

One thing that I learned here is that imperialism has a much stricter definition than what we’re used to in general parlance among liberal places you might have discussed before. This too threw me, I think sometimes people get bogged down on correcting the definition and not the meaning behind it though.
From the outside it looks like russian apologia, but I think it’s about keeping the meaning of the words and not diluting them until they’re meaningless.
People will say that Russia is not imperialist, because by the definition used here, it’s not. And to a layman that sounds like they’re saying Russia didn’t invade Ukraine. Of course, they did. It’s just by the definition used, the invasion wasn’t imperialism.
I think Putin, maybe Russia in general, genuinely considers that land as belonging to Russia. I disagree personally. They invaded and made excuses for it but ultimately, he thinks it belongs to Russia. It’s aggression, it’s invasion, but not necessarily imperialism because it’s not about robbing the place blind but about claiming a land and people that he thinks belongs to Russia.
Meanwhile the US wants to make sure Ukraine doesn’t side with Russia, because the US wants to plunder the natural resources of Ukraine for their own profit. That’s imperialism.
Unfortunately quite often when you say Russia is imperialist the response will be “no they’re not” but doesn’t explain why they’re still bad even if it’s not imperialism. They’re still a bourgeois capitalist state and despite what they might say their interests are not in the working class’ interests.
Also for what it’s worth, if the US, and NATO, and all it’s influence disappeared overnight, being a bourgeois capitalist state Russia would almost certainly try to fill that imperialist void. It just hasn’t got the money or power to do so with NATO active. I guess you could say the war is imperialist Vs wishes they were imperialist.
Isn’t this evidence that the UK is a ridiculous police state rather than evidence that Russia isn’t a dictatorship?