I posted two very common definitions above and it’s imperialism because it fits the definition. It shouldn’t matter if you support it, it’s not a reason to not consider it imperialism.
Russia is invading countries, annexing land, creating buffer zones. That’s like run of the mill imperialism.
There’s no colonization going on. You’re confusing the measures imperialist countries use with the actual process of imperialism. Imperialist and non-imperialist countries annex territory, that doesn’t mean all annexation is imperialism.
Even if we use this liberal, vibes-based definition, Russia isn’t imperialist. Russia is responding to the requests of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics for support, and they voted to join Russia. Russia isn’t establishing hegemony, nor an Empire. You’re confusing the measures imperialist countries use to maintain imperialism with imperialism itself, which is a form of international plunder.
If the US responded to the “requests” of separatists for support, and then those separatists voted to join the US, the imperialism would be pretty obvious. How do you explain to liberals that there is a difference?
The US is the world’s Empire and does super-exploit the global south for profits, ergo we need to understand the manner with which it props up seperatist groups are to service thode ends. Russia does not have the same economic forces at play. This is before you look into the origins of these movements and their history over time.
We can’t understand any of that if we use the liberal, vibes based definition of imperialism. As far as they’re concerned you’re just doing mental gymnastics, imperialism is just when countries do empire stuff like annexations and invasions.
Yes, and I’ve tried to explain how they confuse methods common to imperialist countries with imperialism itself, even explaining how imperialism is driven by export of capital for foreign plunder. They’ve obstinately reduced imperialism simply to a preference of foreign policy, rather than an economic process.
I’ve actually heard liberals say defining imperialism as economic is specifically a Leninist definition of imperialism, just so they don’t have to engage with it. Lenin was just trying to confuse us! Everyone knows the USSR was an empire. 🤡
Attacking a country, annexing parts of them, creating a buffer zone out of country and trying to be the predominant country in the area is definitely not extending power, expansionism and trying to be regional hegemon
The struggle to just not call duck a duck reminds me of this meme
It’s especially strange since you seem to be fine with all of the very imperialistic actions Russia are doing, you just don’t like it being called imperialism.
Again, you’re confusing the measures imperialist countries use to perpetuate international plunder, ie imperialism, with imperialism itself. Annexation can be done by imperialist countries in order to set up or protect their systems of international exploitation, or it can be done in non-imperialist fashions, such as when seperatists that are being ethnically cleansed by Kiev request to join Russia, and Russia obliges.
Countries do not simply “exert power” for the sake of it, but as a means to an end. Russia’s acceptance of the requests for support from Donetsk and Luhansk against the far-right regime ethnically cleansing them is different from the US Empire engaging in brutal sanctions on Cuba for nationalizing industries owned by Statesian capitalists. The latter is an example of the methods used by imperialists to protect their plunder, as the Cuban revolutionaries kicked out the Statesian colonizers.
You’ve clearly seen the common definitions used for imperialism and choose to define it in a way that excludes Russia. I guess at that point not much else can be said that sure it doesn’t fit your definition but it does fit those very common definitions. Can’t go anywhere there if we just can’t agree on the definition to use.
I just find it strange to try and deny them being imperialist if the horrible things imperialists do are still fine. If you are fine with invasion, annexation, buffer state creating then being opposed to being grouped with other countries that do that seems minor.
It doesn’t fit those liberal definitions, and I explained why. I’m okay with Russia responding to the requests of seperatists being ethnically cleansed by the far-right Banderite regime. More than that, imperialism is an economic construction included in your definitions, as Empires necessarily function by extracting vast sums of wealth from their colonies and neocolonies. Russia isn’t doing that, it’s engaged in a fight against a far-right state that has been ethnically cleansing ethnic Russians since 2014. It isn’t trying to create colonies or protect its colonial holdings, like the US Empire is currently doing with Venezuela.
You just rephrased the exact same actions in a different way. The reality is that Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed land and is trying to create a buffer state. Russia’s actions fit the definitions beat by beat, you just feel like using nicer sounding language about the exact same actions changes things when it just doesn’t.
I posted two very common definitions above and it’s imperialism because it fits the definition. It shouldn’t matter if you support it, it’s not a reason to not consider it imperialism.
Russia is invading countries, annexing land, creating buffer zones. That’s like run of the mill imperialism.
There’s no colonization going on. You’re confusing the measures imperialist countries use with the actual process of imperialism. Imperialist and non-imperialist countries annex territory, that doesn’t mean all annexation is imperialism.
Even if we use this liberal, vibes-based definition, Russia isn’t imperialist. Russia is responding to the requests of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics for support, and they voted to join Russia. Russia isn’t establishing hegemony, nor an Empire. You’re confusing the measures imperialist countries use to maintain imperialism with imperialism itself, which is a form of international plunder.
You’re not vibing hard enough.
If the US responded to the “requests” of separatists for support, and then those separatists voted to join the US, the imperialism would be pretty obvious. How do you explain to liberals that there is a difference?
The US is the world’s Empire and does super-exploit the global south for profits, ergo we need to understand the manner with which it props up seperatist groups are to service thode ends. Russia does not have the same economic forces at play. This is before you look into the origins of these movements and their history over time.
We can’t understand any of that if we use the liberal, vibes based definition of imperialism. As far as they’re concerned you’re just doing mental gymnastics, imperialism is just when countries do empire stuff like annexations and invasions.
Yes, and I’ve tried to explain how they confuse methods common to imperialist countries with imperialism itself, even explaining how imperialism is driven by export of capital for foreign plunder. They’ve obstinately reduced imperialism simply to a preference of foreign policy, rather than an economic process.
I’ve actually heard liberals say defining imperialism as economic is specifically a Leninist definition of imperialism, just so they don’t have to engage with it. Lenin was just trying to confuse us! Everyone knows the USSR was an empire. 🤡
Attacking a country, annexing parts of them, creating a buffer zone out of country and trying to be the predominant country in the area is definitely not extending power, expansionism and trying to be regional hegemon
Again, you’re confusing the measures imperialist countries use to perpetuate international plunder, ie imperialism, with imperialism itself. Annexation can be done by imperialist countries in order to set up or protect their systems of international exploitation, or it can be done in non-imperialist fashions, such as when seperatists that are being ethnically cleansed by Kiev request to join Russia, and Russia obliges.
Countries do not simply “exert power” for the sake of it, but as a means to an end. Russia’s acceptance of the requests for support from Donetsk and Luhansk against the far-right regime ethnically cleansing them is different from the US Empire engaging in brutal sanctions on Cuba for nationalizing industries owned by Statesian capitalists. The latter is an example of the methods used by imperialists to protect their plunder, as the Cuban revolutionaries kicked out the Statesian colonizers.
You’ve clearly seen the common definitions used for imperialism and choose to define it in a way that excludes Russia. I guess at that point not much else can be said that sure it doesn’t fit your definition but it does fit those very common definitions. Can’t go anywhere there if we just can’t agree on the definition to use.
I just find it strange to try and deny them being imperialist if the horrible things imperialists do are still fine. If you are fine with invasion, annexation, buffer state creating then being opposed to being grouped with other countries that do that seems minor.
It doesn’t fit those liberal definitions, and I explained why. I’m okay with Russia responding to the requests of seperatists being ethnically cleansed by the far-right Banderite regime. More than that, imperialism is an economic construction included in your definitions, as Empires necessarily function by extracting vast sums of wealth from their colonies and neocolonies. Russia isn’t doing that, it’s engaged in a fight against a far-right state that has been ethnically cleansing ethnic Russians since 2014. It isn’t trying to create colonies or protect its colonial holdings, like the US Empire is currently doing with Venezuela.
You just rephrased the exact same actions in a different way. The reality is that Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed land and is trying to create a buffer state. Russia’s actions fit the definitions beat by beat, you just feel like using nicer sounding language about the exact same actions changes things when it just doesn’t.
Here’s the definition for a refresher