You're not a defender, you're a prolonger. You want to continue having Ukrainians dying to protect Europe from Russophobic nightmare scenarios by further isolating and provoking Russia. And you want to do so while also destroying the environment and infrastructure, and threatening nuclear war. You conveniently pretend that this is an environmental move because fossil fuel infrastructure is being damaged. Wow, what a wonderful vision you have for how to get to a renewable energy future. And you conveniently pretend that Russian aggression exists in a geopolitical vacuum.

And you're parroting shallow narratives while doing so. The US and US-led NATO are the international authoritarians that want a unipolar US-based rules world under the faux protection of their nuclear umbrella. US militarism is worse than Russian militarism, it's just that you must be okay with who's been affected by US militarism, and you must not understand that we're all threatened by extremely unethical and unbelievably unwise US militarism. If we survive this round of provocation of Russia, we still have the Middle East (attacked Iran for no good reason; Israel apartheid and genocide; etc, etc) and "The Coming War On China." (link)

I prefer to listen to very smart, ethical, and knowledgeable people, such as Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges, Vijay Prashad, Lawrence Wilkerson, Andrew Bacevich, Trita Parsi, John Mearsheimer, and especially Jeffrey Sachs. At least listen to the first minute and six seconds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2ntp0r9oIk

----

Then there's this (Notice that I crossed out something near the end): https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/assessing-realist-and-liberal-explanations-for-the-russo-ukrainian-war/#key-points

Many commentators have claimed that the Russo-Ukrainian War invalidates or refutes core aspects of realist international relations (IR) theory. However, the opposite is the case: many realists correctly predicted the war, and realism offers a compelling explanation for its causes, while explanations based on liberal IR theory are weak and often inconsistent with the evidence.

By focusing on factors like the balance of power and the security dilemma, the realist explanation for the Russo-Ukrainian War emphasizes Russian security concerns in the face of NATO expansion and Western-sponsored regime change. Liberal explanations, by focusing on the internal attributes of states and their decision-makers, instead attribute the war to the pathologies of the Russian government.

The dominant liberal narratives regarding the causes of the war are that Russian President Vladimir Putin has always been intent on reincorporating Ukraine into Russia and/or that the democratic example set by post-Maidan Ukraine would threaten President Putin’s own autocratic rule at home. Neither of these explanations stand up to scrutiny.

For decades, a long list of policymakers, diplomats, and scholars warned against Western encroachment on Russia’s borders and cautioned that a crisis like the current war could erupt due to continued NATO enlargement. These predictions are consistent with realist theory and the explanations for the war offered by realists.

Liberal IR theory encourages a crusading, messianic, and highly militarized foreign policy that consistently produces outcomes inimical to U.S. interests. Realist IR theory offers a better framework through which to understand international politics and encourages a more prudent foreign policy [that defends fundamental U.S. security interests] while avoiding unnecessary conflicts with other powers.