I'm going to type this response out as I read to get a better sense of understanding, and go back over after I've read it all.
I've known some friends of mine that are more anarchy leaning, so I get that to a degree already. And funnily enough, that right wing conspiracy stuff my parents are addicted to kind of feigns at class solidarity, but then they get too lost in their hatred of basically anything that isn't cis straight white Christians etc. and go back to fighting amongst themselves in some kind of spiritual war between themselves and the "Satanists" they've made up to label their "enemy", so not really any progress there.
Summarizing the second part in my sort of unfancy and simpler way, the US really needs to stop trying to be this "world police" that it thinks it is, especially given the problems within the country itself, and let more different countries work together through compromise to contribute to progress in the world.
Third part, essentially "it may not be the best possible option, but it can be a step in the right direction in some way, and it's way better than letting more power and control be centralized in one place".
Fourth, pretty much "economy and material for the people, along with the pressures within and without their country, define politics and society, not their leader's ideals".
Fifth, different people have different ideologies on what is exactly best and how much the conflict should be focused on, but generally based on the previous points, and on class solidarity most of all, which I can agree with.
Sixth, basically we want the war to end sooner so the people caught up in it don't have to keep suffering through it, which I absolutely agree with. Though I will say what might seem possible is for Putin to lose support from the I guess "upper" class, realizing it's not worth the losses and putting an end to it, though that's being optimistic considering it's the same class that has enabled it to continue. Otherwise, it would probably take a force neither side seems quite capable of to end the sort of ongoing stalemate.
Again, open to correction here, I've not been too focused on the progress of things there, so the situation could easily have changed since I kept up with it.
Seventh, I get the sort of idea to it, again, it's putting the best, or in this case, the least bad, for all the people involved over what would supposedly be "best" for the state and upper class, which totally makes sense in that regard, though I think I'm not quite getting the whole idea of the paragraph across on my end.
And the last one, just basically saying the exact specifics differ for everyone, of course people are people, and everyone expresses what they think in their own unique interpretation, sort of like how I'm interpreting all this here and now for a better understanding. And those interpretations all have their equally unique reasons behind them, usually for some form of comfort or knowledge, or just trying to find humor in even the darkest of things.
And the last bit, I think you did well, and given what I've typed, it seems to have gotten across pretty decently from what I can tell anyway.
On the second part, I kind of said "world police" as a more broad generalizion of all the stuff the government does for the sake of simplicity, but elaborating helps for those unaware of the extent of it.
On the sixth part, I ended up not recalling that being a thing, but as you bring it up, yeah, something probably should be done about the upper class being able to profit from violence, as that profit helps nobody except those who don't need it, and encourages more violence for a cycle of more profit and violence.
And I'm glad I got it as well as I did, I really enjoy understanding different people's perspectives and the reasoning behind them.