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…
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…