If Jim's assessment is the case, then it is to the interest of those countries with immediate concerns about being invaded by Russia to see its weapons destroyed in the mealstrom of Ukraine.

The recent "Spiderweb" drone attack on the Russian (nearly said Soviet) nuclear-cabable bomber fleet not only shook up the Russians, but the US as well. It turns out that the US doctrine has been influenced by the fact that a dollar spent on defensive hangers was one that could not be spent on offensive weapons. That means that our fleet of nuclear-capable bombers would be just as vulnerable to a similar attack by any adversary able to scrape together the resources for this sort of asymetric attack. While there may be some treaty obligfation to keep the planes in the open for mutual inspection, the locations we have kept ours doesn't inspire confidence.

So it actually also benefits the US for Russia to expend its vast supply, hoarded for decades, of weaponry in Ukraine. While other countries are taking heed of the advantages of swarms of inexpensive AI enhanced drones as an alternative to multi-bilion dollar aircraft and naval vessels, we seem commited to ever more elaberate, expensive and likely only partially effective weopon systems such as the "golden dome". Our political system requires that weaopons be built in multiple plants, spread across the states so that the maximum number of congressmen can bring home the bacon (and receive their "gifts" from lobbiyists).

Heaven is where the police are British, the cooks are French, the mechanics German, the lovers Italian and it's all organised by the Swiss.
Hell is where the chefs are British, the mechanics French, the lover's Swiss, the police German and it's all organised by the Italians.

I would not be surprised if some have thought up the idea of "sharing the wealth" by giving the impression that everrything "works out" if Russia gets Ukraine, China gets Taiwan, the US gets Greenland, Israel gets Gaza and nobody sanctions anyone.

Jeff