Thread by @neil_abrams

I think this guy is arguing in good faith. But to believe that depriving Ukraine of weapons constitutes an “anti-imperialist” stance requires also believing Russia’s invasion *isn’t* imperialist. That, in turn, requires believing a number of things that are untenable IMO.

The notion that opposing arms transfers to Ukraine is anti-imperialist hinges on the view that Russia only invaded because it was provoked by a (supposedly) imperialist NATO alliance. But consider the things you’d have to accept in order to think that:

It requires believing there are legitimate reasons why Putin barely raised a fuss over Sweden and Finland’s accession to NATO yet viewed the prospect of *Ukraine* joining NATO as so real and so dire that it necessitated a full-scale invasion.

There are, in fact, no legitimate reasons for this. Putin well knew that, so long as Russia continued to occupy parts of Ukrainian territory, which it’s been doing directly and indirectly since 2014, NATO couldn’t admit Ukraine. To do so would trigger nuclear Armageddon.

To believe that an imperialist NATO provoked the war—and, in turn, that withholding arms from Ukraine actually constitutes an anti-imperialist position—requires believing a number of additional things that are equally unconvincing.

It requires believing that, absent NATO expansion, Russia would have accepted the humiliation of the Soviet collapse and accompanying loss of half its territory and population and become—for the first time ever—a satisfied power with no territorial designs on its neighbors.

It requires believing that, absent NATO membership, the ex-Soviet Baltic States would today remain free and independent of Russian domination. I’d argue their NATO membership is the only reason the Baltics are *not* getting attacked while non-NATO Ukraine *is* getting attacked

It requires believing that, when top Putin aide Dmitry Medvedev called Georgia and Kazakhstan “artificial states” and vowed to reincorporate all the ex-Soviet republics into Russia, he didn’t mean it and what he really meant was that the war was about NATO.

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1554365132159025154?s=20&t=8u-5F_4qCRAr0deJlPyACA

It requires believing that, when the Kremlin permits the sort of genocidal rhetoric below to air on state TV, it doesn’t reflect any special antipathy towards Ukrainians or their right to an independent state. Instead, the Kremlin’s real concern is NATO.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1531301883628986368?s=20&t=8u-5F_4qCRAr0deJlPyACA

It requires believing that when Vladimir Solovyov, the Kremlin’s top media propagandist, stated that the war’s objective was “liberating a part of Russia…from its German, Anglo-Saxon, and Jewish colonizers,” he actually meant the war was about NATO.

https://twitter.com/ABarbashin/status/1528399289554243586?s=20&t=8u-5F_4qCRAr0deJlPyACA

It requires believing that Putin didn’t really mean it when he called Ukraine an artificial creation “on the lands of historical Russia” and said “Russia was robbed” by the creation of a separate Ukrainian Soviet republic. His real concern was NATO.
en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Hi…

It requires believing that when Putin referred to Ukraine as “an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space” he didn’t really mean it and that his real concern was NATO. americanrhetoric.com/speeches/vladi…

It requires believing that when Putin declared that Russia “cannot allow an anti-Russia to be created on Russia’s historical territory” he didn’t really mean it. His true concern wasn’t reclaiming Russia’s lost imperial holdings but rather NATO expansion.

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1519330078013935617?s=20&t=SFsTpuFPa0X4isE3WeFjuA

It requires believing that, when Putin publicly admitted that the goal of the invasion was to “get our lands back,” he didn’t really mean it and what he really meant was that it was about NATO expansion.

https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1534910119519178752?s=20&t=SFsTpuFPa0X4isE3WeFjuA

In sum, the idea that the invasion is *not* imperialist and that the true anti-imperialist position is to withhold arms from Ukraine rests on numerous premises that are practically inconceivable. Far from anti-imperialist, then, not arming Ukraine is actually pro-imperialist.

Addendum: As @EdwinH47291839 pointed out in a reply, it also requires believing that NATO expanded by prodding and cajoling reluctant Eastern European states to join when the reality was exactly the opposite—precisely because they feared renewed Russian imperialism. See this🧵

https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1484883749527506946