I confess that after viewing this analysis I'm not much wiser on the implications for those of us who write about future wars. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/an-analysis-of-western-tanks-in-ukraine/vi-AA1yrHs1
It doesn't really discuss what a lot of first hand accounts out of Ukraine are saying about how western tanks are being used: primarily as artillery or for long range sniping, and almost never as part of combined arms assaults or tank v tank combat. So of course, attrition is low (as the video attests to).
It also completely ignores the role played by the more than 300 Bradley IFVs sent or promised to Ukraine, which by most front line accounts have become the Ukrainians' armored vehicle of choice over the main battle tank.
So, my conclusion: MBTs as mobile artillery and long range AT platforms, and Bradleys for mobile infantry support and to decimate Russian (and North Korean) troop and vehicle/armor columns. What is most interesting perhaps, is the inability of either side - Russia or Ukraine - to use their armor+air+arty to achieve the classic 'armored fist' breakthrough of enemy defenses. The advent of layered defenses comprising minefields, AT and AA missile armed infantry and drones seem to have put paid to that.
Stalemate may well become the norm, until a truly revolutionary new weapon enters the battlefield. And to learn about that, you'll have to read: ANTARCTICA STORM!
https://www.amazon.com/Antarctica-STORM-Aggressor-Inc-Thriller-ebook/dp/B0DNZBLM3X