Hitler was able to invade and conquer most of Europe, at least for a time. Mussolini was only able to bomb a defenseless African country into submission. One was strong, the other weak. Both were misguided and evil. Putin isn't Hitler - He's Mussolini! By the way, both of these guys are about as "buff" as William Shatner was on Star Trek, which is to say, "keep your shirt on, please!"
The war drags on and the first casualty in any war, is the truth. It is hard to understand what is going on right now. The Russians say losses are minimal and the war is almost won. The Ukrainians claim over 10,000 Russian dead and the offensive bogging down (quite literally, in bogs). US Intelligence is somewhere between the two, leaning more toward the Ukrainian version.
In the modern era, wars of conquest haven't gone well. Putin has made a lot of noise about how the US is "just as bad" as he is (he admits to being bad?) by invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Point well taken Vlad. Say, what happened to those invasions? Oh, right, we spent two decades, trillions of dollars, killed an awful lot of people, and accomplished nothing. In fact, it was worse than nothing, as our enemies are now emboldened and in fact, in power. The Iranians hold sway in Iraq and the Taliban has taken over Afghanistan.
And Putin should know this, as his country invaded Afghanistan before us and suffered the same fate. So when he says "Well you did the same thing!" well, duh. And how did that work out and how will it work out for you? Why will it be different this time? Answer: It won't. Even if Putin "wins" in Ukraine, there will be an insurgency going on for years until the Russians get tired and call it quits. Sanctions against Russian will continue indefinitely until their economy collapses - as it did after they lost in Afghanistan.
This will not end well for anyone.
But it goes beyond regional oil wars. Japan attacked the United States and it did not end well. Hitler invaded Poland and France (and the USSR) and it did not end well. The US invaded (if you will) Vietnam and it did not end well. North Korea invaded the South and it did not end well. Even when we "won" a war, we realized that going after someone on their home turf would be deadly. We dropped the A-bomb on Japan in part because we perceived that the Japanese would fight to the death to protect their homes - and kill millions of American troops in the process. Similarly, the only way we "won" Germany proper was by annihilating it. In both cases, we quickly ceded control back to the Japanese and Germans, rather than trying to install puppet governments or remain as occupiers. In both cases, we faced insurgencies while we did stay.
Short of killing every single person in a country there is really no way to "take over" another land militarily. Even if you "win" the results are fleeting - the 1000-year Reich lasted a decade or so. The Soviet Union, barely a century (the postwar version, 50 years) - these are blips on the radar in terms of human history.
But in terms of world warmongers, Putin is more akin to Mussolini than Hitler and I'm not the first person to make this connection. Hitler had a well-tuned war machine and a legion of rabid followers. He had the best generals, the best weapons, and the best strategies - at least early on. Mussolini, on the other hand, did not have nearly as big an army, not nearly as many planes, tanks, and other weapons, and didn't really have much in the way of military success other than bombing Ethiopia to smithereens, which was easy to do as the country was largely undefended. Mussolini's military machine, such as it was, quickly fell apart under stress. He was the first of the axis powers to surrender, or actually run away.