There are Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria but the rebellion of the region was its own. It has its own militia forces and its own government. When the USSR was dissolved this predominantly Russian region did not want to be forced to stay with the Republic of Moldova and fought a war to protect its independence. Russian peacekeepers came afterwards to ensure that no further conflict would break out.
Abkhazia, South Ossetia
Again, deeply misleading. These regions were never under the Georgian government and had always fought to be autonomous from Tbilisi since the USSR broke up. After the US installed its puppets in the Georgian government via color revolution, NATO promised Georgia membership in 2008 and pushed them to reincorporate Abkhazia and South Ossetia as a precondition for joining, by force if necessary (they did the same with Ukraine and the Donbass republics).
Even the EU investigation into the 2008 conflict concluded that Georgia started it by attacking the breakaway regions. Russia came to their defense and is still there because the governments of those regions asked them to ensure they are not attacked again.
Kuril islands
This one takes the cake. Are you a sympathizer of Japanese imperialism? Do you also advocate for Russia to give Kaliningrad to Germany? Do you not understand that when WW2 ended the USSR retained these territories not only as compensation for the aggression committed against them but also to deter future aggression from the same direction? Are you going to demand Poland give Silesia and Pomerania back to Germany? Are you going to demand Korea be given back to Japan?
Other than the Kurils these are not territorial expansions, they were not annexed. None of these cases were primarily motivated by interests other than security. Russia already has plenty of land and resources. The reason why Russia has had to intervene in both Ukraine and Georgia is clearly seen in US think tank policy papers which explicitly advocate for creating exactly such conflicts along Russia’s borders to “overextend and imbalance” them. If Russia had not responded, even bigger threats would have been created against them.
Modern imperialism does not take place via territorial expansion. The Anglo-European imperialists have been practicing neo-colonial exploitation and subjugation of much of the rest of the world since WW2 entirely without annexation and in many cases without military intervention. This does not make them any less imperialist, nor does Russia’s reaction to imperialist threats make it imperialist itself.
The merging and control of the fossil fuel industry under Russian state ownership is actually the opposite of what happens in the neoliberal West where the economy relies on neo-colonial looting. Russia’s state control over its finance system is one of the reasons why it is able to prevent the kind of hyper-financialization that has devastated Western industrial economies. China does the same but to a much greater extent since it is a socialist state.
Russia has no territory in Moldova. Transnistria is a de facto independent republic. The idea that Russia extracts some great benefit from this impoverished strip of land that is essentially blockaded by NATO vassal states is absurd.
You are stuck in a paradigm of imperialism that does not correspond to how imperialism really functions today, via finance and neo-colonial unequal exchange. Imperialism of the late 20th and early 21st century does not operate as it did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The historical clock cannot be turned back, the division of the world between capitalist powers already took place. Today’s conditions and geopolitical dynamics are not the same as those of Lenin’s time.
There is only one imperialist nexus in the world now and it is centered around US unipolar global domination and their neoliberal hegemony. All actors that work against this hegemony are by necessity anti-imperialist. This new anti-imperialist camp is ideologically and politically heterogenous and includes socialist states like China, semi-peripheral capitalist states like Russia, and peripheral, underdeveloped states in the global south that are rebelling against neo-colonialism.
Removed by mod
There are Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria but the rebellion of the region was its own. It has its own militia forces and its own government. When the USSR was dissolved this predominantly Russian region did not want to be forced to stay with the Republic of Moldova and fought a war to protect its independence. Russian peacekeepers came afterwards to ensure that no further conflict would break out.
Again, deeply misleading. These regions were never under the Georgian government and had always fought to be autonomous from Tbilisi since the USSR broke up. After the US installed its puppets in the Georgian government via color revolution, NATO promised Georgia membership in 2008 and pushed them to reincorporate Abkhazia and South Ossetia as a precondition for joining, by force if necessary (they did the same with Ukraine and the Donbass republics).
Even the EU investigation into the 2008 conflict concluded that Georgia started it by attacking the breakaway regions. Russia came to their defense and is still there because the governments of those regions asked them to ensure they are not attacked again.
This one takes the cake. Are you a sympathizer of Japanese imperialism? Do you also advocate for Russia to give Kaliningrad to Germany? Do you not understand that when WW2 ended the USSR retained these territories not only as compensation for the aggression committed against them but also to deter future aggression from the same direction? Are you going to demand Poland give Silesia and Pomerania back to Germany? Are you going to demand Korea be given back to Japan?
Other than the Kurils these are not territorial expansions, they were not annexed. None of these cases were primarily motivated by interests other than security. Russia already has plenty of land and resources. The reason why Russia has had to intervene in both Ukraine and Georgia is clearly seen in US think tank policy papers which explicitly advocate for creating exactly such conflicts along Russia’s borders to “overextend and imbalance” them. If Russia had not responded, even bigger threats would have been created against them.
Modern imperialism does not take place via territorial expansion. The Anglo-European imperialists have been practicing neo-colonial exploitation and subjugation of much of the rest of the world since WW2 entirely without annexation and in many cases without military intervention. This does not make them any less imperialist, nor does Russia’s reaction to imperialist threats make it imperialist itself.
I’d genuinely like to know how Russia’s actions and conditions meet Lenin’s definition of imperialism.
Removed by mod
The merging and control of the fossil fuel industry under Russian state ownership is actually the opposite of what happens in the neoliberal West where the economy relies on neo-colonial looting. Russia’s state control over its finance system is one of the reasons why it is able to prevent the kind of hyper-financialization that has devastated Western industrial economies. China does the same but to a much greater extent since it is a socialist state.
Russia has no territory in Moldova. Transnistria is a de facto independent republic. The idea that Russia extracts some great benefit from this impoverished strip of land that is essentially blockaded by NATO vassal states is absurd.
You are stuck in a paradigm of imperialism that does not correspond to how imperialism really functions today, via finance and neo-colonial unequal exchange. Imperialism of the late 20th and early 21st century does not operate as it did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The historical clock cannot be turned back, the division of the world between capitalist powers already took place. Today’s conditions and geopolitical dynamics are not the same as those of Lenin’s time.
There is only one imperialist nexus in the world now and it is centered around US unipolar global domination and their neoliberal hegemony. All actors that work against this hegemony are by necessity anti-imperialist. This new anti-imperialist camp is ideologically and politically heterogenous and includes socialist states like China, semi-peripheral capitalist states like Russia, and peripheral, underdeveloped states in the global south that are rebelling against neo-colonialism.