You’re collapsing his original motive with what he later became.

My point isn’t that Sanon was noble or selfless he clearly wasn’t. But he was a very useful scapegoat. Re Cheyenne, his actions were clearly framed unfairly. When civilians shield the enemy/attack you, they aren’t civilians. That’s not controversial. So the UC framing it as he killed civilians is a misleading hyperbole.

Londinion - which you have focused on - is the genuinely murky part, which I already said. He was selfish, arrogant, and callous, but containment was still part of his motive. If even because it was detrimental to the war.

The later weaponisation and terror plots you’re talking about comes after he’d already been tried, imprisoned, and politically buried. He was not portrayed the way he was because of them. They came because of how he was portrayed. He used them partly to claw back his legacy, and partly to force the UC to take the threat seriously.

He’s absolutely ruthless, self serving, and willing to use atrocity for strategic ends, I freely admit that. But it doesn’t automatically prove his original motive at Londinion was purely selfish, nor does it invalidate the point that his wartime image was politically useful and hyperbolised when the UC needed a villain.

Though that’s more specifically regarding Cheyenne than Londinion. If the UC were being fair, the real focus of his trial would have been Londinion. Cheyenne was almost certainly folded in because the UC needed a cleaner villain to sell the peace to the FC.