I speak to a few direct points that are closest to our thread but if you want me to comment on something else in particular just let me know what exactly to talk about.

Regarding, Mark Ames' take on Russia's invasion - I don't follow this guy but it sounds like (I have to hear about him second-hand non-stop) before the war he represented Russia's side of the story and now he's decided to change camps. I take it as given that no one can really pretend to know what Russia is actually hoping to gain in this war just as we can't really know what the US was up to in Ukraine, specifically - at least not yet, credible testimony on those may emerge over time but for now all we can do is look at what facts we have and speculate. I think Mark Ames is reading the room and seeing how anyone in the West who is even giving a Russia a luke-warm defense is getting literally scrubbed from the internet. That is not good for him as a content producer and that is going to influence him more than he'll admit - so walking back his prior rationalizations so that he can continue to operate in a russophobic political climate makes the most sense when accounting for his material conditions. Beyond that, while the media would gladly have everyone believe that Russia's war isn't going well, I'd say that evidence points to the contrary - they are clearly winning. Calling the war "stupid" seems myopic considering that the groundwork for this war was laid 8 years ago - it had to pop off at some point and for someone to claim they know better than Russian intelligence about when the best time for them to handle this was is arrogant at best.

Regarding the thing about two people drawing the same conclusion and materialism - Marxism is (or aspires to be depending on who you ask) a science - a method with which the world can be analyzed and conclusions can be drawn so that actions that benefit humanity can be taken. But, for what we're discussing we just need the first bit. For people who are trying to get at the concrete truth of a matter (why did Russia invade / why was NATO training/advising Ukraine, etc) they will apply their framework of perception to the information at hand and after aggregating information they will conclude with whatever is most plausible. This isn't to say that the materialist approach is the only method, but when two people are using the same method and given the same limited set of data - it comes as no surprise when they reach similar conclusions. Sure people have their blindspots but there will still be common denominators. People who interpret the world in the same way will even likely have the same political reflexes/instincts within arguments. Echo-chambers would constitute for exactness in phrasing/evidence cited but a lot of what is being discussed has to sadly be presupposed when so much of the information has been intentionally obfuscated.