Hardly. The F-22 and Seawolf (chuck the B-2 in there for good measure) were all victims of being systems built for Cold War budgets that arrived after that ended and the Peace Dividend had taken full effect. If Berlin hadn't come down in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 you'd have seen plenty of all of them being built. The F-22 remains the preeminent air superiority fighter, nobody has anything in service in any serious numbers that comes close. Similarly with the Seawolf only thing that comes close would be a Royal Navy Astute class submarine. But all of them were hugely expensive in the era of the "End of History".
Zumwalt (and the Littoral Combat Ship for that matter) was a disaster area. Too many people believed too many PowerPoint presentations and ended up with ships trying to bring too many new system (often systems which were little more than twinkle in the designers eye) into service in one go for that to ever work out well. Restarting Arleigh Burke production is simply a reaction to that project failure. The Burke remains, however, one of the most capable all around surface combatants afloat.
The USAF procuring more F-15s is tied up with the premature ending of F-22 production and delays to the F-35 entering service in large numbers rather than inherent problems with the F-22 (or F-35, the F-35 is very good at what it does, it's just horrifically late and overbudget).
As for Europe I'm not entirely sure what a "decarbonised alternative" is supposed to be seeing as the various systems that have been introduced aren't exactly "green" other than in the colour of the camo applied to some of them. It's also rather bizarre to suggest that they skipped the immediate post Cold War period. Plenty of European based weapon systems have been delivered in similar time frames to those US projects you mention. Eurofighter Typoon (2003), Dassault Rafale (2001), Challenger 2 (1998), CV-90 (1993), ASCOD (2002) to name a few.]]
The US problem (and that of the wider Western world) was appalling project management by Government and their militaries. Often the kit that arrived in the end was pretty good or even excellent. It was just often horrifically late and overbudget and even when it wasn't completely plagued but such issues Governments were often not willing to drop the money in a post Cold War world.
So we just declared war on Russia. Are you able to be certain how that will end? I don't think anyone can honestly claim to say "Yes" to that question. In which case you have to comfortable that such an action could lead to a nuclear war. Saying anything else is dishonest. Establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine could very possibly lead to a nuclear war. That is clear.
So we just sided with Ukraine in that case and started providing them with active military assistance. That's quite an escalation on our part. Before we even get to shooting down Russian aircraft.
Pull the other one! The Russian Air Force is not going to abandon their Ground Forces colleagues, they're going to fight. So again you just started a war with Russia over Ukraine.
As I've said previously it is dishonest to try and pretend that establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine is anything other than extremely risky with a very high chance of escalating not only to a full blown conventional war with Russia but further. This isn't Libya or Serbia. Russia is perfectly capable of resisting and I see no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't do so with all their capability. Fighting Ukraine is one thing, I'm certain that their morale issues would rapidly resolve themselves in the face of NATO attacks.
