I wonder what we're learning from the unfolding crisis in the Ukraine. Russia today is potentially a model for the US in 10-20 more years. Both states have lost a lot of the first/bestest/mostest superlatives that made them admired world leaders. Among the major ones remaining for both nations is their military strength.
There are plenty of ways to read the Russian rationale for the Ukraine conflict-- supporting the Russian-language community, de-Nazification, securing territorial and economic needs, red-lining NATO, but there's definitely an subtext of projecting power and relevance, re-establishing a sphere of influence. They have to say to the West that it can't spend 30 years poking the bear and expect to not get swatted at.
I could see America moving similarly if conditions continue to falter; with their economic dominance being lapped, how much of their self-perceived legitimacy revolves around "we have nukes and Marvel movies" (military power and cultural dominance). Would they similarly lean into the military and antagonize over Taiwan to remind the world of their importance? (Given current educational standards, they would likely end up nuking a poor Chinese takeaway because it happened to be called "Beijing Palace")
I wonder if there are ways where China can help get the US to a "soft landing"-- a setup where the they can still consider itself a major power, while having to acknowlege a global order where it can no longer act unilaterally without consequence. Steer their attention to
I also wonder if failure in the Ukraine itself could accelerate the emotional-breakdown process. Is it really a powerful military if it can invoke WWIII on demand, but lacks the finesse to win a proxied regional war? Or is it just an expensive, narrow-use tool that will inevitably demand to be misused?