I wonder though, is advancing technology and communication going to make the toppling of western society faster (maybe much faster than empires fell in the past) or be able to be used to greatly slow it? I think there is a reason powers that be do all they can to control mass communication at all points possible.
They do try to control it, yes. But the middle ages had their peasant's rebellions, after all, so it's not clear it makes much difference. I think the communication speeds the propagation of all ideas, both those likely to change society, and those likely to keep it the same, so it comes to much the same thing in the end.
What has changed and is a bit unusual historically is the demographics of society - low birth rate, lots of older people. That makes a country more peaceful, which is part of why places like Sierra Leone get more revolutions than places like Sweden. You get old and fat and content, rather than young and slim and hungry. Yet another reason armies recruit young blokes, as you know.
Recently Australia has been buying up a bunch of expensive defence materiel, and my argument is that if we're purely defensive, we don't need it - after all, a bunch of illiterate goatherds with AKs and IEDs kicked us out of their shitholes. But they had something else: a willingness to die in large numbers. I would argue that if we don't have that, then no amount of fancy gear will save us, after all look at Kuwait falling to Iraq.
Old fat content people tend not to be willing to die in large numbers, thus our lockdowns vs covid, etc. This means that long-term, our countries will fall to cultures with more younger people. And centuries from now it'll be like Romano-Britain becoming Saxon Britain, people will argue how much we were invaded and how much we just invited the people here. I mean, one day the Indians in Dubai will be tired of being enslaved by the Arabs and rise up and demand a parliament, or something. Badly-handled migration will see the same thing across the West.