> Ukraine -- I would squarely put this on Russia, nothing to do with the U.S.
Every kinetic reaction by Russia in Georgia and Ukraine is downstream of major destabilizing non-kinetic actions by the US.
You don't think the US fomenting revolutions in Russia's near-abroad was in any way a contributing factor to Russian understanding of the strategic situation on its western border? [1] You don't think the US unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty[2], and then following that up with plans to put ABMs in Eastern Europe[3], were factors in the security stability of the region? You don't think that the US pushing to enlarge NATO without adjusting the CFE treaty to reflect the inclusion of new US allies had an impact? [4][5] It's long been known that the Russian military lacked the capacity for sustained offensive/expeditionary operations outside of its borders.[6][7] Until ~2014 it didn't even possess the force structure for peer warfare, as it had re-oriented its organization for counter-insurgency in the Caucasus. So what was driving US actions in Eastern Europe? This was a question US contrarians and politicians such as Pat Buchanan were asking as early as 1997. We've had almost 3 decades of American thinkers cautioning that pissing around in Russia's western underbelly would eventually trigger a catastrophic reaction[8], and here we are, with the Ukrainians paying the butcher's bill.
In the absence of US actions, the kleptocrats in Moscow would have been quite content continuing to print money selling natural resources to European industry and then wasting their largess buying up European villas and sports teams. But the siloviki have deep-seated paranoia which isn't entirely baseless (Russia has eaten 3 devastating wars originating from its open western flanks in the past ~120 years). As a consequence the US has pissed away one of the greatest accomplishments of the Cold War: the Sino-Soviet Split. Our hamfisted attempts to kick Russia while it was down have now forced the two principle powers on the Eurasian landmass back into bed with each other. This is NOT how we win The Great Game.
> Maybe I'm biased because I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, but I much prefer the U.S. with all our faults to another actor like China or Russia being dominant.
It would help to lead with this context. My position is that our actions ENSURE that a hostile Eurasian power bloc will become dominant. We should have used far less stick to integrate Russia into the Western security structure, as well as simply engaged them without looking down our noses at them as a defeated has-been power (play to their ego as a Great Power). A US-friendly Russia is needed to over-extend China militarily. We need China to be forced into committing forces to the long Sino-Russian border, much as Ukraine must garrison its border with Belarus. We need to starve the PRC's industry of cheap natural resources. Now the China-Russia-Iran soft-alliance has the advantage of interior lines across the whole continent, and a super-charged Chinese industrial base fed by Siberia. Due to the tyranny of distance, this will be an near-impossible nut to crack for the US in a conflict.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
[2] https://www.armscontrol.org/events/2001-12/abm-treaty-withdr...
[3] https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm...
[4] https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2003/17
[5] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-08/features/nato-and-ru...
[6] https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-...
[7] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
[8] https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html