Russian president Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine was meant to be a geopolitical reset, creating what Putin called a ‘multipolar world’ while restoring some Russia’s international relevance, influence and pride.

As the military operation become much more tricky and bloody than the Russians intended, the stakes are becoming alarmingly higher, with Putin invoking – albeit obliquely – Russia’s nuclear capability.

Putin’s operational objective is the surrender of the Ukrainian military but his political endgame is less clear. Some pundits are saying it is likely to be the establishment of a pro-Russian government in Kyiv.

Both aims are proving more problematic than anyone imagined. But what is emerging from the highly censored, and sometimes blocked, news reports is that Putin might have some issues on his own home front.

And there may be unexpected geopolitical consequences.

The economic and social consequences are already significant. The local stock exchange has collapsed and the rouble is in free fall against international countries – making imported goods much more expensive for ordinary people.

Russian political commentators Ilya Mateev and Ilya Budraiskis say that there is nowhere near the support among ordinary Russians for attacking Ukraine as there was for annexing Crimea in 2014.

They say it is remarkable that despite complete control over major media sources and an extensive propaganda campaign on TV, the Kremlin has been unable to foment popular enthusiasm for the war.

“The Kremlin is no longer able to hide its hatred of Ukraine behind other grievances—including even enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—and its desire to teach the country a punitive ‘lesson’. These actions are beyond rationally understood ‘interests’ and lie somewhere in the realm of ‘historical mission’, as Putin understands it,” they write.

The pair say there is a rising awareness among younger voters who do not remember the Soviet Union and with an election due in 2024, the future for Putin could become more complicated.

Perhaps, just as interesting is the fallout from Russia’s experiences in Ukraine to date for the China-Taiwan situation.

The rising, military, economic and human costs of Putin’s adventure could force Beijing to think again about plans to take control of Taiwan.

There had been commentary that a quick Russian victory in Ukraine could spur China to attempt something similar in the South China Sea.

But US think tanks are now saying Russia’s setbacks will be giving Chinese premier Xi Jingping pause for thought about Taiwan.

What is also happening is that the west’s long standing doctrine of strategic ambiguity – the idea that a nation, and in this case the US, does not reveal its position, in the event of an action by a rival – may be about to be jettisoned.

Japan has already called for its abandonment with Prime Minister Abe saying “the people of Taiwan share our universal values, so I think the US should firmly abandon its ambiguity”.

Abe called on the US to declare it would intervene in a conflict over Taiwan to deter any attack on itself.

After prevaricating, Germany has blocked the Nordstream 2 gas project, which was to bring Russian gas to Europe, and there seems greater accord among European nations about defence and security policy.

The lexicon of geopolitical-speak has long included phrases like poking the Russian bear or waking the sleeping Chinese dragon.

Maybe all Putin has done is galvanise a once accommodating and conciliatory west.