What do Russia and Rome have in common?

They both lost their empire to, among other things, a supply chain that overgrew it's bounds.

The Roman Empire morphed into the Christianized version of what we have today, the Roman Empire trained legions out of natives in France and Britain and when they withdrew the homegrown roman legions remained, clearly Celts with Roman Gear and Roman Fighting Style inherriting the societal structure and government which was and has been in the control of Rome, the Pope for many centuries, Roman Law, Roman Culture, Roman History., the presence of the Roman Empire continues today in the fact that through the Councils of Nicea and the creation of the Roman Church which copyrighted the Ecclesiastical law that has morphed directly into the UCC and they hold the copyright to all law formed from that including merchant and maritime law. The Power has always been with the Roman Empire and it has never vacated it's power to anyone.

The Russian Empire didn't get lost to anyone, and neither did the Roman Empire, other than being lost in the textbook fairy tale which never mentions the Numerous Councils of Nicea.

1.Treaties with St. Boniface and Treaties Between the Holy See and King Pepin the Short of the Franks; Pepin delivered and
defended the Papal states of the Holy See, confirming the “temporal powers” of Rome and laying the groundwork for his son,
Charlemagne, to create the First Holy Roman Empire. (751-800 A.D.)

1. Charter of the First Holy Roman Empire, 800 A.D.
2. King John of England breaks with the Roman Catholic Church, 1209. Edict of Excommunication of John of England.
3. Treaty of King John of England, Cede to Innocent III, 1213 A.D. John agrees that England and Ireland are both “fiefs” of
   Rome, and that his own crown will be forfeit to Rome if he breaks his sworn agreements favoring the Pope.
4. Magna Carta 1215 A.D. In signing the Magna Carta King John silently invoked the 1213 Papal agreement relinquishing his
   crown to the Pope. Thereafter, all lands explored and claimed in behalf of Catholic Monarchs and including the British Monarch
   as a vassal of Rome, were in fact first and wholly claimed in behalf of the Holy See, which returned a portion of the profit to the
   vassal monarchs in the form of “jurisdictions”. The Holy See retained the global jurisdiction of the air, granted jurisdiction of the
   land to temporal authorities (recognized monarchs), and granted the international jurisdiction of the sea to the British Crown
   Temple to be administered under the ancient Law of the Sea (international admiralty) and Law Merchant (now Uniform
   Commercial Code).
5. Charter(s) of the Global Estate Trust (1455, 1456, 1479, and 1492 et alia) by Papal Bulls, especially the Inter Ceatera of May
   3 and 4, 1493, by Pope Alexander VI.
6. European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport,
   editor, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, Washington, D.C., especially pp. 75-78.8. “The Privileges and Prerogatives Granted by Their Catholic Majesties to Christopher Columbus April 30, 1492**

Etc etc..

The line between order and disorder lies in logistics.

The fall of the Roman Empire is largely agreed to be attributed at least in large part to overexpansion.

The fall is a myth that was conveniently sold to take off the heat that carries with Conquering Empire since the control always flew downhill from Rome, and the Pope was the New Emperor. A great example (pun) is Alexander, he over-expanded, but then again he had no Logistics or Empire, he was a hoard and hardly made a lasting impact on those he invaded, yet Rome and Russia have such lasting impacts that are directly evident today and the question is largely: How can an empire succumb to "overexpansion" in so far that it essentially DISSOLVES as the myth of the fall of the Roman Empire goes. Nature Abhors a vacuum, and there is no indication there was any vacancy of power with Rome over it's Territories, the Papal Empire ruled and rules the Roman Empire Territory so Hardly Fall, real power never changes hands.

Putting our critical infrastructure online was a huge security oversight, regardless of the convenience. This essentially extended our supply line worldwide, while only offering the convenience to the intended audience. We allow ourselves to be outflanked by any enemy with an internet connection, going even further when one accounts for the possibility of an EMP device detonating and toasting our power grid. While an EMP is difficult to defend against, simple network segmentation, air-gapping critical network infrastructure, would be the same as placing our most important assets in an impenetrable fortress.

Nukes kinda invalidate any and all defenses, so going that far this has been senseless.

Yes it's a security oversight to place critical infrastructure on the WEB, but there is no Impenetrable Fortress that exists from an EMP, and clearly the Ukrainian Example was Hacked Despite being an Intranet so it seems as long as it's a Computer it's a security oversight.

What is the price we paid for interconnectivity and convenience? In 2015, we saw the first successful attack against a power grid, shutting off power to roughly 230,000 Ukrainians for 1 to 6 hours. This is a relatively short time period, until one considers that, for 6 hours, a sovereign nation did not have control of their own power grid. In 2003, a power outage in North East US and South East Canada lead to 12 deaths. While the hype over a possible cyber attack was largely overblown and entirely false, the possibility still raised questions, and proved that critical infrastructure failure can be fatal.

Eating Olives can be Fatal.

We've extended our supply lines, without extending the benefits. In war, extending the supply lines allows for our armies to march into enemy territory. In this, we are extending our supply lines into enemy territory, without a military presence to supply. This strategically makes no sense, and recent studies showing the vulnerability in our critical infrastructure, as well as proven and successful attacks against critical infrastructure, shows that this strategic oversight is incredibly costly and increasingly dangerous. Interconnectivity allows for incredible convenience, but at the price of safety and security.

Interconnectivity allows for incredible things, and there is no reason to conclude that it does so at the price of safety and security.