The speech has problems, but so does your characterization of the position.

No denial was made that Russia invaded Ukraine, or that the invasion is unacceptable.

The speech is asking those in NATO-aligned states, particularly the United States, to reconsider the narrative fed to them by the media and government in their countries. The narrative largely projects the national ambitions of such countries as benevolent, and enemy countries and their rulers as evil, and emphasizes the moral and practical necessity of US-led militarism, to keep the world safe for everyone.

The speech is presenting an alternative narrative to challenge the one familiar to Americans.

Particularly, it is asking those in NATO-aligned countries to consider the issues more broadly, in terms of the harmful ramifications of NATO and its expansion. It is asking us to consider whether NATO makes the world safer, or rather more dangerous. It is asking us to consider whether NATO supports the safety of all, or the power of the few.

The general historic background and analysis may support the case that NATO is not helpful to most common people around the world, as much as it is a vehicle for preserving and expanding the wealth and power of a few oligarchs.

Ukraine is characterized in the speech as a puppet to the West in order to emphasize that the leaders in Ukraine cater to certain demands, favoring the preservation of their own positions of power, more than acting according the interests of the mass of the population, and because support for Ukraine by Western nations is guided more by geopolitical ambitions than by humane concern for the people of Ukraine.

If NATO were seeking contraction not expansion, then harmful people like Putin would still exist, but overall tension across the world may be reduced. The US would have less power as a nation, but such is not the same as the world being more dangerous for most of the population.

Unfortunately, the ideology promulgated from within the US and similar countries would never concede that less military power for such countries could ever lead to greater overall safety for the world.

The US government of course is not open to diplomatic solutions such as one including an agreement to contract NATO. The US is not against war, rather only against wars started by other countries.

There are many strategies for building a counternarrative. I am not defending the strategies chosen by JT or the CPUSA, but I am asking you and others to be less hasty and less harsh in your judgments.