There seems to be a bit more concern here than just tweets like the one posted above.
https://twitter.com/NeoliberalSnow/status/1665805046053838849?s=20
Not that it really matters anyway, it's just gonna result in a bit bigger electoral show in the US.
The quote is Losurdo's critique of Tronti's book where Tronti imagines Lenin in modern England, but only limits himself to trade unionism without analysis of imperialism. You can find it here.
The connection is that midwesternmarx takes a similar stand in not analyzing how the working classes of the imperial core (and particularly the settlers in the US) benefit materially from imperialism. This material basis is the source of their misguided ideology which midwesternmarx ignore and instead write about "impurity" and similar concepts that don't really explain anything.
That whole thread by Roderic is great and really digs into the problems with midwesternmarx and this book.
They've been flirting with patsocs for a while, but it looks like when pressed about it now they are doubling down. Recently they had some friendly interactions with Haz even.
Someone posted the screenshot of Cornel's tweet in response to the question below.
To back up your analysis and clarify the need for it, I would like to add a few quotes from Lenin.
In A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism (1916) Lenin says:
How, then, can we disclose and define the “substance” of a war? War is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the war.
And also:
For the philistine the important thing is where the armies stand, who is winning at the moment. For the Marxist the important thing is what issues are at stake in this war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top.
In Socialism and War (1915) he says:
For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.
Taking these principles into account it's clear we have to consider the policies of the states involved in a war and not just decry the seeming aggressor. As you pointed out, NATO's policy has been one of aggression and expansion, spreading into Ukraine. While Russia had been trying for years to abide by diplomatic treaties (particularly relating to the situation in Donbass) that the West has been systematically ignoring.
I think there is plenty of substance in Roderic's critique. You can check out the response MWM gave and some back and forth with Roderic here (scroll up for the full thing).
As for accusing MWM of associating with patsocs, no accusations are needed as they openly do associate with patsocs. They've had multiple friendly interactions with Hinkle and Haz both on twitter and on some streams/podcasts. These have been ongoing for at least a year now, if not longer.
I don't think patsocs fall into the "purity question" at all because they are simply neither communists nor leftists of any sort.