Letter to My Representative

With Russia, as with any other country, our best option is to pursue peace through actual diplomacy and negotiation--which always requires compromise, and not endless war in any of its forms including sanctions, demonization, and declarations that we seek regime change.  I am disgusted with the endless global war perpetrated by Washington DC on the rest of the world for full spectrum dominance.  I would like to see a country that is strictly neutral on foreign wars, never meddles in the internal affairs of other countries, and instead focuses on the development of renewable energy for domestic and global use--the only hope for saving human civilization.  Why can't we be more like China?

The Russian military operations in Ukraine were anything but unprovoked.  The were the widely predicted result of decades of US meddling in Ukraine, including funding coups in 2004 and 2014, funding extremist terrorist militias, and becoming the arms merchant and puppet master of the Ukrainian government.  Victoria Nuland confirmed we had spent $5 Billion up to 2014, and of course many billions more since then, on these efforts.

These ultimately created, and must have been designed to create, a terrible situation to which Russian leadership would have to respond militarily (after facing nothing but US stonewalling and/or broken promises in endless attempts at diplomacy over decades).  14,000 people had already been killed before February 2022 clashes between Ukrainian ethnic russian communities (only occasionally helped by Russia) and extremist terrorists financed by the USA.  Russia's operations are justifiable by the exact same doctrines which President Clinton enunciated with regards to Yugoslavia, only Russia's claims are true and their security needs are historically proven.

Nothing that Russia has been asking for looks unreasonable to me.  It is the US, echoed by its vassal state 2014 Ukraine which has been unreasonable.  We should not try to be the overlord of Ukraine--it is a far away country we have little need for...except as a potential launching pad for threatening, controlling, and ultimately dismembering Russia, which was clearly the purpose of our meddling all along.

What Happened to Minsk II

The Minsk II Protocol was supposed to be the solution to the civil war that emerged in Ukraine after the 2014 Maidan Revolution.

Minsk granted autonomy to DPR and LPR to satisfy the demands of post-Maidan separatists there.

Friends who follow western media (ie disinformation) closely and memorize every detail tell me that Minsk II was thwarted by Putin by not disarming and removing the Russian Green Men holding the Donbas hostage.  In my briefer reading of western media, Minsk was never mentioned at all, nor the civil war, nor any particular obsession with the 2014 Revolution.

But, actually, as far as I can tell, Minsk never passed the Ukrainian parliament.  It got a majority on first reading (265 out of 450 MP's), but then, more deadly Neo-nazi protests emerged:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34105925

As late as 2017 Minsk had still not passed, and Carnegie (CIA) bemoans the fact that Decentralization still hasn't passed--and probably wouldn't--because it was attached to those Minsk reforms (like legalizing Russian language).

https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/08/ukraine-s-slow-struggle-for-decentralization-pub-68219

Now, in all likelihood, the USA, as the new overlord of Ukraine, providing money, connections, weapons, intelligence, and diplomacy, could EASILY push Ukraine to getting these reforms passed.

But the USA was not a party to the agreement, and the agreement effectively gives Donbas a veto over NATO expansion to Ukraine--which is the opposite of US intention to make Ukraine a full fledged vassal (NATO member).  So you would not expect US media (CIA) to say anything good about it, if even mention it at all.

My fact-check-meter says it was the US-Neonazi axis that was responsible for torpedoing Minsk II.  Neonazis under US supervision stopped it, and US supervision never bothered to get it back on track.

Multipolarity

 A not uncommon left (specifically an idealist utopian socialist) idea is that Unipolarity vs Multipolarity is not a "left" concern, it's merely about how many oppressors there are.

My claim is that a scientific materialist view would be more that devolution from Unipolarity to Multipolarity is the critical first step in ending global imperialism and diminishing the power of capital.  Unipolarity is the highest, and the ultimate form of global imperialism.  Every step back is collapse from that zenith.

The power of a Single Oppressor is amazing.  A Single Oppressor can do what the US did from 1945 to 2022 and still.  Engage the world in endless regime change wars, coups, interference, and financial controls.  When there is no alternative, there is No Alternative.  A libertarian friend confessed to me in 1991 that the collapse of the Soviet Union as a slightly "competitive system" would mean the gloves were now off for greater oppression in the US.  And to an even greater degree for the entire world.  The New World Order of GHW Bush restored direct US military aggression (and not just non-military interference operatios) all over the world that had been somewhat muted by the Vietnam Experience.  So we had real military wars in Panama, Iraq War One, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq War Two, Syria, and Libya. 

In principle the collapse of Unipolarity could happen via internal or external mechanism.  Internally, of course, is preferable.  But it is, quite probably, more unlikely.

I welcome Multipolarity and propose making the USA a militarily unaligned "neutral" nation whose security forces are only concerned with protection against domestic attacks, not preserving US bankers rights to exploit at most favorable terms across the world while enriching domestic weapons makers (the function of the endless war machine, as well described by Smedley Butler).

It's hardly a new idea, that great socialist slave holding President George Washington well enunciated it as no "foreign entanglements," with a later nod from pro-big-business Eisenhower.

I am always asked and until recently I have waffled.  I am indeed now claiming to follow my same principle in WWII, though it sadly aligns me America Firsters.  (My mother was an unrepentant American Firster all her life, and tortured me with Rush Limbaugh.)  I respect the argument that Nazism was a unique evil that was world threatening.  My argument is that WWII simply replaced Germany by the USA as the ultimate oppressor.  If we had stayed out, possibly unipolarity would never have occurred.  The worst of the war occurred because the US entered it.  It was actually won by Soviet sacrifices, but US took the mantle and has run roughshod over the world...  The racist spirit of Nazism and the need/motive/ability to be world hegemon moved to the USA, which has had far greater resources to sustain it for 77 years.  I suppose, there is the possibility that if the Soviets had lost because of the lesser threat to the Nazis from US "neutrality," there could have been a virtual unipolarity of capital, but it would not be as powerful as what the US has enjoyed since.

America is too big, too rich, to be aligned in the affairs of other countries.  Because of its size and wealth, it's too reckless and heavy handed in world affairs.

It's ultimately with neutrality we free ourselves from self-sacrifice over nothing (or less than nothing after nothing was bombed).  We save more, and we can still always get a good deal, simply by being big and rich.  We quit being the pariah state we've become to over half the world's population.

End state ideal "Communism" cannot be achieved in a war economy, where the goods and services are largely of military nature.  You can't meet everyone's needs that way.

The US domestically is very self-secure from external threats and doesn't require the vast quantities of money on increasingly fancy and dysfunctional weapons systems for wars we hope not ever to fight.  And those resources should be directed ASAP to the construction of nation preserving renewable energy systems.

Eco-Communism and Unipolarity are incompatible.  Eco-Communism is only possible with Neutrality.  Neutrality means not parroting the Empire's Lies and castigating the Empire's Enemies.  It means sympathizing with the Empire's enemies and honoring their efforts in the dangerous step back from Unipolarity.  (Such "honoring" might best take the form I too rarely get around to: writing to editors and representatives, pressing for useful negotiation not weapons and war, and elimination of foreign entanglements.)

10,000 years from now

Thanks.  Assuming for a moment that the Russian peace keeping intervention was not provoked or justified (as many of my fellow leftists and peaceniks believe):

If I were to say, this unleashing of death, dislocation, waste, and destruction cannot lead to good for anyone.

Surely it will weigh heavy on the Russian soul, the arc of justice leading to blowback through eternity...

Then what does this say about the US, whose wars have killed 100 times more, were far less justified by need for security, and is at least partly responsible for this one and it's continuing, etc?

How slow must be this arc of justice if the USA could even be created on the back of the Native American Genocide, let alone continue it's warmongering existence two hundred years later?

How much greater will be the blowback Americans receive through eternity?

It's hard not to believe that 10,000 years from now, USA will be a fable told as morality instruction, much like Sodom and Gomorrah.

And maybe sooner.

Therefore, the need of our own reform and recompensation is far greater.

Today millions are starving in Afghanistan...and we're awarding the savings of teachers to pirates.

US "Diplomacy" 2021

 Ray McGovern presents this information on Consortium News video.

March 17, 2021:  Biden calls Putin a "killer"

March 18-19: Blinken and Sullivan talk down to the Chinese

March 24: Zelensky announces he is taking back Crimea (presumably US told him that was ok)

March 25: Russian troops start moving near eastern perimeter of Ukraine

April 13: 

US naval movements

Biden calls for a summit

June 16 

Biden tells Putin "we know China has a squeeze on you"

Putin knows this to be preposterous.  Both China and Russia are united in feeling squeezed by the USA.

Putin & Xi craft program to educate Biden

Dec 15 High Visibility Virtual Summit

Xi: China-Russia relationship "exceeds and alliance"

Russia: new security proposals

Feb 4

Joint statement Russia and China:

Friendship between two states has no limits

There are no forbidden areas of cooperation

Russia Invades Ukraine

China and India support Putin

Communism is realism

Of course Communism, which I identify with, is realism.  Marx identified as anti-idealist (hence, his disparaging Utopian Socialism).  Though others might retroactively assign idealism to some of his ideas, and one or two of his ideas might have been wrong, he personally strove to be empirical.  Marx, and Marxist-Leninists identify as "Scientific."  What that should mean is that they learn from history and experience.  Not idealism.  Idealism is for western consent manufacturing media and western quasi apologists such as Trotskyists.

Democracy is an idealism, in which "We the People" choose our destiny.

A realist view is that Bourgeois Democracy is mostly fake.  It matters little who the people vote for.  He/She is merely a friendly face in front of the real power and wealth in society, which at most he/she can steer only very slightly.  And as bad as Bourgeois Democracy is in principle, US-style Neo Feudal Imperial Bourgeois Democracy may be the most fake of all.  It's reasonable to believe the US is actually less Democratic in representing the popular will than either Russia or China based on national opinions of government, over 91% of Chinese support their government whereas only 39% of Americans support their government, Russia's government being at 75%.  One area where it seems the US may still be more democratic is individual personal rights to Free Speech (see footnote 1).

In a small critically located state, such as Ukraine, most of that deep state is the imperial regime that local wealth relies upon.  The imperial regime provides trade relations, banking,  investment, and all forms of defense, including weapons.  Without that deep state link to a more "powerful" state or empire, the local wealth would be unable to rule, either there would be anarchy or the country would be invaded or adopted by some other powerful empire specifically to challenge the adjacent one.  So small states critically adjacent to powerful countries or empires are almost inevitably Client States, but when an empire has Client States all across the world--that is unstable and unsustainable.  Some critically located small states like Switzerland HAVE been able to sustain a limited independent neutrality over some times...but it is not easy.  It may require things like universal conscription, for both internal and external reasons (so the military is representative, for example, and not tilted towards one ethnicity).  Since 1996, even with it's strong independence tendency Switzerland has been a NATO member--no longer completely independent.

Between 1764 and 2014, the imperial deep state behind Ukraine was Russia most of the time (and "New Russia" which is now Eastern Ukraine was considered part of Russia proper before 1917) but ever since 2014, the US has taken their place.

The People all across Ukraine can vote for the candidate, like Zelensky, who promises a peace deal with Russians, but it matters little if the deep state behind the Ukrainian government has something else in mind, notably using Ukraine as a wedge to break Russia.

For client regimes to rely on distant, as opposed to adjacent imperial regimes is inherently destabilizing.  It is obvious to any realist what the distant empires want!  A platform for war with their enemies!  A nearby country only wants a friendly but neutral buffer, which is to maintain a state of peace.

Why is the US reaching halfway around the world to "protect" Ukraine with a weapons, etc?

Is it because of US ideals such as Freedom and Democracy?

Was it that noble idealism that led the US to spend (claims vary) 23 million to 5 billion dollars to support "Democracy Promotion" in Ukraine, especially including support of Neo-Nazi militias and other extremists from Catholic Galicia?

Interesting, recently Ukraine had been 78% Russian Orthodox in religion, reflecting a 250 year association with Russia and large settlement by Russians.

Certainly a realist would also be aware that Russia fought for over 50 years in the 1700's to defeat the Turks in order to acquire New Russia (now known as Eastern Ukraine because Lenin combined New Russia with the Ukrainian Republic).

A realist would also be aware of the times Russia had been invaded through Ukraine.

A realist would also be aware that Neo-Nazis do not only disparage Jews as "Untermenschen," they also so disparage Slavs and especially Russians.  Basically anyone who is is an other (usually that means anyone who is not northern european white christian straight and pro-capitalist).  However, the target of the day varies with convenience.

So a realist would understand that Russians generally take the US supported makeover of Ukraine very seriously.   It's not just that"authoritarian dictator" Putin (who polls far better, at 71%, than the US deep-state-puppet President, at 42%).  Though many young Russians in the international trade sector are extremely angry that Putin favored the general Nationalist/Populist view (no surprise!) and not the New Internationalist view they had been getting used to and now may have lost for a generation because of sanctions and war. 

Conservative American Realists (George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer) have been saying since 1991 "Don't extend NATO (especially to Ukraine, which Russia is very sensitive about).  It's certain to cause a war with Russia, which we don't need."  But the US has continued expanding NATO and meddling with Ukrainian internal affairs exactly to force this hand.  Overreach!

Therefore, I consider USA to be 99% responsible for the violence in Ukraine, including the Russian military intervention of 2022.  Russia is 1% responsible because in principle Putin could have been "St. Putin."  St. Putin would have said "We could lose our cherished Crimea, the Donbas could be recaptured or ethnically cleansed of separatist Russians, we could face an ongoing threat of destruction through Ukraine as we have many times in the past, there will be NATO armed Russian-loathing Neo-Nazis on our border, but it must all be God's Will, God will protect us, and everything will work out better for us in the long run."  That's what Western idealists say he should have done, including many self identified Communists and Peace Activists and Anti-Imperialists.  They are not realists!  This was not ever going to happen!  Such a St. Putin would never have become President of Russia, and/or if they had they would have been sacked pretty quickly like Yeltsin or Gorbachev.  It is absolutely certain US planners KNEW that Russia would eventually respond, and a war would be started in Ukraine, likely just before US weapons there reached critical mass.

(BTW, the Russian Communist Party CPRF, the second largest political party in Russia, is about 75% in favor of the Ukrainian intervention, almost an exact reflection of Russian popular opinion.)

Many Russians feel that New Russia is still a very important part of Russia, despite mistakes made by Lenin and Gorbachev which resulted in it being lost (but still mostly retained anyway, as part of the Ukrainian client state).  New Russia is what gave Russia a warm water port to the Mediterranean. Russians tried to reclaim New Russia in 1991 and again in 2014, while showing that a majority of people in these areas preferred association to Russia than Ukraine.  But as the far greater power, the US was always able to quash this.

But Russians were and could again be happy with 1991 Ukraine (less Donbas and Crimea) as an independent state, so long as it's not a US/NATO client state.  That's the main thing they were asking for, over and over for decades.  It wasn't and still isn't unreasonable.  It is what the US does--and then some.  It's unreasonable that by all appearances the US tries to use Ukraine for it's own attacks on Russia, and doesn't let go, with no end of hypocrisies.

The US/NATO should never have offered NATO membership to Ukraine.  That offer itself constituted a declaration of intent for war against Russia.  That US then sponsored a coup in 2014 to ensure that offer was accepted was yet another poke to the Bear, and then more and more and more.  In 2021 Zelensky started effort to reclaim Donbas and Crimea, with 150,000 troops including Neo-Nazis surrounding Donbas, and in 2021 he discussed restarting the Ukranian nuclear weapons program, and sanctions were already being ramped up on Russia merely for having troops in it's own territory, while attacks on the Donbas ramped up.  Russian intel also showed there were already US-supported biological weapons labs in Ukraine, and possibly more.

****

Here's John Mearsheimer and others on March 4 discussing the Russian military intervention.  Mearsheimer still puts the blame for the conflict--now a hot war--squarely on the USA for "poking the Bear."  He warns that Russia is more likely to keep escalating rather than ever backing down, and he warns how ugly that could get.  He strongly encourages Ukraine to divorce the Americans and make a deal with the Russians now.

****

1 One area where it seems the US may still be more democratic is individual personal rights to Free Speech, though through in the US media this freedom (where money is speech) largely becomes all the more scams and bullshit...bullshit that other countries may be justified in winnowing out.  So I'm less concerned about that kind of spam filtering and more about the personal rights of the kind I may be relying on to continue my full throated critiques.  This is true only since the hardly known Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), the tallest jewel from the Warren Court.  Prior to that, the US or its states might well lock up communists merely for words or books.  BTW, the filtering done by US social media companies amounts to state censorship by proxy., all the more so for being controlled by the deep state and not anything democratic.  But I don't think there is such a universal right to be "broadcast," which is essentially what social media is.  One only has a right to be treated "fairly" by the-sum-of-all-broadcasters.  The exact situation in Russia regarding laws against "misinformation" that targets people such as war protesters is hard for me to figure, as western media can't be trusted and Russian media tends not to talk about it.  It seems likely to be in the area of things that would be considered "internal matters" and that Russians wouldn't tolerate more than that.  As such we would be entitled to sympathize with (some?) Russians, but refrain from persistent whining or other forms of  meddling.  Protestors sometimes face prosecutions in the USA, but not so much supposedly for the content of their speech (except for a few things, such as Hate Speech) but specific disruptive action, though the content of their speech may have been what actually targeted them in particular.  What Russia and perhaps China do wrt speech is perhaps motivated by fear of damaging foreign misinformation, which is indeed problematic, the western Empire of Lies is vast and diverse.  But western experience shows you don't have to regulate individual speech at all, only broadcast, to have sufficient mind control.  But perhaps that requires a sufficiently vast diversity of misinformation, at which none can top the West.  And Maidan Ukraine has been no great shakes in free speech either, outlawing Russian language and "misinformation."

$5B on "Democracy Promotion"

Obama assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland declared in 2013 that the US had by that time spent $5 Billion on "Democracy Promotion" (i.e. political interference) in Ukraine from 1991-2013.  That is prior to the Maidan Revolution in 2014.

https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm

Post-1991 Ukraine was a very divided country as can be seen on any political map.  Ukranians in the east voted for pro-Russian candidates, and Ukranians in the west voted for Pro-European candidates.  We came and put our thumb down on one side, with predictable results, in fact results which had been endlessly predicted by George Kennan (1991), Henry Kissinger, and John Mearsheimer on the right, and leftists like Noam Chomsky.  US officials knew this would ultimately lead to war with Russia.  A US congressman declared that we must send weapons to Ukraine "to fight Russia over there, instead of here."  (Obama had resisted all calls to send weapons, saying it would be destabilizing, Trump actually started sending weapons to Ukraine, and Biden just continued.)

We set the bear trap and lit the fuse for a proxy war.  Artillery fire directed to scare ethnic Russians out of Donbass (where 14,000 had been killed and 300,000 had fled since 2014) began accelerating.  Putin had no choice, even if he had desired to wait longer.

Counter hegemonists are saying the US plan was to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe.  There may be other benefits, like making Europe more dependent on US CNG, but other losses, especially to inflation.  Western Europe will be the immediate loser, with energy prices going through the roof and auto making shut down (lack of Titanium).

While spending billions on Democracy Promotion in Ukraine, many in the US got hot and bothered by Russia spending $100k on Facebook ads (only half of that prior to 2017) which did not advertise candidates but randomly juxtiposed various memes (including cute puppies).  My analysis has always been that this was marketing research, which would make sense, which would make sense from the amount spent and the variety of ads shown.

Double Standards.

Meanwhile, don't believe anything on the western media.  In war, information is the key tool.  The best evidence is that Russia has been avoiding civilian casualties and other tragedies even at cost to themselves.  They need to because the want eastern Ukrainians to remain their friends in the ultimate settlement, or at least cease fire.  Videos and photos are often misattributed.  Anyone who claims to represent eastern Ukrainian opinion may well be some kind of western-paid visiting soldier.  Ukrainians are being spurred by the west (and their stooge Zelensky) to take desperate acts, like freeing all the felons from jail (a war crime FWIW), ignoring the cost to civil order.  Russia tries to free anyone who isn't ideologically committed like the Neo-Nazis.  And for eastern Ukrainians, that's basically everyone.  It's whoever seems to be winning.  They have a long history of that.

I don't think Russia had significant influence on Trump getting elected (that was primarily screw-ups by HRC) but, there is a curious virtual parallel in that Trump's election (supposedly aided by Russia) led to the Jan 6 insurrection, a sort of mini (but unsuccessful) version of the Maidan Revolution, i.e. it looked like "Blowback," or at least a little taste of what we've been doing elsewhere for 80 years.  Anyway, it's a tiny illustration of what meddling in the political affairs of other countries can do.

Double Standards

Critics of Russia say that no state is entitled to neutral buffer states surrounding it.

Any country that wants it (...and is offered...) NATO membership should be able to choose it, goes this line of reasoning.  It's not for Russia to decide.

But of course this is precisely what the USA demands around itself.  In fact, it seems, the USA demands buffer states all around the world.  But specifically south of the USA, in the well known Monroe Doctrine.

Now, anyone can say, "Well, I don't approve of the Monroe Doctrine.  I don't approve of it for the USA, and I don't approve of it for Russia."

But, you see, this idealist person doesn't actually make these decisions.  Even if some politician were to claim to oppose the Monroe Doctrine, the Deep State would never let it be implemented.

 It's simply unimaginable that the USA would permit Mexico to join a foreign military alliance, say, with Russia.  There would be covert material threats, covert ops, wars, whatever (this is the history ever since the Monroe Doctrine was enunciated), but it would not happen.

So, anyway, it's fine and good for people to say they oppose these things.  But if the USA is going to do it no matter what these people say, then it's Double Standards to demand it of Russia or anyone else, regardless of what any idealist in the USA says.

The correct thing for this blowhard idealist to do would be to disassemble all US imperialism, including the Monroe Doctrine, in practice and law.  (No CIA, NED, external bases, wars, etc.)

Then, he could honestly begin demanding such from other countries without insisting on Double Standards.

It's not what the idealist prefers, it's what his country actually does that counts.

A friend who recently settled in Israel is exclaiming "Putin must not be rewarded for this!  He should gain nothing!" without noticing the irony that Israel itself was created through illegal violence in 1948 and then greatly expanded in 1967, certainly against the wishes of nearly everyone already there.  And this acquisition by Israel has been secured with endless illegal violence ever since.  And yet, every single US politician exclaims how important Israel is to the USA, and must be supported with billions for weapons every year, and full diplomatic support.  Recently, you dared not criticize Israel to keep your job or contract.  Free World indeed.

Crimea and eastern Ukraine had been part of Russia for two hundred years or more until the combination of endless US wars and meddling (including "Democracy Promotion") combined with the foolishness of Russian leaders Lenin and Gorbachev led to it falling away first in 1991.  Russian people, rightly or wrongly, see this as the "heart of Russia."  (In truth, nobody is actually entitled to anything.  But that means that NO country has a right to claim anything either that it has, or doesn't yet have.)  But Ukraine was maintained as a mostly-client-state-of-Russia in an arrangement that might have worked except for endless US support of internal revolution, which ultimately reached $5 Billion.

This matters a lot to Russians, and not very much to anyone else except a world hegemon who wants to see Russia cut down several notches in rank.  The Council on Foreign Relations published opinion years ago saying the Ukraine should just let the Donbass go to Russia, it always voted the wrong way anyway, leading to Presidents like Yanoukovich.  Many western Ukranians might feel about the same way, the larger fraction that doesn't actually want to ethnically cleanse the Russians out.  Many eastern Ukrainians would likely be equally or more happy under Russia than NATO/Ukraine.  After seeing the marvelous dysfunction of a western client state "Democracy" for 8 years in particular.

Russia was drawing red lines about US activities to flip Ukraine going back to at least 2007.  Western leaders KNEW this would drive Russia to war, but they refused to stop assimilating Ukraine.

Finally, ongoing and increasing attacks to seize Donbass began.  The trap was set, and Putin's hand was forced.

Power Dynamics

I have very mixed feelings about writing this essay.  I seek not to alienate nor weaken the power of vast majority of my Antiwar friends by unnecessary critique (thereby violating the very principles I am trying to explicate).  Many work far harder than I do to end war.  I want to honor their efforts, even if their thinking differs slightly from mine.  And all my essays are think-pieces subject to later revision.

I also intended to write a different essay, one following on my previous short essays on Ethics and Responsibility.  One about Power Dynamics, starting from first principles.  Followed by what I'm saying here, maybe with a few other intervening essays.

But I see now, and in this troubled time, I can jump right to the ultimate point, as the situation of Russia and US/NATO is a perfect illustration of Power Dynamics principles.  And it illustrates a weakness I'd describe as Utopian Anti Imperialism, though the same principles of Power Dynamics apply to all things where power is involved.

All of my Antiwar friends and many I read condemn Putin for launching the Russian Special Operations in Ukraine.  They condemn his actions without qualification or hesitation, often as the first order of business.

But then they proceed to say that NATO should not expand into NATO, and that Minsk II agreements should be honored.

Well, Russia was asking for those very same terms, for 8 years, and getting nowhere.  Russia, a medium sized country with a well-known-to-be-potent military, and Nukes.  (And Russia was facing mounting casualties among ethnic Russians in DPR and LPR.)

If Russia was asking for those terms for 8 years and getting denounced, stonewalled, and attacked every step of the way, how do Antiwar Activists, comprising about 0.1% of the world's population, armed with pens and signs, think they are going to do better?

I think of myself as fairly imaginative, and yet I cannot imagine the situation under which US/NATO would withdraw from Ukraine.  It's a key part of the global imperial dominance project to diminish Russia, to make sure they have little power.  Kicking Russians out of Crimea is a key part of that.

In fact, since it was the Donbass and Lugansk area residents who wanted to retain close ties to Russia, it might be convenient for US/NATO to employ Nazis in an ethnic cleansing operation to drive ethnic Russians (and mostly Jews) out.  As has been happening.

Now you could say, what about the poor Ukrainian citizens, under siege by Russia.  Well, the government of those poor Ukrainian citizens chose (through some very undemocratic processes) to ally itself with the global hegemon who is constantly beating up on imaginary enemies.  What did they expect?  Being a NATO member is not a guaranteed path to peace, it's a path to endless participation in wars against US/NATO enemies.  Doing nice things like blowing up Libya.  Ukraine itself is a special case, resembling a finger pointing inside Russia, US/NATO's number one enemy.  It's inconceivable that all NATO member countries would agree to protecting Ukraine as a full member.  But it could be a NATO protectorate...in other words, cannon fodder, for the empire.  In Fact the whole program was famously sold as "fighting Russia over there, and not here" at one point in the USA.  Well... 

Now I don't participate in wars.  If I could, I'd turn the USA into a neutral country, with no troops anywhere in the world, and never participating in global conflicts.  But all I have is my "pen," my "signs," and quite honestly I can't imagine the situation in which they will be effective.

So I cannot condemn violence by Russia, similar to how I cannot condemn violence by Hamas or Hezbollah.*  I recognize their concerns as legitimate, and I can see that my "solutions" have little chance of success.  And I generally see them as using less violence than the other side anyway.

(*It's a more clear cut case for the Palestinians.  These are people living under well known occupation and siege.  Besieged populations have the right of self defense INCLUDING violence against the civilian population of their captors, on first principles.  The Russians do not have such a clear right to retain "defensibility."  It's harder to argue for war on such a basis, and they have no rights to harm civilians at all in such an effort.  However, when the limited siege of the Donbass is considered, Russian rights of self defense are more robust.  10,000 have been killed in the Donbass, according to some reports.  We don't know all the particulars so it's hard to feel confident about this justification.  I'd also throw in the Maidan Coup and the general history of NATO encirclement and even the history of how Ukraine's borders were established and how the Soviet Union was dissolved as some justifications for Russian actions.  Putin made these points in his speech.)

Ritually condemning Russia looks like virtue signalling to me.  And it aligns with the Global Hegemonic propaganda and values.  We should at minimum be condemning US/NATO one hundred times more than Russia (plus, it's our direct Responsibility).  I would not open my mouth for a condemnation of Putin without simultaneously condemning even greater war criminals Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and and Barack Obama.  (As I did in my letter to Biden below, trying to follow my principles of Ethics and Responsibility).  And it's unnecessary to condemn Putin because I am not Responsible for Putin, or the actions of the Russian government.  Putin's actions are the responsibility of Russians (and I understand as of March 1, 2022 his popularity was still rated 71%, as compared with the 41.1% of Joe Biden who I am Responsible for).

Russia has been successful in defending the territorial integrity of Syria against a US backed onslaught of Jihadis and others.  In addition to their NATO concerns, ethnic Russians in DPR and LPR were themselves under siege, and mostly see the Russians as liberators.  10,000 residents of Donbass had been killed in the ongoing civil war which was accelerating rapidly.  But I saw no crocodile tears for them, and not very many for the Yemenese who have been subjected to bombing with US bombs for years, and many many others.

So here is what I think is a good starting rule in power dynamics.  If people we know are fighting for the things we want, we should wish for their success, despite what methods they have chosen to apply.  We should not try to weaken them by joining with their opposition in blanket condemnation of their methods.

In short, if we really want change, we shouldn't stand in the way.  We shouldn't get picky, like a concern troll.

We should stand in the way of those fighting for things OTHER than what we want, especially if we are Responsible for them, such as if they are our nominal representatives.

At some point, we may have to decide which side we are on.  A key part of that is recognizing that there are "sides" to any conflict, each having mixed principles, and none are perfect.  You have to decide the greater evil, and not work to defeat its opposition.

This is not to say, necessarily, that you must use their methods or give more than rhetorical support to the most unprincipled elements of the opposition...though that is what US/NATO always does, and understanding power dynamics you can see why, provided you have no principles other than "winning" (which often doesn't accomplish anything permanent).  True success takes all kinds of works.  US Antiwar Activists should not be trying to shame Putin along with western imperialists, but instead be pushing their own government into accepting Putin's reasonable demands.

The more public the more this applies, which is why concern trolls demand unqualified denunciations of the impure as the first order of official business, after which,the hidden hand of the greater evil has already won.