By what definition? You do know the Russian federation has Russian occupied territories in Transistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kurill islands, and that’s not even mentioning the current disputes in Ukraine.
The reasoning for expansion meets the definitions for imperialism, including Marx’s TRPF, Hobson’s theory of monopolistic growth, and Lenin’s theory of imperialism being a new stage of capital development.
All of these territorial expansions were motivated by monopolistic and oligarchic capital in Russia attempting to expand or protect their material interest.
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.
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
Ahh, so we take every capitalist explanation for capitalist imperialism at face value now? I’m sure the US is just intervening in syria because they’re mean to the Kurds…and no other reason.
There are always going to be internal conflicts within states, but that doesn’t excuse the imperialists who take advantage of that conflict for materialistic gain. If you’re validating violent interventions from “peacekeeping” forces, it’s blanket validation for the dozens of western imperialist “interventions” that have happened in contemporary history.
Other than the Kurils these are not territorial expansions, they were not annexed. None of these cases were motivated by interests other than security.
This ignores the fact that Russia has been pursuing territory in Crimea since before they were a federation, and continued to do so up to the early 2000s, even when NATO and Russia were doing joint military exercises together. Why would Russia require Crimea for security reasons when they were being welcomed into Western security apparatus?
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.
As has Russia? Their exploitation isnt just in actual territorial expansion, they have utilized more than hard power to extract wealth.
This does not make them any less imperialist, nor does Russia’s reaction to imperialist threats make it imperialist itself.
I would say that Russia is one of the capitalist nations that Lenin described, divvying up the world between the great powers. I don’t see how you believe Russia is motivated by security, especially when their activity in Ukraine has done so much to destabilize their defense capabilities.
I also don’t understand why you give them the benefit of the doubt considering they’re an incredibly monopolistic capitalist nation. According to marx and Lenin, that would mean they would be forced to compete in capitalist imperialism, not reject it…
I mean, the merging and control of the fossil fuel oligarchy with the Russian finance system covers the first three chapters of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
You can also see how the concentration of capital in these sectors creates surplus capital that needs to be reinvested in less developed regions to increase profits. This is an example of the exportation of capital covered in chapter 4.
In their acquired territory in moldova, oligarchs from the fossil fuel industry have taken control of large scale steel production. South Ossetia is strategically important as a buffer state for Iran and turkey, it also has access to large petroleum reserves. Abkhazia is strategically important to maintain trade routes in the black sea, and has become a large tourist destination for wealthy Russians.
I believe what we are currently witnessing with the ukrainian conflict is a resolution of a new version of chapter 5 and 6, A division of the world between capitalist powers and a reformation of the division of the world by the new great powers.
Imo climate change has shortened the run way for capitalist nations, so they need to make an attempt to secure economically and strategically important territories. Russia is just another capitalist country trying to get their house in order before the next global conflict, ensuring their place among the great powers.
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.
The merging and control of the fossil fuel industry under the Russian state is actually the opposite of what happens in the neoliberal hyper-capitalist nations that engage in imperialism today. Russia’s state control over its finance system is a reason 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.
Saudi Arabia does the same… Do they participate in imperialism?
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.
In 2004, Transnistria had debts of US$1.2 billion (two-thirds are with Russia) that was per capita about six times higher than in Moldova (without Transnistria).[139] In March 2007 the debt to Gazprom for the acquisition of natural gas increased to US$1.3 billion. On 22 March 2007 Gazprom sold Transnistria’s gas debt to the Russian businessman Alisher Usmanov, who controls Moldova Steel Works, the largest enterprise in Transnistria.
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.
I think your definition of imperialism is necessarily pedantic to fit your argument.
There is only one imperialist nexus in the world now and it is centered around US unipolar global domination and their neoliberal hegemony.
And what theory on imperialism supports this claim?
By what definition? You do know the Russian federation has Russian occupied territories in Transistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kurill islands, and that’s not even mentioning the current disputes in Ukraine.
The reasoning for expansion meets the definitions for imperialism, including Marx’s TRPF, Hobson’s theory of monopolistic growth, and Lenin’s theory of imperialism being a new stage of capital development.
All of these territorial expansions were motivated by monopolistic and oligarchic capital in Russia attempting to expand or protect their material interest.
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.
Ahh, so we take every capitalist explanation for capitalist imperialism at face value now? I’m sure the US is just intervening in syria because they’re mean to the Kurds…and no other reason.
There are always going to be internal conflicts within states, but that doesn’t excuse the imperialists who take advantage of that conflict for materialistic gain. If you’re validating violent interventions from “peacekeeping” forces, it’s blanket validation for the dozens of western imperialist “interventions” that have happened in contemporary history.
This ignores the fact that Russia has been pursuing territory in Crimea since before they were a federation, and continued to do so up to the early 2000s, even when NATO and Russia were doing joint military exercises together. Why would Russia require Crimea for security reasons when they were being welcomed into Western security apparatus?
As has Russia? Their exploitation isnt just in actual territorial expansion, they have utilized more than hard power to extract wealth.
I would say that Russia is one of the capitalist nations that Lenin described, divvying up the world between the great powers. I don’t see how you believe Russia is motivated by security, especially when their activity in Ukraine has done so much to destabilize their defense capabilities.
I also don’t understand why you give them the benefit of the doubt considering they’re an incredibly monopolistic capitalist nation. According to marx and Lenin, that would mean they would be forced to compete in capitalist imperialism, not reject it…
I’d genuinely like to know how Russia’s actions and conditions meet Lenin’s definition of imperialism.
I mean, the merging and control of the fossil fuel oligarchy with the Russian finance system covers the first three chapters of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
You can also see how the concentration of capital in these sectors creates surplus capital that needs to be reinvested in less developed regions to increase profits. This is an example of the exportation of capital covered in chapter 4.
In their acquired territory in moldova, oligarchs from the fossil fuel industry have taken control of large scale steel production. South Ossetia is strategically important as a buffer state for Iran and turkey, it also has access to large petroleum reserves. Abkhazia is strategically important to maintain trade routes in the black sea, and has become a large tourist destination for wealthy Russians.
I believe what we are currently witnessing with the ukrainian conflict is a resolution of a new version of chapter 5 and 6, A division of the world between capitalist powers and a reformation of the division of the world by the new great powers.
Imo climate change has shortened the run way for capitalist nations, so they need to make an attempt to secure economically and strategically important territories. Russia is just another capitalist country trying to get their house in order before the next global conflict, ensuring their place among the great powers.
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.
Saudi Arabia does the same… Do they participate in imperialism?
In 2004, Transnistria had debts of US$1.2 billion (two-thirds are with Russia) that was per capita about six times higher than in Moldova (without Transnistria).[139] In March 2007 the debt to Gazprom for the acquisition of natural gas increased to US$1.3 billion. On 22 March 2007 Gazprom sold Transnistria’s gas debt to the Russian businessman Alisher Usmanov, who controls Moldova Steel Works, the largest enterprise in Transnistria.
I think your definition of imperialism is necessarily pedantic to fit your argument.
And what theory on imperialism supports this claim?