Wrong about what?

I'd say you're wrong about roughly 70% of it. Your view of the war in Ukraine is simplistic, emphasizing "dudes" a lot. Sure, it's a factor. But, as many have tried to show you, you're not seeing the entire picture. It's a lot more complex than "guns and dudes". I could go on for pages and pages about it, from corruption (which weakens your military) to incompetence (e.g. bad planning) to arrogance (yes, arrogance is actually a factor in many wars).

I do agree with you that the west needs to inflict more pain on Russia (without actually escalating, as that would cause more problems than it solves). Tariffs on allies, and inviting a pariah leader onto your soil for a face-to-face isn't inflicting more pain on Russia.

If you really want to go into deep dives, listen to Perun. He cites all his sources (including Oryx, a defense analysis organization), has contacts in various think tanks and military organizations, and actually gets invited to weapons shows (where they show off their latest tank, or missile, or whatever). It would take a long time for you to come up to speed, but if you really want to do it, he's a great source. His emphasis is defense economics, and since most wars are fought over economics, that's a really good perspective.

No, you don't.
Health care isn't a thing that other people just pay for. If you believe that "Health Care is a human right" (as almost all leftists do) then you need to accept that with rights come responsibilities.

For the privilege of having everybody else pay for your health care, then that means they have skin in the game for your health care.

Are you people sure you want that?

Because if you do, then get ready for mandatory PE class...when you're 65.

Yes, I do.

You bring up a good point about "skin in the game". However, there are some pretty easy solutions to most of that. For example, we already charge taxes on tobacco. Those taxes could be (should be!) directed to the UHC system (if we had one). Keep in mind, all those monies going to insurance companies would cease. I had to buy a benefit plan at work. Heavily discounted, but I had to pay. Plus the company had to pay. All that cash could go to a UHC system, and it would have been transparent to me. If I think only had to do a $20 copay for any visit, that would have been an obvious plus for me.

I go back and forth about healthcare (and also food) being a "human right". It's pretty much mandatory during every person's lifetime. Eventually, you will need it, just as much as food and water. It's a very basic need. Depending on how you define a "right", it could be. I think any coherent defintion of a "right" would include not being subjected to beatings and being killed, not being owned as chattel, etc. Beyond that, define what is a "right".

However, that's just semantics. No sane society should allow people to go into debt just because they have a medical condition, or are in an accident, or whatever else that requires medical attention. The person I mentioned before, one could argue that there should be some sort of copay. Maybe $20? Just enough so they think "yeah, it's worth $20 to find out what is going on with me". I'd be OK with that, and I think most people would. I'm sure she would have been. I'm not OK with people not being able to afford care early, and so they become acute before they seek attention (at which point it is a LOT more expensive, and they could die anyway). Or going broke to treat their child, often having to reach poverty levels before they "qualify" for any sort of assistance. That system is insane, but that's the one we have right now.