Should We Arm Ukraine?

The Anti-interventionist Left doesn't think so.

I often find myself sorting through difficult and murky areas, seeking to establish a a level of coherence and clarity for myself that others may also find useful. I try to remain open to new ideas and evidence, with a willingness to change my perspective and admit I was wrong. Sometimes this may seem like vacillation. I prefer to stay honest even when I have to admit past mistakes. I hope this gives my perspective more value in the long run.

As a thinker, I am a generalist. At their best, generalists help to synthesize ideas and trends from many sources to identify larger patterns. Generalists sometimes attain a more comprehensive view than experts who can get “caught in the weeds” because of their expertise. As a generalist, however, you need to constantly interrogate your blindspots and admit what you don’t know.

While owning up to my own uncertainty, I want to explore the views on the Ukrainian war taken by the anti-interventionist Left in the United States and Canada. I do not agree with them and believe their arguments are both disingenuous and dangerous. I think it is important to refute this viewpoint, while acknowledging there is a lot of truth in the Leftist critique.

Why is this important? If the Ukraine war drags on interminably, it will become increasingly difficult for NATO countries to stay focused on it. That is what Putin is gambling on. Italy is turning to the Right. Its new leaders may abandon support for Ukraine. Other countries may follow. If the war continues until 2024 and Trump or a Trump-like candidate wins, the US may end military support for Ukraine. Over time, the level of understanding and ongoing popular opinion on Ukraine may have a crucial impact.

Many Leftists promote the view that the Russian / Ukraine war is a “proxy war” of the United States. They argue that the US was arming Ukraine over the last decades and training Ukrainian soldiers in preparation for this scenario. One possible strategic goal is to draw Russia into a long, miserable, expensive conflict like the Afghanistan war which led to the collapse of the USSR in 1989. Similarly, the war in Ukraine might, eventually, end Putin’s regime. The war also benefits the enormous military-industrial complex in the US, which just increased its budget to an unfathomable $826 billion a year. I have no doubt that some sectors of the US military intelligence complex have gamed this out.

A range of intellectuals, journalists, and academics including Chris Hedges, Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Matt Taibbi, and John Mearsheimer promote this anti-interventionist perspective. Recently Russell Brand interviewed journalist Aaron Mate from The Gray Zone, an alternative media platform, on his podcast. Among other ideas, Mate said that the principle reason for NATO expansion isn’t to build security but to increase profits for weapons manufacturers. I spent a few days exploring the archives of The Gray Zone to understand their perspective. Gray Zone journalists seem far more sympathetic to Putin and other authoritarian leaders — such as Viktor Orban in Hungary — than to Biden and to Western European leaders. Although Zelensky won with 70% of the popular vote in Ukraine, they call his government a “puppet regime” of the US.

The anti-interventionist Left also note the danger of the Ukraine war spinning out of control and leading to nuclear war. For this reason, they argue, the US should cease its military support of Ukraine and try to force an immediate diplomatic solution, even if this costs Ukraine considerable territory.