Cowbee [he/they]

I did find meaningful sources, you rejected them because what they said goes against your understanding. It’s a thought-terminating ideological backflip.

The world doesn’t fear Russia, though, the world fears the west. It’s the west that fears Russia, and is harvesting Ukraine for resources and racking them up with debt for hand-me-down surplus to support the far-right Banderites in Kiev ethnic cleansing the Donbass region. The Ukrainian people increasingly want peace over war, not to fight to the last Ukrainian, it’s the Banderites that want to sacrifice Ukrainain people while they hide from the frontlines.

I did find meaningful sources, you just stuck your head in the sand as soon as it said something counter to what you believe. What am I supposed to do in that case?

The analysts are wrong, as I explained. Wikipedia does indeed refuse to take a stance on most things, it’s a terrible source for political history and current events. Sometimes the sources can be nice, but often they are terrible.

Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?

I’ve already explained, using the definition Wikipedia gives, Russia does not fit that. Wikipedia is not written by a single person, nor do the analysts that claim Russia is imperialist write the definitions given by Wikipedia as their claimed definition. It’s also possible for someone to give a definition, have that definition not apply to something, yet still have that same person incorrectly apply it. Moreover, Wikipedia is saying some analysts, not even taking a definitive stance itself.

Wikipedia is indeed popular in the west. So is Fox News and CNN, NYT, etc. That doesn’t mean they are correct or valid.

Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?

These “analysts” are wrong, as I’ve explained already. Wikipedia doesn’t even try to pretend these are facts, but accusations. Why are you so insistent on Wikipedia, and defending ethnic cleansing?

“Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more formal empire.”

This is what you ignored, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, and which I answered over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Russia isn’t establishing or maintaining hegemony or a more formal empire, you focus on the fact that the Donbass voted to join Russia as evidence of their “expansionism,” and stopped thinking there when that’s not even the focus of imperialism or what constitutes it.

This is all in addition to your support of ethnic cleansing, of course.

They aren’t cut off in the literal sense, I misspoke, they are just not expanded upon, like the concept of maintaining an Empire. At this point though, it’s clear that you think ethnic cleansing is legitimate.

I used the definitions given by the article, and expanded on what it had laid out, like empire-building. When you displayed a separate article trying to give analysis, not just a definition, I explained how using the definition you gave, the analysis is incorrect. The reason I bothered with letting you cherry pick a definition is because you are correct about one thing, that changing the name of something doesn’t change the actions. That’s why I’ve focused on proving your own definition inapplicable, and asked you over and over again:

Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?

I take it you don’t at this point, it seems you’re in favor of Kiev’s stance that they have the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region of ethnic Russians.

It doesn’t say Russia is imperialist, it says it has been accused of neo-colonialism and described as neo-imperialist. Both of those are true, it has indeed been incorrectly accused and described as such, as we have proven here.

Further, Wikipedia is extremely western, liberal, imperialist biased. The editors are overwhelmingly western and liberal, and as such present such a view. Prolewiki is a Marxist wiki, that openly has its own biases, and has this to say of Russian “imperialism:”

It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500. 82% of Russian exports are raw materials, including 58% oil, 11% metal, and 6% food. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth’ of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of capital export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. Russia only controls 0.7% of the world’s wealth and has much less wealth per adult than the United States ($8,843 vs $336,528). Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.

It also has this to say of imperialism in general:

Imperialism is the most recent evolution of the capitalist mode of production that began in the late 1800s to early 1900s, in which monopolies and cartels become the dominant economic force of society.[1] It involves the merger of banking capital with industrial capital to create the greater finance capital and a fundamental distinguishing character of export of capital instead of export of commodities.

It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.

So your biased view doesn’t work. When we take your definitions at face value, and apply them to the facts on the ground, we can see that those accusing Russia of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism are wrong, and we can also see that leftists don’t think Russia is imperialist either.

Again: Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?

Annexing territory is not imperialism itself. It can be a part of imperialism, if you relate it to how it’s in service of economic extraction and the setting up of imperialized subjects. If you support the people in Donetsk and Luhansk as having sovereignty, then Kiev’s Banderites are invading their territory and thus Russia is clearing out the invading force. That’s why I asked if you recognize the right of self-determination for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, because it seems you support Kiev’s right to ethnically cleanse them.

Secondly, colonialism is different but related. Colonialism is the direct subjugation of one country under another, with formalized occupying forces and states, like what happened in Algeria. Imperialism on the other hand is the more general process of exporting capital and plundering the global south. The methods of expansionism and colonialism are means by which to maintain imperialism.

Reading 2 short paragraphs on Wikipedia and thinking you know enough to understand what imperialism is and the mechanisms it operates by is the peak of liberal hubris.

It absolutely has bearing. If you recognize the right of self-determination for the people in Donetsk and Luhansk, then you recognize their right to join Russia. Consensual joining of territory is absolutely not imperialism, and Kiev trying to prevent the ethnic Russians it has been slaughtering from leaving its grasp is closer to what Israel is doing to Palestinians.

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.

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.

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.

I can normally get people to see at least how NATO is bad, but they inevitably see it as preferable over Russia, which is a better position but not great.

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.

No problem!

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.

Yep, the reason I’m trying to engage this way is because trying to explain Lenin’s analysis just leads them to saying that changing the name of something doesn’t change its nature, which is correct, and is why I try to focus more on even using their liberal definition they are wrong.

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.