"Nah they don't want to take over, they just want to make it into a weak country they totally control"

Lmao that's great I wonder why Ukraine doesn't go for that

Totally control

Did you read anything I said? They do not want to be responsible for dealing with the shambles that Ukraine has become. It benefits them far more to let that be Europe's burden

It doesn't matter what the Ukranian government wants or doesnt want, they've lost the war. If you don't like it, take it up with the nazis in charge or the Americans who put them there in the 2014 Maidan coup and told them they could win. The Ukranian people overwhelmingly want peace. There were so many offramps before this point, and the US puppet government refused all of them, so now here we are learning an object lesson in why diplomacy is preferable to belligerence.

If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

If the war keeps going there will be no more Ukraine

Fucking grim what Russia is doing. It's like Israel to Palestine.

You're not vibing hard enough.

If the US responded to the "requests" of separatists for support, and then those separatists voted to join the US, the imperialism would be pretty obvious. How do you explain to liberals that there is a difference?

Attacking a country, annexing parts of them, creating a buffer zone out of country and trying to be the predominant country in the area is definitely not extending power, expansionism and trying to be regional hegemon

The struggle to just not call duck a duck reminds me of this meme

It's especially strange since you seem to be fine with all of the very imperialistic actions Russia are doing, you just don't like it being called imperialism.

Again, you're confusing the measures imperialist countries use to perpetuate international plunder, ie imperialism, with imperialism itself. Annexation can be done by imperialist countries in order to set up or protect their systems of international exploitation, or it can be done in non-imperialist fashions, such as when seperatists that are being ethnically cleansed by Kiev request to join Russia, and Russia obliges.

Countries do not simply "exert power" for the sake of it, but as a means to an end. Russia's acceptance of the requests for support from Donetsk and Luhansk against the far-right regime ethnically cleansing them is different from the US Empire engaging in brutal sanctions on Cuba for nationalizing industries owned by Statesian capitalists. The latter is an example of the methods used by imperialists to protect their plunder, as the Cuban revolutionaries kicked out the Statesian colonizers.

You've clearly seen the common definitions used for imperialism and choose to define it in a way that excludes Russia. I guess at that point not much else can be said that sure it doesn't fit your definition but it does fit those very common definitions. Can't go anywhere there if we just can't agree on the definition to use.

I just find it strange to try and deny them being imperialist if the horrible things imperialists do are still fine. If you are fine with invasion, annexation, buffer state creating then being opposed to being grouped with other countries that do that seems minor.

You just rephrased the exact same actions in a different way. The reality is that Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed land and is trying to create a buffer state. Russia's actions fit the definitions beat by beat, you just feel like using nicer sounding language about the exact same actions changes things when it just doesn't.

Here's the definition for a refresher

Wrong.

In 2014, the west backed a far-right coup, placing Banderites in charge of Kiev. They started suppressing ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, resulting in Donetsk and Luhansk seceding and forming their own breakaway states. These states were at war for a decade, which Russia tried to patch up with the Minsk agreements, which Kiev broke both times. Finally, the DPR and LPR requested Russian intervention, and Russia accepted in 2022. Afterwards, a referendum was held, and both the DPR and LPR voted to join the Russian Federation, rather than continue to be ethnically cleansed by the Nazis in Kiev.

The definition you give doesn't apply to Russia's actions here. The part about expansionism in your definition is in service of maintaining empire, an economic status. Russia is not an Empire, nor is it becoming one, because it is not creating colonies nor plundering from them. Annexing territory is not imperialism, what would be imperialism is the US Empire forcibly annexing Hawaii to serve as a millitary base and to harvest for minerals after couping Liliʻuokalani against the wishes of the people.

Imperialism is an economic relationship that is maintained by the measures you listed. Imperialism is where one country exports capital and leverages this to extract vast sums of wealth from imperialized countries. Imperialism is maintained by hegemony and expansionism. Russia annexing groups that voted to join Russia without setting up any colonies doesn't at all meet the definitions of imperialism. Posting your same definition that's already flawed and vibes-based and yet you still misunderstand will not prove any point to anyone here.

The definition you give doesn’t apply to Russia’s actions here. The part about expansionism in your definition is in service of maintaining empire, an economic status.

Empire-building links back to imperialism. I'm sorry but you can't just add in new requirements until you are satisfied with the results. It doesn't work like that.

I should've also included this part earlier with all the talk about colonies

Russia is clearing Kiev's forces out of the DPR and LPR. You have not explained how this is in service of empire-building or colonialism, which are economic relations.

I'm not adding requirements, I'm going off of your own requirements.

You call their invasion and annexation "clearing out Kiev's forces". You don't see how changing the language doesn't make what's actually happening any different?

And no, the definition didn't include your additions. You are taking the definition, adding more requirements and still claiming it is the same requirement. Not how it works.

Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?

Secondly, no, I'm not adding. What do you think an empire is? What is colonization? You're reducing all of these to mere political preference instead of economic relationships, cherry-picking vague summaries and sticking your head in the sand when it comes to parts of those summaries that explain the economic factor that you are keen on erasing.

It absolutely has bearing. If you recognize the right of self-determination for the people in Donetsk and Luhansk, then you recognize their right to join Russia. Consensual joining of territory is absolutely not imperialism, and Kiev trying to prevent the ethnic Russians it has been slaughtering from leaving its grasp is closer to what Israel is doing to Palestinians.

Secondly, no, I’m not adding. What do you think an empire is? What is colonization? You’re reducing all of these to mere political preference instead of economic relationships, cherry-picking vague summaries and sticking your head in the sand when it comes to parts of those summaries that explain the economic factor that you are keen on erasing.

If I'm in support of their invasion, annexation, expansion and creation of buffer state it doesn't change anything about the actual actions. And it's the actions and not the language that makes one an empire.

Secondly, no, I’m not adding.

parts of those summaries that explain the economic factor

I'd be happy to see you point out those parts in the actual articles. As a matter of fact, the imperialism article even has this addition about colonialism

Annexing territory is not imperialism itself. It can be a part of imperialism, if you relate it to how it's in service of economic extraction and the setting up of imperialized subjects. If you support the people in Donetsk and Luhansk as having sovereignty, then Kiev's Banderites are invading their territory and thus Russia is clearing out the invading force. That's why I asked if you recognize the right of self-determination for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, because it seems you support Kiev's right to ethnically cleanse them.

Secondly, colonialism is different but related. Colonialism is the direct subjugation of one country under another, with formalized occupying forces and states, like what happened in Algeria. Imperialism on the other hand is the more general process of exporting capital and plundering the global south. The methods of expansionism and colonialism are means by which to maintain imperialism.

Reading 2 short paragraphs on Wikipedia and thinking you know enough to understand what imperialism is and the mechanisms it operates by is the peak of liberal hubris.

It doesn't say Russia is imperialist, it says it has been accused of neo-colonialism and described as neo-imperialist. Both of those are true, it has indeed been incorrectly accused and described as such, as we have proven here.

Further, Wikipedia is extremely western, liberal, imperialist biased. The editors are overwhelmingly western and liberal, and as such present such a view. Prolewiki is a Marxist wiki, that openly has its own biases, and has this to say of Russian "imperialism:"

It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500. 82% of Russian exports are raw materials, including 58% oil, 11% metal, and 6% food. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth' of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of capital export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. Russia only controls 0.7% of the world's wealth and has much less wealth per adult than the United States ($8,843 vs $336,528). Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.

It also has this to say of imperialism in general:

Imperialism is the most recent evolution of the capitalist mode of production that began in the late 1800s to early 1900s, in which monopolies and cartels become the dominant economic force of society.[1] It involves the merger of banking capital with industrial capital to create the greater finance capital and a fundamental distinguishing character of export of capital instead of export of commodities.

It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.

So your biased view doesn't work. When we take your definitions at face value, and apply them to the facts on the ground, we can see that those accusing Russia of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism are wrong, and we can also see that leftists don't think Russia is imperialist either.

Again: Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?

I used the definitions given by the article, and expanded on what it had laid out, like empire-building. When you displayed a separate article trying to give analysis, not just a definition, I explained how using the definition you gave, the analysis is incorrect. The reason I bothered with letting you cherry pick a definition is because you are correct about one thing, that changing the name of something doesn't change the actions. That's why I've focused on proving your own definition inapplicable, and asked you over and over again:

Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?

I take it you don't at this point, it seems you're in favor of Kiev's stance that they have the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region of ethnic Russians.

"Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more formal empire."

This is what you ignored, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, and which I answered over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Russia isn't establishing or maintaining hegemony or a more formal empire, you focus on the fact that the Donbass voted to join Russia as evidence of their "expansionism," and stopped thinking there when that's not even the focus of imperialism or what constitutes it.

This is all in addition to your support of ethnic cleansing, of course.