Allowing that this excellent analysis is spot on, one crucial difference exists between Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia: competence.

The Wehrmacht rolled through Western Europe because it was more militarily competent than its victims. Putin tried Blitzkrieg and found out that the tactic isn't nearly as crucial as the army. His guys just weren't up to the job. They were poorly trained, led, supplied and motivated. The atrocities they have committed demonstrate that they are also human scum, and scum doesn't really make good soldiers.

Moreover, Putin's victim was ready for the assault. Whether this is the end of Putin's aggression does not depend on whether he wants to go forward; it depends on whether he has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. It appears that he does not.

What would have happened if Germany had been defeated at Dunkirk or if the Maginot Line had held? What could Hitler have done? What if the US had geared up to support Western Europe with men and materiel in 1939 and was ready for the raid on Pearl Harbor? Wars expand when the aggressor is winning. Putin is not winning. NATO is not Western Europe in 1939. NATO has Putin out-manned, out-equipped, and out-gunned. He can inflict damage, but he cannot survive inflicting it.

Hitler's aggression proved suicidal, because he over-reached eventually. Putin has already over-reached. We have what the late Herman Kahn called a "not incredible" deterrent. My guess is that it's better than that, but that may be all we need.

But, to quote another famous thinker, Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion; I may be wrong.