I appreciate the long response, and I understand where you are coming from on a lot of your points:

We don’t want US and NATO hegemony to continue, it’s bad for millions of people in the global south. The postwar US military industrial complex is not a force for good and the closest it ever came to that was when it aligned with communists to end the fascist threat of the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. Bombing North Korea, bombing Cambodia and Vietnam, invading Iraq, occupying the Middle East forever, none of these were good things that any actual moral person could cotton to and say “well at least they were weakening a geopolitical enemy”

So if I'm understanding this correctly, you're essentially saying NATO and the US should keep to themselves, and the US should have stayed out of Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and Afghanistan; I agree with this. However, The Ukraine war is a different situation in this case because there are no US or NATO troops there.

Supporting Ukraine for now means supporting their brigades like Azov and hundreds of other neo nazi informal and formal militias. It means giving them cluster bombs and mines that’ll turn eastern Ukraine into a child amputee generating land for centuries. However, your “support” for this cause is ultimately meaningless because America is going to do it without the consent of her citizens because the American war machine wants to generate profits by sending off munitions to be blown up and replaced at Congress expense while insisting they don’t have money to feed hungry children, house the unhoused, nor have universal healthcare. For them it’s not about doing their part by helping plucky Ukrainians in their struggle, they just want more stuff blown up.

I see where you're coming from on this one, I can't say I fully agree, though. We're giving them cluster bombs and mines to defend their country with, not amputate children. War is a shitty situation for all involved, but Ukraine and NATO did not start it, Russia did. And, yes, the American Military Industrial Complex does like its global conflicts where it can sell and test out its fancy weapons. In this particular situation, I ~~support~~ agree with doing this because those weapons are being used for defense against an invading force that I, as an American, am opposed to.

The end goal for Ukraine right now is apparently to take back the Donbass region and Crimea, these will both not happen. NATO trainers don’t know how to fight a war when they don’t have unlimited air superiority - the tactics they’ve taught have costed thousands of Ukrainian lives. Instead of fighting this stupid war, Ukraine should enter into peace negotiations (which they’ve tried to do!!! but NATO countries keep telling them not to). That might mean losing Crimea, maybe even Donbass - but the people who lived there, near as can be told, weren’t exactly happy to be under the suzerainty of Ukraine anyway. It’s a process that will come much more easily with the end of NATO and US support - just like what happened in the middle east following the withdrawal of US forces.

So just give up and allow Russia to take whatever they want, I disagree with this one. I also find it hard to believe that Ukraine is ok with giving up any territory to Russia.

At the end of the day, I want Ukraine to win this war and have their country back. This outcome would also mean that Russia would come out weaker in the end. I'm ok with my tax dollars going to that.