges to users.
3) Those controlling assets and water services will represent users and payers – who
will have a say.
1 – There is a water crisis
This is just apocalyptic language chosen to scare people into supporting the proposed
actions, by focusing on isolated and outlier examples of areas where there have been
problems.
The “crisis” tag is manufactured by Government to support its proposal and detract
attention from alternative ways current problems could be addressed. No evidence has
been provided to support the claims that there is any crisis or that there is anything
generally unstable or immediately dangerous threatening the average New Zealand water
user.
Yes, there are some problems with current water infrastructure and service provision in
some areas, (Havelock North [poor water quality] and Kaipara [expensive sewage system]
come to mind) but these have come about mostly a result of central Government failure to
properly structure Local Authorities (LAs) and their financing, governance and management
to do the job.
Most LAs provide good (and some excellent) water services within highly constrained limits
(set by Government) and have already expressed willingness to cooperate and share scarce
skill resources across LAs.
Government has not shown why these problems cannot be addressed by the simple
mechanism of:

providing national water quality standards (We already have a Water Services Act
and Taumata Arowhai for that);
• targeted funding for water infrastructure investment (and LA Council Controlled
Organisations (CCOs)) made available at the Government’s cost of funds (thus
freeing up water funding from other constraints on LA funding);
• shared resources across LAs (as suggested by some and already provided for in
recent amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA)); and
• central Government financial support (in addition to low borrowing costs) for areas
that clearly cannot afford needed infrastructure.

2 – The proposal will result in lower water infrastructure costs and
charges to users.
This is a multifaceted lie, carefully constructed as a misleading artifice of facts, invalid
assumptions and false conclusions:
First we have the reliance on scale as offering “opportunities”. Since physical pipes, pumps
and their installation do not have any cost savings from scale, the assumption is that
overheads of planning, design and standardization will allow the same infrastructures to be
provided at lower costs (contradicting the promise of no job losses). Councils could
cooperate (e.g. through shared use of water CCOs) to achieve the same economies (but this
idea has not been evaluated). Also, any potential cost savings from avoiding duplication may
well be offset by the higher cost of using fewer experts and the increased administration
costs of having vertical bureaucracies. Over-use of standardization will see costs being
higher than needed from overprovision of capacity in some areas, without allowing a “fit for
purpose” approach to minimize cost.
Government has not released the models and their assumptions. They claim to have
evaluated lots of alternatives, but these are just “straw men”. They have not evaluated any
options that might be preferred to their own. Lack of full disclosure is the hallmark of those
who seek to mislead by concealment.
Second we have reliance on leverage as lowering the cost of borrowing to finance
infrastructure investment. While it is true that bigger entities controlling more assets and
payers present lower repayment risks to lenders (and hence can get lower interest rates and
borrow more), the proposal assumes that the current financing restrictions on Councils still
apply.
These restrictions limit LAs borrowing in relation to rating revenues and denies them access
to a wider range of revenue through fees and charges for services.
Limits on rate increases thus constrain LA investment and service provision. These limits are
all set and controlled by central government through legislation, and the lie here is that the
Government could not provide LAs with targeted finance for water infrastructure

investment at its own (lowest) borrowing costs, and that it needs the proposed structure to
achieve that. This is not true.
Third the Government intends to create 9,240 new jobs and promises that no jobs will be
lost in LAs from the transfer of responsibility and activity to the new entities. Well…
9,260 new jobs will cost around $520m a year at current average salary rates (and
Wellington bureaucrats and scarce water experts will get more than that). So, if there are no
cost savings and more costs for new jobs, promising lower charges for water users (in
average) is a lie. [2 + 2 does not = -4]
Fourth the Government says that water structure investment needs $185B over the next 30
years. We must take that as an established fact. Either it does or it doesn’t.
That is around $3,000 p.a. per household, even if borrowing to build them was FREE, and
before the ongoing operating costs of managing the assets and providing the water services
are included. So promising costs of water charges of $1,600 or less p.a. is a lie. No-one can
credibly believe that this scheme can halve the cost of pumps, pipes, systems and drains…
and still employ more people.
3 – Those controlling assets and water services will represent users
and payers, who will have a say.
The idea that users and ratepayers will have any meaningful say or influence over the water
entities decisions is a is illusory. Its promise is a lie.
The proposed governance structure is not chosen for efficiency or effectiveness, or even
equality of representation, but to support an ideological construct of partnership with Maori
and a strategy of nationalization and control of infrastructure assets.
Governors in this proposal will, at best, be representatives of representatives. No water
users (or payers) will have any direct representation. Appointments will be ripe for
patrimonialism at the national level and insulated from ratepayer accountability. Iwi
representatives will have 50% voting rights and thus a veto right over major decisions (a
75% (supermajority) required). This will create opportunities for delay and inaction over
disagreements between and amongst Iwi and others.
The proposal is an afront to democracy, disenfranchises water users and ratepayers by
adding another centralized layer of decision making, will invite division and disagreement
and will surface differences that should not be formalized in any country seeking social
cohesion and unity.
Charging for water asset usage has not been clarified and, if left to the entities, does not
rule out licence or royalty payments for use, over which ratepayers and water users will
have no say.

Cross-subsidy between LAs and between rural and urban areas will not have any scrutiny or
right of approval by elected members of each LA.
Under the current system, the effects of poor local governance or management are limited
to local ratepayers; there is no contagion across LAs and their catchment boundaries; and
ratepayers can vote poor performing representatives out.
In centralized bureaucracies staffed by appointed governors and officials, that will not be
possible. The risks are not spread nor decision makers accountable. While good decisions
will benefit many, it is equally true that bad decisions will affect many.
Distributed management authority and responsibility, with accountability to ratepayers and
users at the community level, will best minimse the damage from bad decisions and be
more responsive to local and community needs. The Auckland experience has shown us how
badly regional amalgamation plays out for remote or rural communities.
Central government has failed to honour the subsidiarity principle in its control of LAs, by
denying LAs the authority to properly manage their affairs to the benefit of their resident
and ratepayer constituents (who they represent). As a result, ratepayers have become less
interested than they should be in voting for people who will do that job well and in the
quality of representatives and their officials. Capable people are less interested in standing
for LAs.
Excessive centralization undermines democracy and encourages power seeking and
arrogant and autocratic decision making. This 3 waters proposal is a good example of that
and, sadly, the Government is resorting to these lies as part of its propaganda campaign to
support it.

This graph from the Taxpayers’ Union shows the explosion in numbers. Note to excludes Defence, Police and DHBs.

So under nine years of the 5th Labour Government, there was an increase of around 14,000 public servants over nine years.

Under nine years of the 5th National Government, there was an increase of 2,000 public servants over nine years.

Under four years of the 6th Labour Government, there was an increase of 14,000 public servants.

So if they got a full nine years we’d be at close to 80,000 public servants.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Cancel culture is personal for Jordan Peterson. His voice rises in emotion as he recalls the indignity of finding out on Twitter about his Cambridge lecture series, subsequently reinstated, being cancelled. “Sorry, it’s a bit of a sore spot,” he says, taking a drink of water.

But it’s also a great deal more than that to him: “This isn’t a battle between two viewpoints, it’s nothing that trivial.”

Peterson, invoking his professional experience in clinical psychology, believes that “if you can’t say what you think, soon you won’t be able to think, because mostly we think in words”.

Herein lies the real danger of cancel culture, particularly at universities, whose primary function is arguably to nurture thoughts and help students learn to think for themselves: “The issue is there is no distinction between free speech and free thought. And there’s no thought without free thought. Thought by its nature is either free or it doesn’t exist.

“This isn’t a battle for some right. This is a battle for the heart of universities. And Cambridge has been a beacon and so has Oxford. You might even say the beacon for the world in such matters.”

This is of course the intent of many of those behind cancel culture. They want to eliminate thoughts they disapprove off. They are modern day puritans.

Stuff reports:

Five youngsters, all aged 10 to 13, had been seriously hurt – four of them critically – in the late-night car crash near their farmhouse, roughly midway between Morrinsville and Matamata, on Monday.

The driver of a Nissan Tiida the youngsters had squeezed into had failed to take a slight bend on the Morrinsville-Walton Rd and flipped the car into a ditch, about 11.55pm.

I hope they all survive. Losing a child is probably the worst thing that can happen to a family.

But you do have to wonder where were the parents? Did they know their 10 to 13 year olds were out at midnight?

Coal Imports under Labour are now four times as high as when National was in Government. I guess actual change is much harder than just making speeches.

On current polling Labour will get 49 MPs, down from 65. So a reader has asked who would be the 16 MPs who would be out of Parliament on the current polling. If we assume (for now) no change in electorate seats, those out would be:

1. Angela Roberts
2. Helen White
3. Rachel Brooking
4. Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisiki
5. Ibrahim Omer
6. Liz Craig
7. Naisi Chen
8. Tamati Coffey
9. Angela Clark
10. Marja Lubeck
11. Jan Tinetti
12. Camilla Belich
13. Louisa Wall
14. Willie Jackson
15. Ayesha Varrell
16. Kria Faafoi

That’s four Ministers they would lose on current polling. Of course their 2023 list will be different, but the only MPs higher on the list than them are Andrew Little, David Parker and Trevor Mallard.

Unless they lose some electorate seats, their List only MPs are facing quite a wipeout.

The Herald reports:

Controversial Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki is under investigation after he allegedly threatened to have future mobile vaccination clinics blown up to prevent children getting their Covid-19 jab at schools.

The Herald has learned that Tamaki made the alleged threat during a sermon he gave to a Destiny Church congregation yesterday.

That sermon was later posted on the Destiny Church website.

In the sermon, Tamaki referenced the upcoming vaccination rollout for 5-to-11-year-olds, set to begin in January, saying, “they want to touch our children, they’re coming after our kids”.

Later, Tamaki said he would “go to the school” and “fight for them”.

“I’ll stand down there and I’ll take that school apart. If you go in there with your wagon, I’ll tow your wagon away and I’ll get the boys to blow it up and all your syringes, we’ll run you out of town.”

It’s very deranged, but it isn’t really a threat.

It’s up to parents, not Brian Tamaki, if they get their kids vaccinated. Who the fuck is he to try and decide for us. My eldest has just turned five and I’ll be getting him vaccinated in January.

A guest post by Owen Jennings:

On the morning of my birthday I received the fateful call.  “Your test was positive”.  On reflection I wasn’t surprised.  I had been coughing so often and so violently my stomach muscles were tender,  hurting and each spasm meant I was blacking out in pain.  I had Covid.

I was double jabbed.  A son-in-law is a respiratory specialist so it wasn’t an option.  He was clear.  “The vaccine won’t stop you getting the lurgi but it will keep you out of my hospital.  If you re having second thoughts come and see some of the unvaccinated patients in here struggling to get a breath.  It’s not pretty”.  He also passed on that being overweight multiplied the problems a hundredfold.  Being over 60 another hundredfold.  Having asthma another hundredfold.  Smoker?  Don’t even ask.

Between coughs I spent a couple of hours going through where I had been, who I met, how close was I, how long was I there.  Right down to minutes. The interviewer was professional and focused.  “Phone in every time you remember some additional item, no matter how minor”.  Similarly, the instructions about what I could and could not do were clear and helpful. 

We never tracked down where I caught it.  On family instructions we were living hermit-like, wearing masks, avoiding people, washing hands, doing only essential stuff.  I am sure if my mother were still alive she would have said I got it off a toilet seat.  She blamed them for lots of things.

Symptoms?  Besides the uncontrollable coughing my nose ran like a runaway tap for several days.  I lost all sense of taste and smell.  My wife’s fantastic passionfruit slice and her perfectly cooked lamb chops tasted like cardboard.   It is a strange sensation and I am only now, 4 weeks later, regaining my enjoyment of different flavours.

My voice became thick and hard to listen to.  Its hard to talk and cough anyway.

One of the worst features was the lethargy.  I simply lost all my energy.  I am a keen gardener with a large vege patch and I help my wife with an extensive flower garden. I mow our lawns.  I also walk for an hour most evenings.  Just crossing the room became an effort.  My will to do anything even sit at the keyboard and punch out some emails just faded out.  It was a horrible experience.  It messes with your will power.

Within 48 hours a parcel was delivered with an oximeter, face masks, hand sanitizer, wipes, and PPE gowns(what on earth I was supposed to do with them I never found out).  Every day and sometimes a couple of times a day I received a healthline call.  They had a series of questions, always the same.  Some of the callers were smart, helpful and knew their stuff.  Some could only follow the script and fell apart if you asked any question outside of the tickbox sheet. 

My wife who is obviously in close contact did not get Covid.   They demanded she get tested every few days and were adamant she isolate because she “must catch it”. They demanded separate towels, separate washing loads, 2 meters apart and a different bed.  That was never going to happen.

Then started fun and games to get her clearance.  I was cleared 14 days after the initial test, no problem.  But they couldn’t make up their mind when my wife would be set free.  They changed their mind four times, contradicted each other, sometimes several times in one day.  The capable healthline people are excellent – the rest not so good; actually useless.

So many people have said, “you are the first person I know with Covid.  What is it like?”  So now you know.  One experience, anyway.  I am not recommending it.

d

Looking very likely Boris will go early in 2022. Voters will forgive many things, but not hypocrisy. The photos of Boris and his staff enjoying various social functions while families were unable to attend funerals of loved ones will sink him.

So who is in the running to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The odds (converted to percentages) are:

1. Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer 33%
2. Liz Truss, Foreign Secretary 18%
3. Michael Gove, Housing and Communities Minister 14%
4. Jeremy Hunt, former Health Secretary 10%
5. Sajid Javid, Health Secretary 6%
6. Priti Patel, Home Secretary 4%

If Truss or Patel are elected, they will be the third female leader of the Conservative Party.

Stuff reported yesterday:

Firefighters will remain overnight at the scene of a massive blaze at a South Taranaki meatworks.

The fire, at Taranaki By-Products Ltd, in Kohiti Road, Ōkaiawa, broke out about 11am on Boxing Day.

A week earlier:

Firefighters from around the Waikato are tackling are large blaze at a large commercial building near Morrinsville this morning.

Fire and Emergency New Zealand was called to the fire understood to be at Wallace Proteins Rendering Plant on Wood Rd in Tatuanui just after 3am.

In March this year:

A “massive” blaze at a meat byproducts processing plant near the Auckland-Waikato boundary overnight could be seen from kilometres away.

Emergency services received several calls about the fire in Lapwood Rd at Tūākau, about 8.20pm on Tuesday, a Fire and Emergency NZ (Fenz) spokesperson said. …

Tūākau Proteins is well known in the local area and has a strained relationship with some residents, due to the odours emitted by the plant.

As the headline says, terrible bad luck for the poor owners.

The BBC reports:

People catching Omicron are 50% to 70% less likely to need hospital care compared with previous variants, a major analysis says.

The UK Health Security Agency says its early findings are “encouraging” but the variant could still lead to large numbers of people in hospital.

The health secretary said it was “too early” to determine “next steps”.

It’s still a bit early to judge, but a number of countries are reporting that the hospitalisation (and death) rates from the Omicron variant are between 20% and 80% less than the Delta variant.

If it is established that the difference is at the higher end (70% to 80% less severe), then is there a case for letting Omicron into New Zealand? Wouldn’t it be better to have people exposed to a variant 70% less likely to kill or hospitalise you than the Delta variant?

A guest post by Clive Bibby:

Someone has to say it! 

Anyone who has lived and worked with while benefitting from the company of the Maori people, as l have done for over 40 years, should be well qualified to offer a considered opinion regarding the factors limiting Maoridom’s progress towards greater self determination – assuming of course that this path is the one most suited to the tangata whenua who are currently claiming extraordinary rights to citizenship in this country. 

In my humble opinion, the two most obvious “sea anchors” that are limiting progress are “leadership” and the influence of “tribalism” on the ability to work together in a common cause. 

Before my many critics jump on my neck in an attempt to silence my contribution to this universal race based debate, l would add that my comments are merely observations developed while working at the coalface. They should not be taken as a deliberate act aimed at inflaming this already controversial area of conversation. Nor should it be assumed that l have some ulterior motive designed to hamstring the movement of Maori towards assuming their rightful place in New Zealand society. 

I don’t have words that adequately describe my respect for the people who have granted me kaumatua status in my local community. 

That is an honour you have to earn. 

I simply want to offer constructive criticism of a society that has the ability to do things so much better without any help from anybody else. 

They are like most of the rest of us – “their own worst enemy.” 

Firstly leadership. 

In general (there are obvious exceptions), current Maori political leadership are misrepresenting the true nature of their people’s aspirational goals and as such, are doing the Maori race a huge disservice. 

Most of those occupying positions of authority across virtually all sectors of society ( particularly academia and in social and health services) are characterised by a revisionist view of our combined heritage and an ideological persuasion that promotes a status of racially determined victimhood as a result of deliberate under-resourcing. 

Of course that view is not supported by the facts. 

If it were true, in my area on the East Coast, where you would expect to see large groups of impoverished families struggling to make ends meet, you would not encounter scenes suggesting a different reality.

In fact, the children enjoy the same, if not better access to health providers of all kinds, free school lunches plus educational facilities that rival the majority in the larger metropolitan areas. 

Add to that, the local council’s determination to ensure local infrastructure is well  maintained all add up to a position of relative strength for those living in this otherwise beautiful section of paradise. 

To infer that Maoridom in general suffers in comparison to its Pakeha cousins in these vital areas is a lie. 

The opportunities available to Maori in this country are the same as those offered and accessible to all kiwis, no matter what their racial status, religious or sexual preference or position on the social ladder. 

You only need to talk to or read about those who have taken advantage of those rights of citizenship in this country to know that the populace is being fed a load of bollocks. 

Actually, for those who doubt my version of the truth, just come and visit our community which l suggest is a microcosm of provincial New Zealand. You will be amazed at how different reality is to the version being promoted by those who have usurped the positions of leadership that used to be dominated by Kaumatua and Kuia who truly understood that real leadership was a vocational act of self sacrifice and service that becomes ineffective once tainted by self preservation.

 Sad to say, the modern leaders are different.

They are (in the main) self serving. It is a tragedy. 

The second limiting factor to continued Maori ascendancy is the institutional version of the first. It manifests itself in the structural restrictions associated with tribalism. 

If l could name one item that time and again limits progress across all parts of Maori society, it would be the distrust of or inability to work with other tribes. 

I have seen this problem influencing decisions involving hapu, iwi and more importantly between runanga. It appears to be a carry over from the pre treaty days when “might was right” and all that mattered.

One might have expected that an intelligent race with so many excellent credentials would have seen this for themselves and made moves to stamp out this antiquated view of a progressive community within a sustainable society.

 It won’t work. 

Yet it persists and the only people who suffer are those who the modern system is designed to help.

It makes no sense. 

A guest post by a reader:

I write this to share with  KiwiBlog readers the insights and conclusions I have reached in looking at the legal issues surrounding the proposed checkpoints in Northland over the holiday period.

Firstly, the disclaimer is that this is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer. But the perspective comes from discussions with an ex Crown lawyer who is now a QC, the founder of a specialist public law practice and the Privacy Commission. The insights are:-

 a. into the role of ‘iwi representatives’ at checkpoints, and

b. the legality of checkpoints that are not at the border.

Iwi representatives

Iwi representatives are ‘enforcement officers’ under the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act, but their powers are not the same as other enforcement officers under the Act (eg Customs Officers). Their powers are laid out in Section 22, and state :-

(3A) For the purpose of enforcing or monitoring compliance with a COVID-19 order that restricts movement by persons with or without vehicles, a constable may stop persons and vehicles at any road block or checkpoint established for that purpose.

(4) Sections 128 and 129 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (duty to remain stopped and to provide information), with any necessary modifications, apply to the powers conferred by subsection (3) and apply in addition to the requirement to provide evidence of identity in section 19.

(5) An enforcement officer may also stop persons and vehicles for the purpose stated in subsection (3A) if acting under the supervision of a constable.

(6) For the purpose of subsection (5) only, enforcement officer means a person authorised in accordance with section 18 who is—

(a) a member of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 2(1) of the Defence Act 1990):

(b) any person whom the Commissioner recognises as being—

(i) a Māori warden; or

(ii) a nominated representative of an iwi organisation; or

(iii) a Pasifika warden; or

(iv) a community patroller.

The perspective I have is that iwi representatives

1. Must be authorised in accordance with Section 18, which includes an assessment and training criteria
2. Can only stop vehicles for the purpose of (3A)
3. Have no powers to require a person to provide any information (this power resides with Police and other classes of enforcement officer appointed outside Section 22(6))
4. Have no powers to direct a person to not pass through a checkpoint – this is a decision that could only be made by a supervising constable at a checkpoint.

So if asked by an iwi representative to show a vaccine certificate, one would be entirely within one’s right to refuse. This may result in you being directed to a queue to be checked by the poor plod on duty, but there is no legal power that iwi representatives have to compel you to provide any information at all – including your name, address, etc – these are powers reserved for the Police or a class of enforcement officer authorised by the DG of Health.

Checkpoints outside the Auckland / Northland border

Checkpoints are authorised through a combination of the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act, and an order made under the powers of this Act, the  COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Order 2021.

The order is clear through its various schedules, etc that checkpoints are legal if used to check the vaccination status of travellers between one region and another. But it is far from certain that checkpoints within Northland to prevent travel into remote areas (such as the Far North or Karikari peninsula) fall within the scope of the order.

The Police could argue that such checkpoints could be used to monitor compliance with the order restricting travel between Auckland and Northland to vaccinated / tested individuals but there are several problems with this.

Firstly, the order applies to travel across boundaries between areas, where such travel is only permitted for CVC complaint individuals, or those with a test within 72 hours. The boundaries are currently defined as the Auckland region and the Northland region. But once inside a region, it does not appear that you are required to show your vaccination status. It is not a legal requirement for one to carry a vaccination passport or evidence of testing UNLESS one is passing through a border.

So unless the Far North is declared an ‘area’ under a further Covid-19 order, my take is that if stopped, you are required as is always the case to provide a Policeman with your name, address, licence, etc. But they have no power to demand to see a vaccination certificate or passport OTHER than when you are crossing a border established by a Covid order.

So when I am travelling in Northland post Xmas (having crossed the border), I will be refusing to show anyone (Police or iwi representative) my vax passport – they have no power to require you to do so.

Hoping everyone has a peaceful and relaxing day with the friends and family.

The Herald reports:

A worsening turf war between rival gangs and the criminal trade of illicit drugs has seen hundreds of shooting victims hospitalised across Auckland as the number of firearms in circulation grows.

The city’s mayor says the rising tally of gun violence victims is a serious concern, with the bloodshed causing significant anxiety and undermining people’s right to feel safe.

Figures released exclusively to the Herald by Auckland’s three district health boards show the city’s hospitals have treated nearly 350 patients for firearms injuries since January 2016.

A shooting used to be a major event, which would dominate the news for days. In the last few years they have become so common, that they hardly register beyond the initial story. Auckland alone is having three shootings a fortnight on average.

This needs to change.

Vice reports:

A group of unvaccinated people who attended a huge conspiracy conference in Dallas earlier this month all became sick in the days after the event with symptoms like coughing, shortness of breath, and fever. Instead of blaming the global COVID pandemic, however, the conspiracy theorists think they were attacked with anthrax.

They’re wrong, of course.

It was Polonium.

Elon Musk did what may be his longest interview ever, and it wasn’t with Time Magazine or The Financial Times, but the Babylon Bee – a centre-right satire site.

It seems Musk is a fan of the site and this led to him doing a 100 minute interview with three of their staff. He says how he used to love The Onion and Saturday Night Live, but they have both become too leftish and woke and are not as funny as they used to be.

He talks about tax and many other issues. I found it an interesting interview, so am sharing it here.

MSN reports:

President Vladimir Putin threatened a military response to counter NATO expansion toward Russia’s borders, but said he hoped for a diplomatic solution to rising tensions as the U.S. said it was ready to discuss his security demands.

This is all a pretext for Putin to invade even more of Ukraine, as he has worked out the US and Europe will not do anything to stop him.

Sadly I expect he will move within a couple of months.

The U.S. and Europe accuse Russia of a massive build-up of troops near Ukraine in preparation for a possible invasion as early as next month, something Russia denies. The U.S. and its allies are working on plans to impose painful new sanctions on Russia if it invades Ukraine. 

Sanctions will not stop Putin.