Out of curiosity, have you read any of the following authors' works on imperialism, empire, or the development of capitalism? Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, David Harvey, John Smith, Michael Hudson, Zac Cope, Anievas and Nisancioglu, Samir Amin? If not, what have you read? Maybe Giovanni Arrighi, Paul Kennedy, or Niall Ferguson? I'm not saying this as a rhetorical 'gotcha'. I'm curious as to how you define imperialism.

Russia should continue to be glad they aren’t actually fighting NATO yet, they can hardly beat the Ukrainians as it is.

I have three questions.

At what threshold of involvement can it be said that NATO is involved?
What's NATO's excuse for Afghanistan or almost any of its other wars against third world countries? I use scare quotes here because while it usually fails to achieve it's surface-level, publicly-stated aims, I don't think it did 'fail' in it's real goals. That is, it's impossible to fail by participating in a war when the point of the war is merely to participate in war to make profits for the MIC.
If Russia's stated aims are demilitarisation and denazification, what does 'beating Ukraine' look like? I.e. are you judging Russia's success or failure according to metrics in which it has no interest?

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

-- Russia shouldn't invade other countries and kill people there actually
-- Yeah, but what about that other time other countries killed people? Also, had you read Lenin? Lenin has something to do with this actually, also here's a bunch of names. As you can see, that means Russia should invade other countries and kill people actually

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

I agree, this war is terrible. I wish it could be stopped today. I wish it didn't happen. Yet it has happened and is ongoing. It won't stop, and we can't hasten that end, without a rigorous analysis and understanding of what's actually going on.

Yes, I have read Lenin. Well, I've read a lot of Lenin. Not everything. What do you think he has to do with this war? You know he's been dead for a long time, right?

That bunch of names represents the state of the art in imperialism studies, give or take a few others. I'm listing then because I'm curious about what people have read. It's no use me going off on one about this or that theory if the people I'm talking to haven't read the theory.

Also, you should know, that those writers aren't all in agreement. Hobson, Ferguson, and perhaps Cope and Harvey, for example, would likely be critical of Russia's actions in Ukraine. Like I said, I didn't list them as a rhetorical 'gotcha'; that part of my comment means it cannot be read as something like a trump card to close down the discussion. It's meant to open up the discussion.

I take it that you haven't read any of them and considering your position, I suggest starting with Ferguson and Hobson.

[–] emzillain@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For the purposes of my comment I'm using the dictionary's definition of 'imperialism', which is to say no, I've not read those author's works.

As for your questions:

NATO is definitely involved, but Russia is not fighting them. I would liken them more to a boxing coach, their influence on Ukraine is massive and undeniable, but they're only providing support, Ukraine is the one actually dealing (and receiving) the punches (Also the coach gave the boxer steroids but in this context its okay(weird reaching metaphor))
I'm not here to defend NATO, I'm not like a NATO-fan. I can criticize NATO and Russia in the same breath.
I simply do not believe Russia's stated aims, much like the stated aims of the conflicts the US instigates it fails to stand up to scrutiny. What does 'denazifcation' of Ukraine even look like? Russia goal was regime change, hence why their first thrust was to Kyiv in hopes of immediately ending the war.

If Russia had immediately ended the war, it would have been a great success and put Russia in a good position. But they didn't and now even if Russia succeeds and upends the Ukrainian government, it would seem like a pyrrhic victory given the circumstances.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I see. Would you like to get into a discussion about the theory of imperialism? I can't claim to know everything and I will likely start with linking some other comments I've written but it will shed light on the situation and will reveal why I disagree with your characterisation of Russia as imperialist.

When you say that it was okay for the coach to give the boxer steroids, does this not mean that you think NATO is right to back Zelensky's government?

At the least, denazification likely means disbanding the neo-Nazi militias and batalians, acting on the support for Stephan Bandera, reinstating memorials, etc, to the Soviets who liberated Ukraine in WWII, regulating Nazi-adjacent speech in the media, fully explaining the history of Ukraine in educational settings, and ending the attacks on innocent civilians in Eastern Ukraine. Much of this was reported in Western press before the invasion but it's become very difficult to find if the articles still exist.

Did Russia realistically hope to take Kiev in one fell swoop? That narrative does contradict the denazification and demilitarisation rationale. Another interpretation is that bogging down the Ukrainian military, with it's known support from NATO, would achieve Russia's publicly stated goals via a war of attrition. Even if Russia had taken Kiev, it would have been unlikely to have achieved it's started goals.