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…
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…