G.I. Joe

Sorry my friend, but it was the CSS Virginia that fought the USS Monitor. It can be very confusing to those who haven’t studied the American Civil War (including most Americans) but it is very understandable because of how the battle has been recounted since the day it occurred.  The Merrimack was a U.S. Navy ship that was burned by the Confederacy at the start of the war. It burned to the waterline. The Confederates raised the hull of the ship, and rebuilt it from the hull up. They then Commissioned the ship the “CSS Virginia.” To this day, I hear U.S. Historians refer to “the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack,” and they are wrong. 
 
your comparison was dead on though!

Maybe?  To my mind, setting aside the whole “loose nukes” problem which is definitely a global destabilizing issue, I think it is a question of good ole money.  With a functioning and weakened central Russia state apparatus, China can cut deals to access Russian energy with a macro organization that can still marshal the infrastructure and security to access that energy and sell it to China.
If Russia tumbles into a bunch of provinces/regions/warlords access to that energy gets a lot harder and more expensive.  China would have to negotiate with a bunch of goons of various levels of stability (and possibly in conflict with each other) to try and get the energy out of Russia and back into China.  Also smaller warlords cannot necessarily run oil and gas industries.  China might have to go all Africa and go in and do it themselves.  This all drives the access cost up.
China may be able to do some land grabs.  But these come with all sorts of problems, not the least of which are a bunch of angry Russians.  I think we have a fundamental flaw in our western thinking that nations invade other nations for resources.  I mean, “yes” technically it can still happen, but in this day and age it is far more advantageous just to have a target nation roll over and sell you the stuff while they also go to the trouble of taking it out of the ground too.  China has seen what “you break it you buy it” looks like from our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I am not entirely sure they are ready to jump on a colonial bandwagon.  Especially in a failed-state Russia - this is akin to trying to bathe a cougar, sounds like fun right up until the damn thing starts getting wet.  
But hey, could be China has done the math and thinks it might work out.  But I still lean toward China is looking to make lemonade out of Russian lemons at this point.

This is how it’s done. Respectful, illuminating and useful. Thanks, lads.

Where did you get the idea? They were very effective as tactical bombers, only vulnerable to interceptors due to low speed. Where the enemy air cover was absent or not effective, StuKas worked very well. 

I wonder how much the F-4 Vietnam experience plays in to this (I'm probably mis-remembering the aircraft involved - apologies if so - and possibly this is one of those 'truisms' that turns out to be an urban myth or at least not quite as simple as usually described).  The F-4 was initially designed without a gun / cannon, since it had air-to-air missiles that would supposedly render the gun obsolete - anything dangerous would be destroyed by missiles (or destroy the F-4 by missiles) before they ever got close to gun range. Turns out that the anti-air missiles didn't perform as reliably as hoped, and they did find themselves in dogfighting range without a gun to fall back on.
New versions were quickly developed that did have a gun, and all US planes since then, including the F-35 which is very much meant to not be a dogfighter, still carry a gun, because the cost of including it is relatively small, and the downside of not having one if you happen to find yourself in a situation where it's the best option is comparatively large.

+1
Oh, how I wish we could like your posts right now...

China is in a weird spot.  They need Russia weak and dependent so they continue to have access to cheap energy (and maybe the odd land grab).  But they do not want Russia to totally win, it would 1) really set off the US and West, and 2) A re-energized Russia doesn’t sell cheap energy as easily.  And then they do not want Russia to completely fail and fall apart - see access to cheap energy.
They are kinda threading a strategic needle like we are, but from the other direction.  If they had to accept “less” from their perspective it is likely a Russian short win the West signs off on.  They avoid economic punishment from the West and still have a shot to access cheap energy because a Russian short win would likely still see the West no longer buying said cheap energy.
Whereas the West likely wants a Ukrainian short-win.  Russia taught a visible lesson and still in penalty box.  But in a slow decline, not a full on freefall. And China’s problem in the longer term.

I had intended originally to add the observation that it's possible to over read Chinese intentions from news like this. Xi certainly bestrides the landscape in China but it's a huge economy with a long border with Russia. Chinese companies that are seeing complications in EU/US trade are going to be sorely tempted to make it up on the very favorable terms Russia will give. Even Xi has limits on how much of this he can control. 
All of that said, your point about the moderate aims of China and the US is spot on. An entirely collapsed Russia is as big a danger as the sclerotic revanchist Russia of the moment is and both powers know it.

I really do not think the US or China are in a good position for a major economic war at this point.  Both are in post-COVID recovery.  I think China can push...but just enough.  Same goes for the US but maybe can push a little bit harder.
As to NATO/western arming up and re-thinking...too late. I think this is why China is actually internally PO'd at Putin for starting all this, and then getting bogged down.  Of course us re-arming is going to mean buying more stuff from the Chinese (like steel).  

Democrats fully intend to forestall any attempt to overthrow Johnson...if he puts through a Ukraine bill. There will be enough Republicans to go along and make it happen. In fact, only three or four would do.

Yeah, he obviously doesn't know the history of Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia/Hungary or he would be making that comparison not Iraq 2003. He kinda says that if war was a computer game you could save-scum your way to a flawless victory against impossible odds. But he doesn't say how. 
War is about mistakes - you can't run a "what if" scenario based on your side running a flawless campaign with perfect knowledge of both thr enemy and yourself

+1
Oh, how I wish we could like your posts right now...

Agreed. I certainly had no intention of casting stones, which is precisely why I used the issues Canada had with the Airborne Regiment as an example in my original post yesterday.
I also did not mean to imply that NATO and allied armed services don't still have a lot of room for improvement on screening out extremism within the ranks, as both your examples demonstrate, just that it is a goal worth striving for...

+1
Oh, how I wish we could like your posts right now...

Claims of 6 destroyed and 8 damaged aircraft
Recent satellite pictures of the airfield
 

All very true.
Frankly, though, I never got the "joke" in Ukrainians or any other Eastern Europeans using Nazi symbolism. Of course I understand them actually being Nazis even less. Because if they were consistent they would have to construct some concentration camps where they would work themselves to death. That's what the real Nazis would have done to them.
Edit: I mean, it's like Afro Americans running around with a Confederate Flag, I guess. Is that a thing?

+1
Oh, how I wish we could like your posts right now...

+1
Oh, how I wish we could like your posts right now...

Updated picture of UKR long-range drones with new model A-22 Foxbat, striking targets in Tatarstan Repuplic in 1200 km

And here is allegedly new extra-long range drone E-300 Enterprise of our "AeroDrone" company. It capable to carry 300 kg of HE and has a range 3100 km. Though it's unknown how much HE it can deliver on such range. This drone was presented in first time aboput year ago and developer have been searching a factory to manufacturing presumably in Poland. Maybe all tests already completed and soon we can see it in action
 

https://kyivindependent.com/russian-officials-report-massive-drone-attack-on-military-airfield-in-rostov-oblast/
 
Big Ukrainian drone strike on Russian military airfield near Morozovsk, Rostov. This Russian claim 40 drones, there were telegrams claiming even more. Clips show much less engaged by air defences.
 

"Will" rather reminds me of those teenage girls in the UK who thought it would be a good idea to travel to Syria and present themselves as child brides to ISIS. Its impossible for a sane person to even guess what they were thinking at the time.

Oh for principled leaders like this today… certainly not a loser in my opinion 
 

If you wish to privately reach out to talk about the ways in which proto/semi/fully fascist parties often cherry pick across traditional political lines, I'm happy to indulge in the conversation but there have been enough forays off topic lately here.

Not sure I can really agree with that...now feels like a good time to make a callback to @sburke's comment about extremism and reason. If I were running a unit in a professional armed service of a democratic nation, I wouldn't want to try to integrate a bunch of personnel who might have serious issues serving alongside and taking orders from men and women who might be of a different ethnic origin, follow a different religion (or no religion), be LGBT, etc. Far too much potential for disruption of good order and discipline.
Canada had some very unfortunate experiences back in the Eighties and Nineties after our Airborne Regiment became a "dumping ground" for personnel (often with far right tendencies) who had caused disciplinary issues elsewhere...

Not sure I can really agree with that...now feels like a good time to make a callback to @sburke's comment about extremism and reason. If I were running a unit in a professional armed service of a democratic nation, I wouldn't want to try to integrate a bunch of personnel who might have serious issues serving alongside and taking orders from men and women who might be of a different ethnic origin, follow a different religion (or no religion), be LGBT, etc. Far too much potential for disruption of good order and discipline.
Canada had some very unfortunate experiences back in the Eighties and Nineties after our Airborne Regiment became a "dumping ground" for personnel (often with far right tendencies) who had caused disciplinary issues elsewhere...