I personally think Russia’s long-standing attitude and justifications for undermining and attacking Ukraine are imperialist. It seems Russians view Ukraine as traditionally Russian, even the Ukraine has developed their own national identity. Same thing with how China views Taiwan and Tibet, they use past history to hand-wave away any claims of self-determinism and develop a narrative that manipulation and threats are justified.
(I’m not a geopolitical expert and willing to hear good-faith arguments, but anyone who’s just snarky or insulting will just get ignored. I’m here to learn, not to fight.)
I guess it’s the textbook definition? A larger nation using its resources (cultural soft power, or military power) to extend their authority over a smaller country. Usually for economic or territorial ends. I apply it to Russia/Ukraine because I put more stock in Ukraine’s sovereignty-from-cultural-identity than I do in Russia’s historical claims over it. It seems adjacent to decolonization to me.
Should they have made everybody speak French or English? To compete with the West economically the East needed a common language. How should the language have been chosen?
What they should have done is let countries keep their sovereignty. Or are you saying that ecomonic competition with the west is a valid reason for what Russia did to eastern Europe?
This is what I mean, by that definition you can cover almost every war. You don’t see smaller nations invading larger, more powerful ones. You can even use it to say the US influence in Ukraine over the last 30 has been imperialist. The Norman invasion of 1066 becomes imperialist. Can you really not see how meaningless a definition that is?
Agreed as very well known and easy examples that prove not all wars got the definition.
Plus what in the world is wrong with it fitting 80-90% of wars for at least one side of the conflict? It is easily one of the most likely reasons for counties to go to war.
You mean the revolution? Because I’m pretty sure you aren’t about the raise the civil war, where the more powerful north imposed it’s will on the confederacy through military power.
American Revolution - “No Taxation Without Representation” and resulted in documents foundational to American liberalism, like the Bill of Rights and Declaration. Politically and philosophically motivated, not expansionist.
American Civil War - A war of secession, with abolitionism as a root issue. There were economic factors, like the North’s industrialization, but to say that this war is imperialist is to legitimize the Confederacy’s claim to preserve the institution of American slavery.
WWI - America supported Britain and France but was isolationist, until the sinking of the Lusitania. America entered the war to defend trading partners, but again, that doesn’t make this imperialist.
WWII - Again, America was initially isolationist until a decisive moment (this time, Pearl Harbor). Again, this was more diplomatically motivated than a surplus of capital or land-grabbingly expansionism.
It wasn’t until the post-WWII era of the Cold War that America shifted gears from a habit of isolationism to global interventionism, and began a long line of imperialist atrocities.
I’m only bringing these wars up because they’re the ones I’m familiar with - I’m sure there are plenty of examples of wars across the globe, even in more modern eras, that Western Liberals wouldn’t call imperialist.
The US Revolution was justified as being in protest against taxes, but taxes raised to pay for the Seven Years War which (chronologically, if not causally) began with George Washington ambushing French troops and resulted in colonists gaining significant territory. One of the nowadays less romanticised causes of the revolution itself was the block on westward expansion of the colonies by the British government too, incidentally.
Your outline there also ignores the many wars and atrocities that describe the westward expansion of the USA (and beyond, the Philippines for example) as it actually did happen too, they very much did not begin their imperialism with the start of the cold war.
but to say that this war is imperialist is to legitimize the Confederacy’s claim to preserve the institution of American slavery.
Morality doesn’t change facts. If it is imperialistic then it is, no matter what it means to the Confederacy. At that point it is also possible to question if imperialism is always a bad thing.
Hey I don’t have time to do a whole infodump style reply but off the dome Washington profited immensely from the revolutionary war because he was a land speculator and the us needed to get into ww2 so it could stop the empire of japan from taking control of all the island territories it chased Spain off of.
I wouldn’t personally call the first example imperialism because you gotta make a distinction between Byzantine and American somehow and the one from imperialism the highest stage of capitalism seems appropriate and answers a lot of questions but the second one is literally imperialism by any definition you wanna call it.
Also even if you fully reject Lenin’s work you gotta grapple with the historical facts that the eastern states didn’t really create a program of mass import of raw materials from the western expansion states and complete control over the western states government to the detriment of the people who lived in them to the extent that the nation they represented did to the Philippines for example. The distinction between imperialism and colonialism for the modern age helps with that and fits many other modern examples, most notably israel. Israel isnt doing imperialism to Palestinians, they are doing colonialism.
Regarding Americas western expansion I am compressing a million pages of history and some really powerful counterexamples into a did they didn’t they statement here and I know that.
Like I said I don’t have time to do the other two without referring to a bunch of books to get my claims perfectly exactly irrefutably correct on the (no offense intended) Redditor instance.
Are you saying the south didn’t want to preserve slavery? You’ll note your definition of imperialism doesn’t include anything about right or wrong, just one nation imposing it’s will on another. This is what people mean when they describe liberal politics as vibe based - it fits the definition exactly, but you don’t feel it’s imperialist because it was the morally right thing to do.
While America wasn’t the imperialist power in the world wars, they were thoroughly imperialist wars, by either definition, between European countries.
Exploitation of a nation for labour and resources. You know, like America invading Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and heroin, or America invading Korea so they could get cheap sweatshop labour, or Europe invading Africa for everything and everyone that wasn’t nailed down.
Yeah I’d call those all imperialism as well. There’s a distinct theme of economic expansion - and that certainly doesn’t describe every war I know about
I can’t help but feel you are actually engaging in bad faith when you’ve commented twice that you definitely know other wars but don’t mention what they are.
You say it like I’m some capitalist pig that doesn’t agree with all of the above. I don’t get why Russia gets a pass though, they mucked about in Africa, Asia and Latin America in their past too. They are still in Africa from what I understand and it’s hard to pretend they aren’t in Ukraine specifically for ressources.
Russia doesn’t get a pass for it’s actual imperialism, but Russia’s other actions doesn’t make this action imperialist.
It’s hard to pretend they are in Ukraine for resources, Ukraine was having a full blown civil war over the banning of speaking russian. I know we’re used to standing idly by and shrugging our shoulders when someone’s attempting genocide, but saying Russia is there for resources is just pretending history started in 2022.
You are actually joking, right? How do you defend against succession? They’re trying to leave and you’re stopping them.
You defend against a violent seccession supplied by Russia. There was no democratic process. Or are you arguing countries aren’t allowed to defend their terrotorial integrity?
And as for the natural gas, I am talking about gas reserves that have been newly discovered in the past 20 years. They haven’t been developed yet, so they obviously don’t factor into how much Ukraine is producing now. Why do you think the Orange man was so adamant about having rights to those reserves?
So maybe you’re the one that needs to read up on geo politics, because you clearly don’t.
The only one moving further from reality is you on your mission to bootlick russian fascists.
Oh god, what is the looser definition then? Because it really looks like libs are using it to mean any war.
I personally think Russia’s long-standing attitude and justifications for undermining and attacking Ukraine are imperialist. It seems Russians view Ukraine as traditionally Russian, even the Ukraine has developed their own national identity. Same thing with how China views Taiwan and Tibet, they use past history to hand-wave away any claims of self-determinism and develop a narrative that manipulation and threats are justified.
(I’m not a geopolitical expert and willing to hear good-faith arguments, but anyone who’s just snarky or insulting will just get ignored. I’m here to learn, not to fight.)
But why? What is your understanding of imperialism that qualifies Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
I guess it’s the textbook definition? A larger nation using its resources (cultural soft power, or military power) to extend their authority over a smaller country. Usually for economic or territorial ends. I apply it to Russia/Ukraine because I put more stock in Ukraine’s sovereignty-from-cultural-identity than I do in Russia’s historical claims over it. It seems adjacent to decolonization to me.
Don’t forget all the russification brought to eastern Europe by the bullshit imperalist Soviet union.
Should they have made everybody speak French or English? To compete with the West economically the East needed a common language. How should the language have been chosen?
What they should have done is let countries keep their sovereignty. Or are you saying that ecomonic competition with the west is a valid reason for what Russia did to eastern Europe?
What would have happened if they had let the countries keep their sovereignity?
Why? Is countries having their souvereignty and agency not enough?
Least of all eastern Europe might not hate Russia as much as they do now.
This is what I mean, by that definition you can cover almost every war. You don’t see smaller nations invading larger, more powerful ones. You can even use it to say the US influence in Ukraine over the last 30 has been imperialist. The Norman invasion of 1066 becomes imperialist. Can you really not see how meaningless a definition that is?
Well, I mean, as an American I can mention a couple of important wars to my homeland that weren’t driven by these motivations. Shall I elucidate?
Agreed as very well known and easy examples that prove not all wars got the definition.
Plus what in the world is wrong with it fitting 80-90% of wars for at least one side of the conflict? It is easily one of the most likely reasons for counties to go to war.
Please stop engaging with this troll, they’re not operating in good faith, they just want to engage in russian atrocity apologia
You mean the revolution? Because I’m pretty sure you aren’t about the raise the civil war, where the more powerful north imposed it’s will on the confederacy through military power.
As I understand them,
It wasn’t until the post-WWII era of the Cold War that America shifted gears from a habit of isolationism to global interventionism, and began a long line of imperialist atrocities.
I’m only bringing these wars up because they’re the ones I’m familiar with - I’m sure there are plenty of examples of wars across the globe, even in more modern eras, that Western Liberals wouldn’t call imperialist.
The US Revolution was justified as being in protest against taxes, but taxes raised to pay for the Seven Years War which (chronologically, if not causally) began with George Washington ambushing French troops and resulted in colonists gaining significant territory. One of the nowadays less romanticised causes of the revolution itself was the block on westward expansion of the colonies by the British government too, incidentally.
Your outline there also ignores the many wars and atrocities that describe the westward expansion of the USA (and beyond, the Philippines for example) as it actually did happen too, they very much did not begin their imperialism with the start of the cold war.
Morality doesn’t change facts. If it is imperialistic then it is, no matter what it means to the Confederacy. At that point it is also possible to question if imperialism is always a bad thing.
Hey I don’t have time to do a whole infodump style reply but off the dome Washington profited immensely from the revolutionary war because he was a land speculator and the us needed to get into ww2 so it could stop the empire of japan from taking control of all the island territories it chased Spain off of.
I wouldn’t personally call the first example imperialism because you gotta make a distinction between Byzantine and American somehow and the one from imperialism the highest stage of capitalism seems appropriate and answers a lot of questions but the second one is literally imperialism by any definition you wanna call it.
Also even if you fully reject Lenin’s work you gotta grapple with the historical facts that the eastern states didn’t really create a program of mass import of raw materials from the western expansion states and complete control over the western states government to the detriment of the people who lived in them to the extent that the nation they represented did to the Philippines for example. The distinction between imperialism and colonialism for the modern age helps with that and fits many other modern examples, most notably israel. Israel isnt doing imperialism to Palestinians, they are doing colonialism.
Regarding Americas western expansion I am compressing a million pages of history and some really powerful counterexamples into a did they didn’t they statement here and I know that.
Like I said I don’t have time to do the other two without referring to a bunch of books to get my claims perfectly exactly irrefutably correct on the (no offense intended) Redditor instance.
Are you saying the south didn’t want to preserve slavery? You’ll note your definition of imperialism doesn’t include anything about right or wrong, just one nation imposing it’s will on another. This is what people mean when they describe liberal politics as vibe based - it fits the definition exactly, but you don’t feel it’s imperialist because it was the morally right thing to do.
While America wasn’t the imperialist power in the world wars, they were thoroughly imperialist wars, by either definition, between European countries.
Only if your reading comprehension sucks…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
You’re a sealioning fascist
Yeah, yeah, can you give me a definition without opening Wikipedia or not?
deleted by creator
What definition are you using, just out of curiosity?
Exploitation of a nation for labour and resources. You know, like America invading Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and heroin, or America invading Korea so they could get cheap sweatshop labour, or Europe invading Africa for everything and everyone that wasn’t nailed down.
Yeah I’d call those all imperialism as well. There’s a distinct theme of economic expansion - and that certainly doesn’t describe every war I know about
I can’t help but feel you are actually engaging in bad faith when you’ve commented twice that you definitely know other wars but don’t mention what they are.
If you think I’m trolling or whatever, you’re free to bow out of the conversation. I was just trying to be succinct and avoid writing walls of text.
You say it like I’m some capitalist pig that doesn’t agree with all of the above. I don’t get why Russia gets a pass though, they mucked about in Africa, Asia and Latin America in their past too. They are still in Africa from what I understand and it’s hard to pretend they aren’t in Ukraine specifically for ressources.
Russia doesn’t get a pass for it’s actual imperialism, but Russia’s other actions doesn’t make this action imperialist.
It’s hard to pretend they are in Ukraine for resources, Ukraine was having a full blown civil war over the banning of speaking russian. I know we’re used to standing idly by and shrugging our shoulders when someone’s attempting genocide, but saying Russia is there for resources is just pretending history started in 2022.
Are you honestly saying Ukraines defence against a violent seccession, possible only do to Russian instigation, is attempted genocide?
And of course Ukraines eastern natural gas reserves are one of the reasons for the invasion, thinking otherwise is just naive.
You are actually joking, right? How do you defend against succession? They’re trying to leave and you’re stopping them.
The whole of Ukraine produces a fraction of the natural gas Russia does. They’ve not reorganised their entire economy for a 5% increase in production.
You’re moving further and further from reality as you try to vibe your way through politics. Read any sort of theory for once.
You defend against a violent seccession supplied by Russia. There was no democratic process. Or are you arguing countries aren’t allowed to defend their terrotorial integrity?
And as for the natural gas, I am talking about gas reserves that have been newly discovered in the past 20 years. They haven’t been developed yet, so they obviously don’t factor into how much Ukraine is producing now. Why do you think the Orange man was so adamant about having rights to those reserves?
So maybe you’re the one that needs to read up on geo politics, because you clearly don’t.
The only one moving further from reality is you on your mission to bootlick russian fascists.
So you agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is imperialist?
Because it’s exactly that.