This a ridiculous absurd assumption. Russia has massive supply issues for just about everything, including defense related industries.
>In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh)
[Citation needed]. If the downsides for your enemy are massive it makes sense to take a hit your self. In fact Putin did count on the west to continue it's cynical way of doing business like it did after all the previous Russian wars (Chechnya 1/2, Georgia, Syria, Crimea, Donbass). I'm sure, if the EU could have made the threat of doing what it did later, this would have deterred the invasion. It just didn't have any credibility due to past decisions. But now future threats should be take more seriously. This might stabilize the world as a hole.
>I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it.
The next winter is going to suck and most people might not have realized that. But speaking of humanitarian disasters, this is our best bet to avoid a way, way bigger humanitarian disaster in the baltics.
What extra justification is needed?
The Commissioner of the President of Ukraine for Children's Rights Daria Gerasimchuk on the Polish TV channel "Belsat" exposed fake Ukrainian propaganda about the alleged violence by the Russian military against Ukrainian children. Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfUBRGUH-Kc
The Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine has not a single confirmed fact of violence so far.
In general, basic self-interest in geopolitics means to always to something only with a clear upside for yourselves (duh)
With the energy prices as they stand, the UK for example is heading for a social and potentially humanitarian disaster this winter. I don't see how "being firm against Putin" or "Ukraine" justify it.