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.
In 2014, the west backed a far-right coup, placing Banderites in charge of Kiev. They started suppressing ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, resulting in Donetsk and Luhansk seceding and forming their own breakaway states. These states were at war for a decade, which Russia tried to patch up with the Minsk agreements, which Kiev broke both times. Finally, the DPR and LPR requested Russian intervention, and Russia accepted in 2022. Afterwards, a referendum was held, and both the DPR and LPR voted to join the Russian Federation, rather than continue to be ethnically cleansed by the Nazis in Kiev.
The definition you give doesn’t apply to Russia’s actions here. The part about expansionism in your definition is in service of maintaining empire, an economic status. Russia is not an Empire, nor is it becoming one, because it is not creating colonies nor plundering from them. Annexing territory is not imperialism, what would be imperialism is the US Empire forcibly annexing Hawaii to serve as a millitary base and to harvest for minerals after couping Liliʻuokalani against the wishes of the people.
Imperialism is an economic relationship that is maintained by the measures you listed. Imperialism is where one country exports capital and leverages this to extract vast sums of wealth from imperialized countries. Imperialism is maintained by hegemony and expansionism. Russia annexing groups that voted to join Russia without setting up any colonies doesn’t at all meet the definitions of imperialism. Posting your same definition that’s already flawed and vibes-based and yet you still misunderstand will not prove any point to anyone here.
The definition you give doesn’t apply to Russia’s actions here. The part about expansionism in your definition is in service of maintaining empire, an economic status.
Empire-building links back to imperialism. I’m sorry but you can’t just add in new requirements until you are satisfied with the results. It doesn’t work like that.
I should’ve also included this part earlier with all the talk about colonies
Russia is clearing Kiev’s forces out of the DPR and LPR. You have not explained how this is in service of empire-building or colonialism, which are economic relations.
I’m not adding requirements, I’m going off of your own requirements.
You call their invasion and annexation “clearing out Kiev’s forces”. You don’t see how changing the language doesn’t make what’s actually happening any different?
And no, the definition didn’t include your additions. You are taking the definition, adding more requirements and still claiming it is the same requirement. Not how it works.
Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
Secondly, no, I’m not adding. What do you think an empire is? What is colonization? You’re reducing all of these to mere political preference instead of economic relationships, cherry-picking vague summaries and sticking your head in the sand when it comes to parts of those summaries that explain the economic factor that you are keen on erasing.
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
Wrong.
In 2014, the west backed a far-right coup, placing Banderites in charge of Kiev. They started suppressing ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, resulting in Donetsk and Luhansk seceding and forming their own breakaway states. These states were at war for a decade, which Russia tried to patch up with the Minsk agreements, which Kiev broke both times. Finally, the DPR and LPR requested Russian intervention, and Russia accepted in 2022. Afterwards, a referendum was held, and both the DPR and LPR voted to join the Russian Federation, rather than continue to be ethnically cleansed by the Nazis in Kiev.
The definition you give doesn’t apply to Russia’s actions here. The part about expansionism in your definition is in service of maintaining empire, an economic status. Russia is not an Empire, nor is it becoming one, because it is not creating colonies nor plundering from them. Annexing territory is not imperialism, what would be imperialism is the US Empire forcibly annexing Hawaii to serve as a millitary base and to harvest for minerals after couping Liliʻuokalani against the wishes of the people.
Imperialism is an economic relationship that is maintained by the measures you listed. Imperialism is where one country exports capital and leverages this to extract vast sums of wealth from imperialized countries. Imperialism is maintained by hegemony and expansionism. Russia annexing groups that voted to join Russia without setting up any colonies doesn’t at all meet the definitions of imperialism. Posting your same definition that’s already flawed and vibes-based and yet you still misunderstand will not prove any point to anyone here.
Empire-building links back to imperialism. I’m sorry but you can’t just add in new requirements until you are satisfied with the results. It doesn’t work like that.
I should’ve also included this part earlier with all the talk about colonies
Russia is clearing Kiev’s forces out of the DPR and LPR. You have not explained how this is in service of empire-building or colonialism, which are economic relations.
I’m not adding requirements, I’m going off of your own requirements.
You call their invasion and annexation “clearing out Kiev’s forces”. You don’t see how changing the language doesn’t make what’s actually happening any different?
And no, the definition didn’t include your additions. You are taking the definition, adding more requirements and still claiming it is the same requirement. Not how it works.
Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
Secondly, no, I’m not adding. What do you think an empire is? What is colonization? You’re reducing all of these to mere political preference instead of economic relationships, cherry-picking vague summaries and sticking your head in the sand when it comes to parts of those summaries that explain the economic factor that you are keen on erasing.