I never said the US, I said Western, (UK, France, NL, etc.)
And only the West has met the definition of imperialism. Maybe you could say Imperial Russia did, I don't know enough about the Russian Empire to say, but the Soviet Union and post-soviet Russia have been the victims of imperialism. Invading your neighbours doesn't make you imperialist, even if it's bad.
only the West has met the definition of imperialism
Again, this is ignoring the definition of imperialism. Lenin's five basic characteristics of imperialism:
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital’, of a financial oligarchy;
the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
Being the victim of imperialism doesn't mean it's impossible to become imperialist, especially after the forced liberalizations of the Russian economy. The post-USSR state of Russia was gutted by the west and much of the wealth and capital moved into the hands of the new Russian bourgeoisie.
Well by that definition you would be right, though points 4 and 5 are kind of flimsy. Russia is not established and entrenched in it's imperialism like the west is, it is not sharing its plunder around like they do, nor is it able to carve up the world as it sees fit as they did in the 20th century.
You have a good point though. I suppose they are "imperialist" as all developed capitalist nations are. But in the context of this war, and the hysteria and hypocrisy we are seeing in the media, I still feel like it muddies the water and lends to an anti-anti-imperialist narrative.
I never said the US, I said Western, (UK, France, NL, etc.)
And only the West has met the definition of imperialism. Maybe you could say Imperial Russia did, I don't know enough about the Russian Empire to say, but the Soviet Union and post-soviet Russia have been the victims of imperialism. Invading your neighbours doesn't make you imperialist, even if it's bad.
Again, this is ignoring the definition of imperialism. Lenin's five basic characteristics of imperialism:
Being the victim of imperialism doesn't mean it's impossible to become imperialist, especially after the forced liberalizations of the Russian economy. The post-USSR state of Russia was gutted by the west and much of the wealth and capital moved into the hands of the new Russian bourgeoisie.
It's kinda in the name...
Well by that definition you would be right, though points 4 and 5 are kind of flimsy. Russia is not established and entrenched in it's imperialism like the west is, it is not sharing its plunder around like they do, nor is it able to carve up the world as it sees fit as they did in the 20th century.
You have a good point though. I suppose they are "imperialist" as all developed capitalist nations are. But in the context of this war, and the hysteria and hypocrisy we are seeing in the media, I still feel like it muddies the water and lends to an anti-anti-imperialist narrative.