You posit that it is a western empire that is entering post primacy. Although looking at the U.S. and NATO as an empire may be helpful in some analyses as a rubric, a clear-eyed rebel recognizes that this supposition is itself a bit fanciful, as there is no empire, per se. Perhaps a small mistake, and not an important one given the rest of your argument. But small mistakes, especially in fundamental thinking, can add up, and become larger faults.

Keep fighting, you counsel, but against what and against whom; and for what and for whom? The main focus of your piece is on the injustices done to Russia and Russians, with an emphasis on recent false allegations. Animus against Russia in Europe and in the U.S. is long standing and has been seeded over many generations. These latest developments rely on those historic prejudices. “Fighting” against them is going to be tough.

Who in the U.S. represents a responsible attitude toward Russia? Who has taken leadership to champion a more comprehensive assessment of shared Russian and U.S. interests, and proposed that our two countries and civilizations work together for mutual benefit. As a nationally prominent figure, Trump gets that mantle. Schizophrenic though he may be, and despite his recent disparagements in the wake of the still unconfirmed chemical weapons attack in Duma (which was very likely a cock-up); and the UK spy poisoning case (also almost certainly a cock-up, with seafood poisoning now the likely culprit) he remains the most nationally prominent figure in favour of rapprochement. I wish there were an alternative — present them if you have them — but the strategy for fighting seems like it should include some support for Trump on this plank. You may not be a Republican — I certainly am not — nor a Democrat (the Democratic Party has been more hawkish of late than the Republicans), to realize that if your goal is rapprochement, Trump is a potential tactical ally.

You speculate about a, “ preexisting vendetta to cripple oppositional governments” with regard to what happened in Iraq and Libya, and put that forward as the general theory under which we should mobilize ourselves in support of Russia and against the U.S., the E.U., and individual NATO governments, now conveniently labeled collectively as, “the Western Empire”.

Iraq was a great tragedy, but we now know a more proximate reason for its decimation. The Greater Middle East Strategy holds that the countries bordering Israel need to have their secular governments destroyed and replaced by Sectarian Statelets which will share Tel Aviv as their entrepôt. The thing about Israel’s right to exist is that it can’t exist profitably enough for the appetites of its oligarchs without functioning as such. Hence, the need for the destruction and mayhem, first by destroying and destabilizing Beirut and Lebanon, the region’s historic entrepôt, and then by taking out the countries which emerged in the wake of the Ottoman Empire. Divide and conquer; and then divide up again so the resulting entities are too small, too weak, and too sectarian to pose a mortal threat to Israel.

Nascent Revolutionary sentiments have a history of being harnessed for what could politely be termed as distractions from what ought to be their actual targets. While the concept of a Western Empire advancing preexisting agendas against noncompliant governments may be a helpful way of organizing opposition to the bad and support of the good, I worry that it may skip over more parsimonious explanations and miss logistic opportunities because of its abstract nature. Support for Syria, Russia and Iran seems more proximate and urgently needed. Stop the war now, and rebuild relations with Russia.