If Russia was actually imperialist and the Russo-Ukrainian war an inter-imperialist conflict, then I’d agree with you, but Russia isn’t imperialist (and certainly not the USSR). In the current era, the US Empire is the hegemon, and its vassals the beneficiaries of imperialism. Russia is governed by nationalists who do not have a stake in the global imperialist system, and as such are forced into south-south trade and south-south alliances. Further, there is a rising communist movement within Russia that is growing year over year that stands to return Russia to socialism.
Ukraine is used somewhat similarly as how Israel is used by the US Empire; as millitary bases. The far-right Banderites in Kiev have power currently, and are doing their job of de-communization. The Donbass region seceded, and the ensuing war between Donetsk/Luhansk and Kiev is what is sparking Russian intervention. Russia is not doing this in pursuit of new neocolonies to exploit, nor does it have any. Russia lacks the financial capital as well as a spot in the global financial monopoly by which imperialism functions that the west has.
A NATO victory over Russia would result in ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region, serious destabilization in a significant anti-US force, and a strong ally for socialist countries and anyone trying to break away from the IMF.
Russia doesn’t have a stake in the world imperialist system, France does and has for centuries. If France were to lose in a war against the global south, there would be a huge blow to their continued domination and subjugation of African countries. The fact that Russia has a rising communist movement is just a bonus tacked onto the end, it isn’t an indication of the country being imperialist or not. In fact, the nationalists in charge of Russia are caught between needing to appease the public yearning more and more for socialism and their own interests in perpetuating their capitalist system.
Cowbee, I disagree almost entirely with what you posted. But with respect for you clearly articulating your position I will share my response.
To your “But Russia is not imperialist” , please reflect on the following and to what extent you must stretch a rationalization:
First and Second Chechen Wars (1994, 2000)
Puppet Leader in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko (1996)
Puppet leader in Ukraine Victor Yanukovych (2010)
Georgian War (2008)
Annexation of Crimea (2014)
Role in Syria conflict (2000 onwards)
Role in African dictatorships in Burma Faso and Niger (2010s- present)
… global south / US bad too / old Soviet vassal states must kneel ect… I get it. But the above conflicts are evidence of state capitalism exerting itself militarily for geopolitical and economic aims
I doubt this will influence you much as you are pretty invested in your world view. But from my vantage point and reading of theory (likely some overlap if you are ML) - you are wrong *respectfully
Comrade cfgaussian already answered perfectly here. Essentially, you mix in defensive wars with allyships with other countries, and claim the defensive wars are for imperialism and the allyships “puppetry.” The Sahel States are progressive, and are allied with Russia in their national liberation from France and western imperialism.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, yes. Imperialism needs to be analyzed primarily by the definition of imperialism Lenin gives, not on whether or not a country interacts with others. In most of these examples, such as the Sahel States, Russia is working against imperialism.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism by which finance capital and world monopoly are dominant. Russia does not have this. Russia is currently under the control of nationalists, not finance capital, and it is the west that has that global financial monopoly.
Your error is in both erasing Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and viewing any kind of interaction Russia has as inherently imperialist working backwards from there. To use your rhetoric, I suggest you reflect first on what imperialism is, why we define it as such and how it operates, and consider why Marxist-Leninists therefore have the understanding of the Russian Federation that we do.
Imperialism is defined as the monopoly stage of finance capital.
Russian economy is dominated by the state and oligarchs, not by independent finance capital. It’s territorial expansion while being an regional historical imperialist action is defensive and self limiting and driven mostly by nationalism and security concerns.
Your list provides critical empirical evidence for a dialectical analysis but requires contextualization to avoid oversimplification. See response from comrade @[email protected]
If Russia was actually imperialist and the Russo-Ukrainian war an inter-imperialist conflict, then I’d agree with you, but Russia isn’t imperialist (and certainly not the USSR). In the current era, the US Empire is the hegemon, and its vassals the beneficiaries of imperialism. Russia is governed by nationalists who do not have a stake in the global imperialist system, and as such are forced into south-south trade and south-south alliances. Further, there is a rising communist movement within Russia that is growing year over year that stands to return Russia to socialism.
Ukraine is used somewhat similarly as how Israel is used by the US Empire; as millitary bases. The far-right Banderites in Kiev have power currently, and are doing their job of de-communization. The Donbass region seceded, and the ensuing war between Donetsk/Luhansk and Kiev is what is sparking Russian intervention. Russia is not doing this in pursuit of new neocolonies to exploit, nor does it have any. Russia lacks the financial capital as well as a spot in the global financial monopoly by which imperialism functions that the west has.
A NATO victory over Russia would result in ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region, serious destabilization in a significant anti-US force, and a strong ally for socialist countries and anyone trying to break away from the IMF.
And, what? What difference does it make? France had a decent communist movement, right? They were still imperialists.
Russia doesn’t have a stake in the world imperialist system, France does and has for centuries. If France were to lose in a war against the global south, there would be a huge blow to their continued domination and subjugation of African countries. The fact that Russia has a rising communist movement is just a bonus tacked onto the end, it isn’t an indication of the country being imperialist or not. In fact, the nationalists in charge of Russia are caught between needing to appease the public yearning more and more for socialism and their own interests in perpetuating their capitalist system.
Does that make sense?
Cowbee, I disagree almost entirely with what you posted. But with respect for you clearly articulating your position I will share my response.
To your “But Russia is not imperialist” , please reflect on the following and to what extent you must stretch a rationalization:
First and Second Chechen Wars (1994, 2000) Puppet Leader in Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko (1996) Puppet leader in Ukraine Victor Yanukovych (2010) Georgian War (2008) Annexation of Crimea (2014) Role in Syria conflict (2000 onwards) Role in African dictatorships in Burma Faso and Niger (2010s- present)
… global south / US bad too / old Soviet vassal states must kneel ect… I get it. But the above conflicts are evidence of state capitalism exerting itself militarily for geopolitical and economic aims
I doubt this will influence you much as you are pretty invested in your world view. But from my vantage point and reading of theory (likely some overlap if you are ML) - you are wrong *respectfully
Comrade cfgaussian already answered perfectly here. Essentially, you mix in defensive wars with allyships with other countries, and claim the defensive wars are for imperialism and the allyships “puppetry.” The Sahel States are progressive, and are allied with Russia in their national liberation from France and western imperialism.
I am a Marxist-Leninist, yes. Imperialism needs to be analyzed primarily by the definition of imperialism Lenin gives, not on whether or not a country interacts with others. In most of these examples, such as the Sahel States, Russia is working against imperialism.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism by which finance capital and world monopoly are dominant. Russia does not have this. Russia is currently under the control of nationalists, not finance capital, and it is the west that has that global financial monopoly.
Your error is in both erasing Lenin’s analysis of imperialism and viewing any kind of interaction Russia has as inherently imperialist working backwards from there. To use your rhetoric, I suggest you reflect first on what imperialism is, why we define it as such and how it operates, and consider why Marxist-Leninists therefore have the understanding of the Russian Federation that we do.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm#ch10
Imperialism is defined as the monopoly stage of finance capital.
Russian economy is dominated by the state and oligarchs, not by independent finance capital. It’s territorial expansion while being an regional historical imperialist action is defensive and self limiting and driven mostly by nationalism and security concerns.
Your list provides critical empirical evidence for a dialectical analysis but requires contextualization to avoid oversimplification. See response from comrade @[email protected]