(Eg: if you support 'the people', you would support Ukraine, NATO, UN &c. Not to do so is support for tyrants.)

This is the meat of your argument: Ukraine [=the Zelensky government], NATO, UN, etc are the legitimate representatives of "the people", around the world.

That argument is being litigated over the past 14 years (I'm using the 2008 collapse of western financial markets as a point from which many people began to open their eyes that "the western system" absolutely serves itself at the expense of the citizens of those countries). You are arguing that the institutions you list represent "the good guys" and that anyone suspicious of them and of their motives is by definition "the bad guys". Yours is a simplistic and black-and-white argument, and there's now 14 years of evidence that it is wrong, in both the moral and objective senses of that word.

To say what Russia and Putin are doing is evil is simple. I agree. The argument comes when your side says Russia's attack was "unprovoked". I happen to agree that what the Russian security state is doing is wrong, both morally and practically. But it sure as hell wasn't unprovoked. NATO and the Davos set have been trying to get Putin and the Russian security state to take this bait for 8 years. They have now succeeded. Their motivations for provoking Russia to invade Ukraine are obvious: they want Russia to bleed itself out so they can re-establish the "slave Russia" of the 1990s, which was a very ugly time for average Russians, not for the oligarchs. They also want access to the natural resources of Ukraine (relatively untapped gas fields off of Crimea, for example), which would allow the Davos set to rid themselves of their obvious dependency on Russian energy resources.

The enemy of my enemy IS NOT MY FRIEND. Supporting NATO, etc is against our own interests, as freedom-seeking and peace-seeking citizens of the west. The biggest beneficiaries in the west of the past 3 weeks? Raytheon, Halliburton, etc. They are making serious bank. They do not represent me. I reject them completely.

There are two directions we can go from here: one, aim for peace and try to stop the bleeding, on all sides; two, escalate and make sure as many people die as possible, preferably into a future that has no end. I have never witnessed NATO seek the first direction, and I don't see you seeking it here.