Your quote is from Sophocles, not from the Norse God Loki. That is just the first of many factual errors in your article. The sanctions on Russia were agreed by NATO as well as the USA, so they did realise that Europe was overly dependant on Russian Oil and Gas, but saw the sanctions as a good (if painful) way of weaning themselves off this dependence.
You are correct that China and India's continuing to buy Russian Oil and Gas has rendered the sanctions ineffectual, or at least less effective than hoped.
Since WWII The United States has fought five major wars — Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan. Korea was perhaps a draw, but South Korea is a separate democratic country as a result, so I call that a win. Vietnam was clearly a loss, and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan makes it look like another Vietnam, but America had completed its objective of eliminating Al Quieda and executing Osama Bin Ladin, so that is sort of a win, too. They clearly won the 1991 Gulf War.
The second invasion of Iraq was pointless: while Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, he only used them on his own people and on Iran, and had nothing to do with 911. They won if regime change was the objective, but they had no idea what to do next .
They and their allies also won the war against ISIS: the Caliphate no longer exists. So I'd say they won over 50% of their post-WWII wars.
"Supplying more weapons to Ukraine will only increase the misery" is straight out of Russia's disinformation campaign. The greatest misery for Ukraine would be for it to be conquered and occupied by Russia, and the weapons plus a Churchill-like leader in President Zelensky plus the implacable resolve of the Ukrainian people means the Russian victory is now unlikely.
History does not repeat: WWI and WWII had completely different causes, but Putin's Russia is playing the part of Hitler's Germany in this war: a fascist dictatorship has attacked free and democratic Ukraine, in much the same way as Hitler invaded first the Rhineland, then two years later, Austria. At the Munich Conference, Neville Chamberlain "avoided" war by agreeing that Germany could occupy the Sudetenland. If you remember your history, it was the failure of the West to defend the victims of Hitler's invasions that led to the invasion of Poland in 1939 that started WWII. So the Allies have learned the lesson of WWII and refused to appease Russia: If they win and annex Ukraine, the rest of Eastern Europe will be next.
You are wrong on NATO: it is more united that is has been for the last 40 years. German Leopard tanks are on their way to Ukraine now.
WWIII nuclear war will only happen if Russia's existence is under threat: only then will their nuclear weapons be used, and even if NATO and the USA join the war on Ukraine's side the war will be a conventional war limited to liberating Ukraine, and the only strikes into Russia will be to destroy military threats to Ukraine. A limited war, or a Police Action against the invasion won't start a Nuclear Exchange, because Mutually Assured Destruction is still very relevant today. A Nuclear War would fire every ICBM in the world to pre-set targets, ensuring that Europe, Russia, China and the United States will cease to exist. No-one, not even Putin, wants that.