yarmaluk

My friends from the Great White North, like to refer to the U.S. as "Canada's Basement"  where they hide their simple minded cousins when polite company comes to visit.

In turn I tell them that Canada is actually our 51st state and is officially known as "Northern North Dakota"

Indeed...we're very lucky on both sides of the 49th Parallel to have such good neighbours.

Except, of course, that is exactly what happened. The Marshall and Morgenthau plans were actively being debated while the biggest battles of WWII were still being waged. The debate continued post war, and Marshall wasn't formally adopted till '48, but the start of it was no later than 1944.

If you want to be seen as the good guy - and get the goodies that come with that - then you have to do the good things.

Thats fundamentally ridiculous and completely off the rails, logic-wise.
To be clear, I'm from a country that was invaded and oppressed for about 800 years, suffering very intensive and determined cultural eradication efforts, many many deliberate massacres of civilians, brutal repression of rebellions, exploitations as serf-like domestic servants and military cannon fodder, colonisation and economic exploitation, deliberate official neglect during multiple famines, intolerance of religion, execution of POWs and supression/extinction of the native language.
In some ways I'm probably more aware of it than many of my compatriots as I'm a fluent Gaelic speaker, through primary school and secondary in Gaelic immersion, and so I'm more aware of what has been lost and destroyed. Its like with the dinosaur fossil record - what we find and see is but a tiny fraction of what actually existed. So with indigenous Irish culture, what's left, what's survived to here and now is very likely just a sad echo of what was and what could have been. That's one of the unending tragedies of every colonisation process, the denial of what-might-have-been, to the eternal loss of human culture in general.
For eight centuries.
So my bona fides, as far as I'm concerned, are unassailable.
But it would be stupid for me to equate a Staffordshire farmer, paying his taxes and trying to muddle through from one season to the next, with the relentlessly brutal and imperialistic policies of the regime of the time.
A British Army officer suppressing a rebellion with wholesale slaughter of rebel prisoners, yup, hang 'em high. They were directly and deliberately implementing the HMG policies/attitudes1.
But they're not the same person, the Farmer (and his family, by implication and actual effects) and the Officer,  and deserve very different fates. 
You're not a stupid person. You're very articulate, your English is excellent and you have very salient points which you're able to cogently argue through. You have enormous grounds for hate and anger and which, as I've stated before (and my paragraph above will help support), I fully agree with why you'd feel that. You have every right as a Ukrainian to hate Russians.
But this is frankly hate for hate's sake, and that just breeds more death. There's no thought in a sentence like the one quoted above, just emotion and ranting. And like I said, I get it. I've absorbed enough accounts and writings from history to feel the intense anger of my people through the hundreds of years of English/British rule. So I'm no stranger to your sentiments.
But the point stands and, for this leprechaun-sounding paddy, you're doing yourself a disservice and ruining your own arguments and credibility with this death spiral of useless, vacant vitriol.
This is not the place (you'll achieve nothing here) and your energy is far better spent helping your country or relating what's going on there than this cul-de-sac argument over how to properly punish "the Ivan".
I beg you to stop.
 
 
1 The rebel atrocities were just as heinous and damnable and, crucially, further solidified the "savage peasant"  image of the Irish. Later on, in the 19/20th centuries that helped make rebellion "uncool"  for many middle class Irish.  It took some blatant whitewashing and outright denial to help clean the idea of independence from the stain of Irish crimes against civilians. 

In a word, no.
 That his country is under attack is not a carte blanche for the proposals made here.  This thread is supposed to be about the political/military situation in Ukraine and to voice support for Ukraine's resistance.  It is not a thread to support the eradication of whatever he decides in his next post to call Russians.  Sometime there are Russians and sometimes they are a fiction - he can't seem to make up his mind.  

"When he reached the New World, Cortez burned his ships. As a result his men were well motivated."
Captain Ramius, Hunt for Red October

The rise in energy costs and associated inflation affects the U.S more than any revenue from more expensive exports of gas would cover. As for the video of Nuland, in 2021, the U.S would actually withdraw sanctions and let the pipeline go forward, we know now following the invasion, that the U.S, being aware of the potential invasion, and lining up a united front, asked Germany to let the pipeline go on the chopping block, which Germany agreed in the event of war, believing Russia was bluffing, and seeing the opportunity to finally get the pipeline underway.
in hindsight, it was one of the most beneficial foreign policy decisions by the Biden administration, ensuring a united NATO alliance, allowing France and Germany to seek out negotiations, and when Russia invaded, ensured sanctions would be very tough.

Nah. NATO’s Reanimation is seen as a major accomplishment here - even largely as bipartisan, and a reversal of at least some of USA failures. Not to mention that it is intrinsically a win for the post WWII stability that has enabled economic growth. Imperfect, challenges along the way. But proven by events to still be of great value.

Well thanks for this to start.  I firmly believe you are correct.  Ukraine has waged this war well within the law of armed conflict, frankly demonstrating admirable restraint with respect to POWs and especially targeting within Russia itself - a master class in precision strikes against legitimate military targets.  
Further, if any Russian picks up a weapon and deploys to Ukraine, he has earned the right to be engaged until he is dead or no longer a combatant - all stop.  Further those responsible for the egregious Russian war crimes must be prosecuted.  Finally, reparations must be made by Russia to pay for this war.
Russia needs to definitively  lose this war and frankly has already.  I personally do not like the idea of a collapsed and fractured Russia, too many unknowns and risks; however, if it the only way this goes, so be it.
Ukraine needs to definitively win, and will.  At least to pre-war borders and they are fully entitled to re-taking the pre-2014 lines, we have talked about the risks there too.
However, one thing I have learned over the last three decades is that winning means more than on the battlefield, it means whatever comes next.  I have zero doubts that there is a minority in Ukraine that share the same sentiments, and I really do get why.  But as a nation Ukraine needs to rise above it and become the regional counter-power it has already demonstrated it can be.
Kraze is entitled to his opinion and all; however, I will not leave his calls for more atrocity and crimes on the table unchallenged.  Anymore than if a Russian poster came here trying to justify the same.
 

This approach was quite common amongst Americans before the end of WWII. I don't blame them and I won't blame you however much I abhor it. And I abhor it because it's exactly the kind of thinking that you are and should be fighting against. In the event, wiser heads prevailed and we took a softer course. As a result, our enemies then became, almost unthinkably, some of our best Allies. That's maybe something you should consider. 

I am going to ignore most of your rant, frankly if anyone were to push that kind of hatred towards any other group they would get tossed off this forum pretty quickly; however, we live in odd times.  
The Russian military and political system are responsible for this war.  I have no doubt some of the population does as well; however to blame an entire people - who you don’t recognize as a people, yet point to them as an evil homogeneous empire that has been a threat for hundreds of years - down to many who have nothing to do with this or actively opposed it, nor had a say in it because Russia lacks a democratic system, is wrong on so many levels.
If in your fractured Russian scenario - the one you are promoting, and I notice no denial of you promoting cultural genocide either btw- Russian elderly, women and children show up on on your borders in a humanitarian crisis I expect you and your nation to be better than the a$$holes we are currently supporting your nation against.  If you cannot do that - and for the record I really do not believe you represent your nation - then why are we even bothering with this whole war?  If a post-war Ukraine is suppressing democracy in re-taken regions, actively supporting civil strife in former Russian fragments (which would have to be in your plan), and let potentially thousands of people die because of their ethnicity (oh wait Russian isn’t a thing, so, how will you tell who to keep out) - the what the hell are we defending here?
If we wanted a brutal regime in Ukraine to ignore human rights and suppress freedoms based on pseudo-ethnicity then why we didn’t we just sit back and let Russia take the damn place?
I stand with Ukraine in this war, but I do not stand with you on this.  We want a Ukraine with a fully functional democracy for all its citizens, a Ukraine that recognizes and operates under international law and respects human rights, regardless of who is suffering.  That is the Ukraine that gets into NATO/EU - with Hungarian arm twisting if need be.  That is the Ukraine we invest hundreds of billions in reconstruction. That is the Ukraine we support and enforce Russian accountability for.
Not whatever nightmare you are selling here.

The US has a /terrible/ track record with puppet regimes. It's one of the things they just cannot do. Maybe none of /this/ would have happened, but a whole different raft of bedlam would  have ensued.
Puppets, and cricket, are just a no as far as the US is concerned.

Ok then, well good luck with that then.  So you plan is for the west to support until Russia shatters and then Ukraine ride it out as a lone state?  Unfortunately Ukraine does not appear in the Bible so I am not sure western support will last.
“A shattered Russia with an unsecured nuclear arsenal vs a lone state in a sea of people who can only agree on the fact that they hate you.” Is not a geopolitical solution.  Neither is hoping that making their dysfunction worse or them being pushed deeper into crisis will somehow lead to them forgetting you.
Your proposed strategy will have set conditions for long term direct threats to your nation without any real mitigating mechanisms against increasing regional insecurity.  This is extremely bad for business, so western economic investment is going to be very difficult.  Reconstruction is also at risk, as you note terrorism will be a significant threat in your country.  If these conditions create enough significant humanitarian crisis you could waves of former-Russian refugees try and get into Ukraine - which you can of course turn away by force, completely losing any strategic narrative high ground you have.
About the only way you approach would work would be for all Russians to cease to be at all, a strategy of extermination, but of course I know you are not proposing that.
I have to say that your isolationist entirely uncompromising view of the future sounds a lot like the narratives coming out of Russia itself, just pointed in the other direction.
 
 

It is not even about boots on the ground. Deep inside every RU is scared of US. Even hardcore RU Nat. They are creatures of Machismo and Power. They know the US is the Supreme Power, the Top Alfa Dog. And they consider themselves at best the Second Dog.
So, even just the threat of fighting with Top Dog is enough for all of them to look other way.  That why despite all BS aimed at Baltic republics RU have not done anything to them. That's why they are fearful of NATO expansion - they know they will never dare to invade NATO countries so expansion of NATO decreases the number of countries they can invade.

So a lot of problems with your theory here:
- Belarus has about 10 million people and as far as this war they have not done Ukraine any favours.  I am not sure population base is a key metric of how much damage a nation can do to Ukraine.
- A few 10 million population countries with a serious hate on for Ukraine - and I am pretty sure there will be that factor, can be problematic.
- You are very likely to get non-state, or state sponsored terrorism against Ukraine for a long time.
- "Too busy dying from hunger", ok so we are talking about using a humanitarian disaster to keep whatever is left of Russians in line?  Would that include withholding food aid like a Somalia warlord? 
- See my extensive posts on the nuclear proliferation threat.  The main push back was that the new states and the West will figure it out; however, I doubt that will be the case if they are "starving".
No, it is not "Ok" for Moldovia or Georgia to suffer but it is how things are - have you ever been to Africa?  However, I am not sure breaking Russia will really fix that, it could make it worse as the entire region falls into anarchy.
Russia is definitely a problem, do not get me wrong; however, I have yet to hear a coherent solution to the post-conflict solution either within Ukraine or in Russia.  You have been advocating for the complete dissolution of Russia pretty early on, and frankly I get the impulse, but I see a lot of "worse" here, and not much that actually fixes anything.

Russia's rhetoric about this has been dangerous. The last few days there were several statements, one by Lavrov, that it was the "West" making threats about using nuclear weapons against Russia that has forced them to make statements about "responding" with nuclear weapons. Dangerous because they are setting up a possible excuse. [edit] -- No such threats of first use have been made by anyone other than Russia
Hopefully though, their nuclear command and control would prevent it. It's not the one man authorization that the US has.
One thing that has always stood out to me is the surprise that the Reagan administration had after the Able Archer We Almost Blew Up The World miscalculation had. Weinberger stated that they were shocked to find out that the Soviets seriously thought we would make a first strike from maneuvers (it's what *their* strategy was) And more importantly, that they are paranoid about the US using nuclear weapons because of the fact we are the only country to have actually used them, and therefore have less hesitancy in using them again. I don't think that's true but it was how the Soviets felt then, which is what really counts. I don't know how that attitude has lasted to the present but it's worth keeping in mind.
Hopefully saner heads will prevail.

Dave

Gawd, I hate when that happens.
Ok, that is a major unsupported leap of logic, and frankly we are get way too many of these in the last 50 pages - at some point this is going to devolve this venture into the same rhetorical and propaganda spaces we see all over the internet, and at that point I will be lobbying to close the thread down because it is no longer keeping people informed, it will have become a dogmatic platform.
If Russia employs battlefield nuclear weapons, there will be a response, there must be.  However, let's say hypothetically that the West backs down and says "ok, well now it is getting real - let's negotiate an endstate".  Yes, it is not a good thing for the future risk the employment of nuclear weapons may have on imperialist expansion.  Russia will likely try the same game elsewhere; however what is missing between the Baltic nations and Ukraine is certainty. 
If Russia annexes, invades or attacks a Baltic nation, and IF that nation declares an article 5 then Russia is not getting handsie on some side hustle, it is declaring war on NATO.  "Oh, sure but who says NATO will actually do anything about it?" some say cynically - well 1) NATO nations sure as hell have done something about Ukraine and 2) NATO is too big to fail, and 3) if NATO does fail - and don't take this too personally - but we individually won't give two figs what happens in Baltics or the entirety of Eastern Europe, and even more bluntly in North America, we might not even really care too much about all of Europe anymore - at least as far as collective defence goes.
1) You know, a simple "thank you for having our backs" would go a long way once and awhile.  Instead we get "well what have you done for me lately" and "what do you mean you are not willing to risk nuclear escalation for Ukraine?!  How dare you!!"  I am very grateful that those voices are in the minority.  NATO has already committed to the defence of Ukraine, the question is how far will that will last in a nuclear exchange...good question, but I suspect it isn't to drop everything and declare unconditional surrender.  But we are not likely to be interested in a bottomless pit of cost and risk either.  And before anyone crawls on a morality high horse - take a long look at Africa and the Middle East, we have and will let places burn to the ground outside of our orbit/key interests or if risk/cost gets too high - "change the channel Marge."
2) In NATO and out of NATO is a very significant different state - kinda why we make such a big deal about entry.  By definition NATO is a collective defensive alliance, supported by a very complex and political treaty.  NATO is, in effect, the military power of the western world and the hard power that backs up the western rules-based order.  Without it, that order starts to unravel.  If Russia pushes the West into "well let us do what we want, and NATO collapses" situation, we are living in the End Times.  Russia, as immensely stupid as they have been, has yet to try and back the West into a corner, even though they themselves are being rammed into one.  Why?  Because the West would crush Russia beyond recognition to protect itself...and NATO is central to that equation.  I expect that NATO would accept nuclear exchange losses, leaving Russia a radioactive wasteland for a few centuries, before it is going to allow itself to fall apart through direct force.  Oddly enough,  Putin was on the right track to actually defeat NATO by continuing to support narratives that "NATO was irrelevant" - NATO could have evolved into something less than it is now, that would have given Russia more....wait for it...options space.  But then they did this useless war and pushed NATO in the exact opposite direction.  Maybe Russia needs NATO to be big and strong and scary so that it can hold itself together, but they even have to be smart enough to realize...they just made NATO big strong and scary.
3) If NATO collapses under direct pressure.  The whole edifice falls apart.  Then, and try not to be too hurt, we got much bigger problems than Ukraine, the Baltics or Russia to worry about.  We would likely see a series of new collective defensive bodies arise from the ashes, and a fair number of them can't even find Ukraine or the Baltics on the map.  The EU might hold together militarily but Europe has a bit of shaky history in that regard.  I suspect it may fall back on internal alignment, most of which won't care what happens in the Baltics.  The bigger players will likely try to hold it together, 5 EYES+ for example but even then, the most liberal humanist nations are going to start to contract back to their own borders and interests.  This will have economic repercussions as we no longer have unified collective military power to secure globalization. I expect China will be invading Taiwan the following Tues - at which point all of this Eastern Europe/Russia noise is going to fade to background while we hit a singularity decision point in Asia. 
So as bluntly as I can - The Baltics are more important to NATO and the West because  they are in NATO under the collective defence mechanism that affords.  We will take far fewer risks or BS from Russia in these countries because  they are within that framework.  I suspect that there are more than a few politicians that are quietly thanking whatever gods they pray to that Ukraine is not in NATO right now because we would not even have the option to pull back. 
That said, the issue of having Ukraine in NATO is likely largely settled at this point, so once this war is over, it will also come under that collective protection - for the love of god, just take the freakin win!  Russia nuclear deterrence is working in this war, that is why we are not Shock and Awing Moscow, Bagdad Style.  In this game of chicken Ukraine may lose - I personally do not think that is the most probable outcome but, dare we admit it and not get yelled at for 15 pages - it is a possibility.
Lastly, I am going to put out the question of "what are we doing here?"  On this thread?  If we are continuing the collective and distributed objective analysis and assessment of this war as it unfolds, then let's do that.  I think we are safe to say that we all agree Russia's war is illegal and immoral and they deserve everything they are getting.  However, if this is turning into a maximalist Pro-Ukrainian propaganda machine, I am out - lock it down and people can go elsewhere for their information.

According to WarGonzo, referendum about joining Russia is to be held September 23 to 27, both in LPR and DPR. Do you think this is agreed with the Kremlin, or are they acting on their own? IMO if it happens and is accepted by Putin, it will only dilute the "red line" of UA entering RU territory. Thoughts?

Interview with Swedish volunteer (now returned home) about his general view on the war. A lot of combat video. I think a previous interview with him has been posted here before.
 

Heh, I guess that depends on what scale of history you are using.  Post-WW2, post WW1, maybe.  Before that almost every state on the planet was authoritarian to some extent, the democracies of the US and France were largely experimental.  On a long history look we really have a single point of data - the current era.  Democracies and societies that were more internally dynamic have always been a very small minority and many times they failed and spiralled back into authoritarian regimes (e.g. Rome).
China has sustained multiple global power empires for over 2000 years and largely on the authoritarian model.  As did Egypt, Persia and empires all over the planet.  There is far more historical evidence that humans are attracted to authoritarian power than anything else.
So I would argue we are living either in the beginning of new era (thousand points of light) or an anomaly, and it is far too soon to tell.  My sense is that we fear uncertainty more than anything else and when “dynamism” turns into uncertainty we run back into the arms of a central pack/herd leader - history does back that up.
The subversive warfare I am talking about is all about projecting uncertainty and letting it do damage to us internally.  There is plenty evidence of its success, and even strategic gains by those that employ it.  Uncertainty create confusion and chaos inside our cognitive and conative frameworks and they then leverage that vacuum to push their own interests.
You do make a solid point though, neither China or Russia has been able to offer an attractive idea that makes their gains stick - and that is probably Russias biggest loss in the war; any chance to try and make one.  My bet is that if they keep us disrupted and unstable, their idea may be “certainty we cannot offer”.  And as things have been unfolding the shine was definitely starting to fade on us in he west as well - misadventures like Iraq and Afghanistan really did not help.  I hope that Ukraine acts as a slap in the face and glass of cold water to the west - this is what happens if we remain divided, this is the result of us allowing ourselves to be divided and subverted, this is what happens if we do not push back before a war starts and thousands die, billions wasted.
I do not speak of what happens inside the wire often but I can say the needle is moving and we are starting to see things in a different light on all of this.  We will pivot to China but it will not be solely a conventional military deterrence equation on the table, that would be a major mistake.  Nor can we assume our “attractiveness” as a natural gift, this is a contest of power, ideologies and certainties, and we should never forget that.
The second we do - more Ukraines will happen.

I could probably write a book:
Forcing function - The US and west have been the the worlds hyperpower for at least 30 years.  Any conventional matchups come with so many caveats that only non-state networks have really been dumb enough to take them on in the CT/VEO space.  In fact the last time a nation state fell out of line the Gulf War happened and any great power outside of the US/western sphere took note.  So a revisionist state was trapped between the devil of nuclear warfare they could not win, and the deep blue see of being vastly overpowered in the conventional space.
Our History.  We understood our power early.  While interventions and CT work kept us busy in reality the west has not faced an existential state-based threat since the fall of the USSR.  As such, we let things slide in the famous "peace dividend days".  Everyone was counting mothballed tanks and ships, but we also mothballed the NS architecture capable of waging global scale political warfare.  Sure we kept intelligence and the like but funding went way down as we all figured "well who would mess with us".  It got a major boost after 9/11 but it was built to hunt humans in and amongst other humans, not deal with larger scale nation states.  So our ability to actually conduct counter-subversive and pre-emptive political warfare campaigns has atrophied over the last three decades.
Our reality.  Unlike autocratic societies, we lay our internal social divisions and friction-points out for everyone to see, we celebrate and fund them.  Further we have laws that enshrine freedoms and an open society based on the value of each and every citizen.  We doubled down on all of that after the Cold War ended.  What makes our nations strong a great are also some of our biggest vulnerabilities in this arena - not advocating for anything different here, this is just our reality.  Free press, free enterprise, free academia and freedoms "from and to" are what makes us the most powerful versions of humanity that ever existed; also leaves us very open to asymmetric strategies.
Their reality.  The revisionist power states, like China and Russia, were largely left out, or at least feel like they were left out of the re-writing of the global order.  They understand where they stand in the pecking order, and while it took awhile, they figured out that they 1) did not like it, and 2) had to start moving the needle to change it.  Direct confrontation with the west was impossible, so they went sideways.  They all have long histories in the subversive space, hell one could argue the Chinese invented it.  So they renewed old doctrines that leveraged energy resident within our systems to work for them - classic reflexive control.  This was done with long above-water campaigns of influence as they picked up steam.  Cyber and information space meant that societies became connected, but they also became "seeable" in extremely high resolution.  Like the invention of the microscope, this opened up new observable phenomenon, which we could not see in the Cold War.  States and corporations - often overlapping - went to town on this.  They collected data and developed theories of how humanity worked at micro-social scales that did not exists 30 years ago.  They could map those spaces and that could gauge cause and effect.  We used to sell stuff and collect "likes and subscribes", they, the other lost powers, used it to create "options".  Ones that are very hard to attribute and are aimed at what is both our greatest strengths and vulnerabilities - our open society.  These options were not legal acts of war, responses lay outside of our legalities and policies, and they were designed to hit us where they knew we would never even be able to agree at what happened - classic negative and null decision space.
Russia out front.  Russia has a very long history of playing these games and decided to flex first.  China has always been quietly waiting and watching in the background - stealing IP, buying off politicians and power brokers, colleting information and re-drawing maps.  Russia is not that nuanced, never has been really.  They were far more blunt and began act on their new theories - Gerasimov Doctrine/Russian Hybrid Warfare - whatever.  It was an ability to exercise strategic options outside of what we understood as war or peace.  Russia tried things out in Georgia and Chechnya - learned some hard lessons and then went prime time in 2014 in Ukraine.  No big conventional war, they just undecided Donbass and Crimea, and then made it too hard for us to really decide anything about it.  They pulled off wins in Syria and Africa (that no one really noticed) and kept getting free lunches while we in the west sat back and scratched our heads "how did they do that?"  Seriously, as I have told some senior people, "I am tired of admiring the other team".  China was doing all the same stuff, just much more nuanced and quietly - they called it unrestricted warfare/systems warfare but it basically amounts to the same thing; however, China appears much more adept at leveraging the rules and laws of the international order, while at the same time playing outside of them.
Unprepared and paralysis.  We really were in a kind of strategic shock in the west.  Both Russia and China had worked hard to make sure that they played out internal divisions and that groups in our own societies became indirectly invested (ignorantly in some cases) in their interests.  Our national security and defence architecture was too busy chasing "snakes" and was dislocated in dealing with state-based threats.  In many cases we had no policy or legal frameworks for what these new threat theories could do, and we sure as hell did not have counters/pushbacks.  So while we were basically strategically dislocated both Russia and China made great gains while we dithered and argued with each other - and I do not mean solely in the US.  North America, Europe and Pacific partners, all yelling and divided.  NATO was on the ropes, many nations had grown tired of GWOT, and we saw (are seeing) the rise of nationalism and isolationism.
Russia poops the bed - and modern war is in the wind.  For reasons I still do not understand Russia decides to drop its A-Game and fall back on an open conventional military power approach in Ukraine.  I have never heard a good reason why this is, and why they took this risk but here we are.  So China is sitting back watching, again as all this unfolds and what does it see?  Well first thing is that modern conventional warfare is upside down.  By our old metrics/doctrine Ukraine should have lost this, even in the face of Russian crappiness.  The war was going to be longer and grinding but eventually Ukraine would fold under the weight of a military machine that was an order of magnitude larger by some metrics. And then "boop"!  So what the hell happened? - well personally I think the 3rd offset (out of favor now) actually came into it age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_strategy) in doing so it is re-writing conventional war as we know it.  Russia is running into a brick wall but China is watching and noting it. China was feeling strong, by old metrics it was catching up and rising to challenge the West - particularly when one considers our aversion to sacrifice.  Unless China is a complete idiot, and nothing I have seen suggests they are, then this war completely blew up their pre-war estimates.  Modern warfare just got insanely more lethal and expensive - harder not easier.  And once again western warfare looks like it leaped ahead, this was not the plan.
So What?  Well, despite all the sabre rattling with China over Taiwan, I suspect the Chinese are conducting a serious re-think (they should be).  Everyone in the bar is armed and sizing each other out.  A big guy draped with guns and ammo, looking like Rambo, picked a fight with a little guy who just punched Rambo's teeth in with his own ammo belts. A conventional conflict with China just got less likely, if China has been paying attention and I suspect they have.  The metrics by which China was gauging things just shifted and they are not going to pull "a Russia" blindly.
So, So what?  Well China is likely going to do a few things 1) re-set its conventional military power metrics, likely better than we will - we are going to bask in "well there you go, we win!", 2) Keep to its A-game longer and double down and what has been working - it saw what happened to Russia.  We on the other hand are likely to go back to arguing and losing the bubble, making us even more vulnerable.  That is the biggest unknown and question "how do we re-gain internal integrity in our systems, without breaking them ourselves?"  All the while China and very likely what is left of Russia will work in helping us to break us.  We are likely to see a lot more proxy actions done this way because invading is a dumb idea.  China has a decades head start on us, so we face major challenges getting better in this space - it is the one area that China's options are expanding and ours remain stagnant. 
Cold War, Hot Peace, Tepid Status Quo, it all really ends the same; more political warfare happening where the terrain favours the opponent - we need to get over ourselves and agree that in this area we are all of one mind: create equilibrium and expand options, while compressing our opponents.  And this is not all on the US, which has its own problems, we have seen pressures and threats here in Canada in ways that we do not have any response to other than "togetherness and resilience".  Every western country has a micro-social space, and it is largely lying wide open to direct influence, which in a democracy is incredibly powerful and dangerous.  I strongly suspect that this war will be a watershed moment for whatever comes next - likely a Coldish War but one where the lines are far more blurry and a significant continuing of the trend of the re-emergence of political warfare as a primary theater in pursuing national interests while blunting an opponents.     
Finally, my instincts tell me, "don't think 1960", they are telling me "think 1900".  There are a lot of similarities between now and pre WWI with respect to great power competition/conflict.  Accept now we have nukes and cyberspace - and the history of WWI to learn from.  Regardless, we need to win this war, put Russia back in a box and then everyone sit down and have  a serious conversation on how we let this happen and how we need to close the spaces between us or someone is going to use that: one second to midnight at a time.

That would be Huginn or Muninn scouting for the Allfather.

A good contribution in regards the use of tanks in the Ukraine.
 

Perhaps it’s because the U.S. is a country of immigrants (literally, everyone came here from somewhere else, even the “Native Americans” came from somewhere else with each wave conquering, assimilating, or exterminating the existing tribes), that in my view, we have far fewer of the “you don’t belong here, go back to your country” issues. Yes, there are the same diehard racists as any other country, just fewer.
Case in point; today, a Labor Day fundraising event was held in Boston, Massachusetts (a city infamous for “No Irish need apply signs” posted on businesses during the 19th century) to raise money to help Ukrainian refugees resettle here. It was a joint event sponsored by the Communities of Ukrainian Immigrants AND Russian Immigrants, so as far as I’m concerned, all of the “The only good Russian is a dead Russian, kick them all out” in this thread is nothing more than Racist BS, and throughly disgusts me! Yes, the US has it’s own issues with the same garbage in the political circles, but at least we recognize it for the racism that it is, and try to deal with it.