This is not a fair comparison. Russia has not yet reached the imperialist stage of capitalism. Russia’s presence in West Asia and Africa is currently a counter to the imperialist West. Therefore, it currently has an anti-imperialist character. There is no doubt that Russia as a capitalist nation will eventually reach the stage of imperialism, or become imperialized.
Amerikkka and TERF Island are both imperialist nations. They will continue to be imperialist even if they were to pull out of Ukraine.
Genuine good faith question here. Did Russian oil companies play a role in the invasion of Ukraine? And if they did, was it in a monopolies expanding outside of the bounds of the Russian economy kind of way or was it of a different character?
Invasion of Ukraine was going contrary to their interests, as we could see in countless maneuvers around that. Not accidentally west decided to play all the sanctions, there was very real possiblity of Russia really keeling over under them like it was intended. If you look at this war as imperialist war from the Russian point of view, it does not have any sense to do it, it only have sense if you see that Russia is reacting to prevent its own recolonisation.
Gazprom is majority state owned so it’s a bit difficult to separate these things since it’s the Russian state that launched the SMO. That being said, the only accusations of resource theft that I’ve seen have come from the western mainstream media. The only evidence given being the invasion itself. IMO, Russia’s initial position of attempting to have negotiations that would give autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk while remaining a part of Ukraine shows that Russia’s motivations are not the theft of resources.
WW1 Russian Empire was even further from reaching the imperialist stage of capitalism, yet Lenin did not consider it anti-imperialist. That’s the context in which revolutionary defeatism theory was developed.
Lenin also called WWI the imperialist war. If anything, the Russian empire was on the side of imperialism. Modern Russia has aligned itself with the anti-imperialist block. This is an opportunistic alignment due to the western powers’ hostility toward Russia, but for now, Russia’s actions are a counter to empire.
Thank you comrade and happy new year to you too! Fwiw, I also don’t consider Putin or the Russian ruling class to be anti-imperialists. You’re probably correct that we’re debating semantics.
I wouldn’t say that they “are anti-imperialist”. I might say that—from an empty, shallow, rhetorical standpoint—they are “doing an anti-imperialism”. Putin is doing a less shallow/empty anti-imperialism, because he’s gone beyond mere rhetoric, but I wouldn’t call him a principled anti-imperialist, but an opportunistic one.
Trump and Farrage advocate against supporting Ukraine, are they anti-imperialist?
This is not a fair comparison. Russia has not yet reached the imperialist stage of capitalism. Russia’s presence in West Asia and Africa is currently a counter to the imperialist West. Therefore, it currently has an anti-imperialist character. There is no doubt that Russia as a capitalist nation will eventually reach the stage of imperialism, or become imperialized.
Amerikkka and TERF Island are both imperialist nations. They will continue to be imperialist even if they were to pull out of Ukraine.
Genuine good faith question here. Did Russian oil companies play a role in the invasion of Ukraine? And if they did, was it in a monopolies expanding outside of the bounds of the Russian economy kind of way or was it of a different character?
Invasion of Ukraine was going contrary to their interests, as we could see in countless maneuvers around that. Not accidentally west decided to play all the sanctions, there was very real possiblity of Russia really keeling over under them like it was intended. If you look at this war as imperialist war from the Russian point of view, it does not have any sense to do it, it only have sense if you see that Russia is reacting to prevent its own recolonisation.
Gazprom is majority state owned so it’s a bit difficult to separate these things since it’s the Russian state that launched the SMO. That being said, the only accusations of resource theft that I’ve seen have come from the western mainstream media. The only evidence given being the invasion itself. IMO, Russia’s initial position of attempting to have negotiations that would give autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk while remaining a part of Ukraine shows that Russia’s motivations are not the theft of resources.
WW1 Russian Empire was even further from reaching the imperialist stage of capitalism, yet Lenin did not consider it anti-imperialist. That’s the context in which revolutionary defeatism theory was developed.
Lenin also called WWI the imperialist war. If anything, the Russian empire was on the side of imperialism. Modern Russia has aligned itself with the anti-imperialist block. This is an opportunistic alignment due to the western powers’ hostility toward Russia, but for now, Russia’s actions are a counter to empire.
Its a good answer, no idea why someone downvoted you. I think we agree in everything but semantics comrade. Happy new year!
Thank you comrade and happy new year to you too! Fwiw, I also don’t consider Putin or the Russian ruling class to be anti-imperialists. You’re probably correct that we’re debating semantics.
I wouldn’t say that they “are anti-imperialist”. I might say that—from an empty, shallow, rhetorical standpoint—they are “doing an anti-imperialism”. Putin is doing a less shallow/empty anti-imperialism, because he’s gone beyond mere rhetoric, but I wouldn’t call him a principled anti-imperialist, but an opportunistic one.
What Davel said.
Pytania są tendencyjne