Immediately, you threaten intelligence. We'd understand the boots-on-the-ground view as to what the threat actor was doing, how it orchestrated the attacks, the tools and mechanisms that are used to deploy those attacks, which critical infrastructure, why it was targeted at the time. I'm hearing of casualties. It sounds as if this was a concerted effort, timed strategically so that there might have been a frictional escalation at the same time.
To go back to your initial question of what we can do domestically and abroad, first you want to improve the domestic cyber-capabilities, both in Ukraine as well as here in North America. Given the repeated expectation of vulnerabilities in industrial controls like SCADA systems, which took down the air systems and the transport automation systems, we want to focus on that in industry, government, and the military.
Some questions were raised here by the panel. My comment would be training exercises as well, like NATO's locked shields, are an excellent means of reducing the impact. It doesn't address the latent vulnerabilities found with these industrial systems, so we need to start training, mobilizing, and resourcing to address the current risks there. For example, as part of the exercises, NATO members defended the power grid in Estonia from an ongoing cyber-attack.
Such a defence, while essential, needs to be accompanied by proactive measures such as updating and improving industrial system security. Otherwise, all these are just workarounds for active defence measures. They're going to keep implementing new tools, new malwares. You need to start hardening these systems. You need to have people on the ground to assist Ukraine, take those learnings, and bring them back to North America.