• meeeeetch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Nothing to do with it? There are thousands of uninvited members of a foreign military in five of their oblasts right now.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        The statement is a bit ambiguous. They might mean it in support of Ukrainian independence.

      • BB69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not every invasion is imperialism.

        It was a stupid decision by a leader trying to cement his legacy by repairing the USSR and attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

        Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

        Not invading a satellite of years past first through clandestine methods then with a true military force.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          10 months ago

          attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

          In other words, trying to rebuild the empire, i.e. imperialism.

        • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

          None of the lands you just listed were unoccupied. They literally had indigenous people that were eradicated or absorbed into the empire.

          …like what Russia is trying in Ukraine.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think they mean unoccupied by them. So for example, WWI wouldn’t be imperialism because Germany and France both claimed to be the Holy Roman Empire and Flanders is within that territory. I disagree but I understand the argument

            • BB69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes, although WWI is a bad example. Continental domination wasn’t the goal of WWI, it was the result of the web of alliances. You could argue that taking control of colonies owned by the other European nations is imperialism, but that seems like late stage colonialism issues. Can’t colonize once everything is occupied.

                • BB69@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Definitely Henry VIII.

                  I can agree with Italy as well, it was supposed to be a show of strength and gaining of new territory. I wouldn’t call it colonization, Ethiopia was more advanced than what most neighbors were able to field.

        • FluffyPotato
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

          Someone should get the word out to the UK, they basically can’t do imperialism.

      • BB69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        10 months ago

        Russia isn’t a federation. It’s still the USSR but different tactics and name.

        Why did Russia start this in 2014? They lost their puppet government in Ukraine. Russia desires secure borders. They always have. Ukraine slipping away necessitated Russia to invade to reinstall a puppet government. The bonus for Putin was retaking Crimea after the USSR gifted it to Ukraine in the 80s I believe.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ok that’s bullshit. They’re hyper capitalist and anti communist and anti equality. They share similarities to the USSR, but those qualities also appeared in czarist Russia. Russia is just like that and will be until they fix it

          • BB69@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            USSR was barely communist. They were closer to fascist than communist.

            Releasing the grip slightly to appeal more to the global market was strategic to adapt to the times.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              It’d be cool if the anarchads and demsocs of yesteryear had coined a catchy term to describe the Soviets who were genociding them and making deals with Hitler.

              Oh wait, they did.

              Red Fascists.

              • BB69@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Yeah exactly lol USSR was not a communist nation. Soviets aren’t communist, Maoism is closer to Marxism.

                People look at the name of the country and assume it all changed. USSR -> Russia was just a rebrand and trimming the fat of the less than useful “members” of the “alliance”

    • MustrumR@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      If it has nothing to do with it you certainly know some different reasons why Ukraine was attacked and carved piece by piece since 2014.

      Please elaborate.

      • BB69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        10 months ago

        Copy pasting what I said elsewhere:

        Not every invasion is imperialism.

        It was a stupid decision by a leader trying to cement his legacy by repairing the USSR and attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

        Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

        Not invading a satellite of years past first through clandestine methods then with a true military force.

        Calling everything imperialism is incorrect. It’s no different than calling somebody a Nazi because of a racist statement. It dilutes the meaning of the word.

        • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          10 months ago

          Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands.

          By that definition the only imperialism in the last centuries was in Antarctica.

          Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

          Invading other societies with the purpose of acquiring their resources and people sound imperialists to me, same with Russia.

          • BB69@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            Colonialism is a form of imperialism but imperialism isn’t always colonization. Read the comment I just made, or study the history of the USSR up to now to understand motivations for the actions.