Our media and political parties are only just starting to think about what this all means, and the wider ramifications.
Escalation of the conflict to include the direct involvement of Nato members or, on the other side, Belarus, would be a step towards a full-blown regional war. New Zealanders might be very hesitant in getting involved in such a scenario.
Which is all to say that this is a scary moment in world history.
If there's hope, it's that Putin's "miscalculation" will encourage the Russian people to rebel against his autocratic rule. Or maybe a demoralised and questioning army refuses to fight on with any sustained commitment.
Perhaps a palace coup will oust Putin. Though would that make any difference? Geo-political conflict doesn't end with one man.
These are all hypotheticals, however.
What we do know is that the people of Ukraine have been heroic in the defence of their country. It's taken Putin by surprise, as it has other world leaders.
People power on the ground in Ukraine, and the solidarity it's inspired in other countries, has played a part in putting pressure on governments to target the wealth of Russian oligarchs. Western-based companies have similarly felt the need to cut-off economic ties, including Fonterra.
The scale of economic sanctions against Russia has been unprecedented. Some believe this "economic warfare" could lead to Putin's downfall. Maybe.
But impoverishing ordinary Russians might make them more receptive to Putin's propaganda about the West.
And a collapsing economy could turn Putin and his generals even more desperate and ruthless.
It's important to note that most countries have not imposed sanctions, including India, Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Israel.
Some of these countries have economic and strategic relationships with Russia and/or China, which will give Putin an economic lifeline for a period at least.
Many nations, particularly in Africa and Latin America, simply don't want to take sides in a European war. Non-alignment is an option that countries have the right to choose.
Principled neutrality could well be a major force in global politics in the years ahead.
The fear is that a world divided into military alliances, usually sweetened with economic deals, is one where regional tensions and conflicts can blow up into something much bigger.
Despite the rhetoric National and Labour-led governments have used, New Zealand remains aligned with countries within the US and Western European sphere of influence.
We sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, going along with the dubious justifications for those wars. Our Government says little about Israel or Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses because they're traditional allies of the US.
We remain a member of the Five Eyes spy network with the UK, Australia, Canada and the US.
Some readers might agree that we can't avoid being part of an alliance that influences everything New Zealand says and does on the world stage. That's certainly a point of view.
Unfortunately, in a world becoming more dangerous, as economic contraction and resource depletion undermines regimes, that view will likely end in global conflict.
And then hanging over us all is the despairing spectre of nuclear weapons being used.
The idealist in me wants to resist that fatalism.
Being caught up in alliances, the details and extent of which are often not clear to the public, puts too much power over foreign policy in the hands of obfuscating politicians and unelected members of the military establishment.
Our foreign policy can be democratic and pragmatic - which doesn't preclude offering support to another country - but it first needs to be independent. I'm not sure that's where we sit in the world.
