The ruble hit a 17-month low against the dollar Monday, highlighting the growing squeeze on Russia’s economy from Western sanctions and a slump in export revenues.
Yet again, showing that you have no awareness of the world, despite participating in news streams about the world and choosing to engage with the content. What’s wrong with you? We’ve been working with a definition of imperialism for over a century at this point and that definition is not “invading and annexing territory”. The only people who use this definition are people in the imperial core who want to engage in whataboutism every time they get called out for dominating 80% of the world’s people. “Oh, but what about Russia! They invaded a place, they must be imperialist too!” Fucking garbage ignorance.
I use imperialist in every other sentence because you imperialists need it drilled through your skulls, apparently, that in point of historical fact the North Atlantic is the evil empire you keep fantasizing about when you call for the blood of “Russian orcs” or the death of the “brain washed Chinese”. You can’t seem to fathom the idea that the reason BRICS is on the rise is because the entire world is tired of being dominated by the white supremacist minority that rules from the North Atlantic. You refuse to see that white Eurocentric men dominated 80% of the world’s population for multiple centuries and that it’s not ancient history but rather the major force driving contemporary geopolitics. You think Russia invading Ukraine is an act of imperialism but have zero position on the School of the Americas and probably don’t even realize it exists, what it is, or how it spreads Euro-imperialism. You claim Russia and China are fascists when quite literally all fascism that we’ve seen historically has emerged from the white supremacist North Atlantic axis, that the Third Reich was literally emulating and advancing programs they lifted from the USA and that the USA continued those programs well past the end of the war. So yes, I constantly reinforce the point that the North Atlantic are the imperialists in this world, they are the ones who have carved up the entire world into their vassals, markets, and subjects, and that they have been so difficult to resist that extreme measures have been shown to be the only thing that works to resist and fight back against them.
Again, why do you even both engaging in this community if your only goal is to maintain cognitive dissonance by refusing to learn anything, repeating mindless drivel, and fantasizing about the way world works. You don’t need world news for that. You can just watch Prager U videos and get the same effect. And you’d save all of us the headache of having to contend with your deliberate and contented ignorance.
LOL, fucking typical liberal. Yes, by all means, use a web dictionary to engage in political analysis. It’s totally useful. Why don’t you look up Webster’s definition of “race” and tell me how useful it is when discussing the actual socio-political system of race in its historical context? Saved you the work: it’s worth less than dick.
Imperialism is a complex phenomenon that has been studied extensively and the current best definition we have comes from Lenin’s work on the topic. All other definitions of imperialism are exactly what you described, and that definition is useless in distinguishing between imperialism and anti-imperialism. For example, let’s say the British invade China and take over Hong Kong. That would be imperialism. But by the definition you have provided, if China uses diplomacy or military force to take back Hong Kong that would also be imperialism. The dictionary definition is useless.
Instead of conflating “extending power”, which quite literally every single nation-state in the world does continuously, the shortest definition of imperialism that we have arrived at is the monopoly stage of capitalism. The analysis is pretty thorough on this topic and no one in the last century has managed to identify significant flaws in the analysis that would require a new definition. And you would know this if you actually engaged in this topic instead of just doing shit like pointing at dictionary definitions as though you’re making an argument and then accusing people who disagree with you of whatever it is they accuse you of.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is quite literally the predicted response of the US extending their power and influence through diplomacy and military force. The awareness that NATO establishing nuclear capabilities in Ukraine was a red line for Russian national security was not only understood by all of the Western powers but was openly talked about. When Gorbachev is talking with Clinton about the dismantling of the USSR and the need for Russian security, Clinton assures Gorbachev that NATO won’t expand but then immediately engages in talks internally to build a strategy to get NATO into Ukraine. It was well known for 30 years that Russia would eventually be forced to launch an attack if NATO kept expanding.
What is that NATO expansion if not the extension of power and influence through diplomacy and military force? (you know, like bombing the last socialist country in Europe with a defensive alliance dropping depleted uranium bombs on developed cities under the pretext of the world’s first ever “humanitarian” war) If that’s not imperialism to you, but Russia finally pushing back is, that is fucking textbook cognitive dissonance.
So even if we take your garbage definition which is completely useless for understanding the world (but maybe useful for 7th graders who need to understand a word in a novel they have to read for a book report), you’re still the one exhibiting the cognitive dissonance here.
US didn’t force anybody to join, countries in eastern europe applied to join because that meant they were less likely to be bullied by Russia. Look at what happened after Russia invaded Ukraine - both Sweden and Finland applied to join the alliance. Do you blame US for that too? It’s Russia’s aggresive stance towards it’s neighbours that caused the expansion of NATO.
From the guy that uses “imperialist” in every other sentence. This is especially ironic given that Russia is the one invading and annexing territory.
Yet again, showing that you have no awareness of the world, despite participating in news streams about the world and choosing to engage with the content. What’s wrong with you? We’ve been working with a definition of imperialism for over a century at this point and that definition is not “invading and annexing territory”. The only people who use this definition are people in the imperial core who want to engage in whataboutism every time they get called out for dominating 80% of the world’s people. “Oh, but what about Russia! They invaded a place, they must be imperialist too!” Fucking garbage ignorance.
I use imperialist in every other sentence because you imperialists need it drilled through your skulls, apparently, that in point of historical fact the North Atlantic is the evil empire you keep fantasizing about when you call for the blood of “Russian orcs” or the death of the “brain washed Chinese”. You can’t seem to fathom the idea that the reason BRICS is on the rise is because the entire world is tired of being dominated by the white supremacist minority that rules from the North Atlantic. You refuse to see that white Eurocentric men dominated 80% of the world’s population for multiple centuries and that it’s not ancient history but rather the major force driving contemporary geopolitics. You think Russia invading Ukraine is an act of imperialism but have zero position on the School of the Americas and probably don’t even realize it exists, what it is, or how it spreads Euro-imperialism. You claim Russia and China are fascists when quite literally all fascism that we’ve seen historically has emerged from the white supremacist North Atlantic axis, that the Third Reich was literally emulating and advancing programs they lifted from the USA and that the USA continued those programs well past the end of the war. So yes, I constantly reinforce the point that the North Atlantic are the imperialists in this world, they are the ones who have carved up the entire world into their vassals, markets, and subjects, and that they have been so difficult to resist that extreme measures have been shown to be the only thing that works to resist and fight back against them.
Again, why do you even both engaging in this community if your only goal is to maintain cognitive dissonance by refusing to learn anything, repeating mindless drivel, and fantasizing about the way world works. You don’t need world news for that. You can just watch Prager U videos and get the same effect. And you’d save all of us the headache of having to contend with your deliberate and contented ignorance.
Bruh
You keep saying “cognitive dissonance” but I don’t think you know what that actually means
LOL, fucking typical liberal. Yes, by all means, use a web dictionary to engage in political analysis. It’s totally useful. Why don’t you look up Webster’s definition of “race” and tell me how useful it is when discussing the actual socio-political system of race in its historical context? Saved you the work: it’s worth less than dick.
Imperialism is a complex phenomenon that has been studied extensively and the current best definition we have comes from Lenin’s work on the topic. All other definitions of imperialism are exactly what you described, and that definition is useless in distinguishing between imperialism and anti-imperialism. For example, let’s say the British invade China and take over Hong Kong. That would be imperialism. But by the definition you have provided, if China uses diplomacy or military force to take back Hong Kong that would also be imperialism. The dictionary definition is useless.
Instead of conflating “extending power”, which quite literally every single nation-state in the world does continuously, the shortest definition of imperialism that we have arrived at is the monopoly stage of capitalism. The analysis is pretty thorough on this topic and no one in the last century has managed to identify significant flaws in the analysis that would require a new definition. And you would know this if you actually engaged in this topic instead of just doing shit like pointing at dictionary definitions as though you’re making an argument and then accusing people who disagree with you of whatever it is they accuse you of.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is quite literally the predicted response of the US extending their power and influence through diplomacy and military force. The awareness that NATO establishing nuclear capabilities in Ukraine was a red line for Russian national security was not only understood by all of the Western powers but was openly talked about. When Gorbachev is talking with Clinton about the dismantling of the USSR and the need for Russian security, Clinton assures Gorbachev that NATO won’t expand but then immediately engages in talks internally to build a strategy to get NATO into Ukraine. It was well known for 30 years that Russia would eventually be forced to launch an attack if NATO kept expanding.
What is that NATO expansion if not the extension of power and influence through diplomacy and military force? (you know, like bombing the last socialist country in Europe with a defensive alliance dropping depleted uranium bombs on developed cities under the pretext of the world’s first ever “humanitarian” war) If that’s not imperialism to you, but Russia finally pushing back is, that is fucking textbook cognitive dissonance.
So even if we take your garbage definition which is completely useless for understanding the world (but maybe useful for 7th graders who need to understand a word in a novel they have to read for a book report), you’re still the one exhibiting the cognitive dissonance here.
US didn’t force anybody to join, countries in eastern europe applied to join because that meant they were less likely to be bullied by Russia. Look at what happened after Russia invaded Ukraine - both Sweden and Finland applied to join the alliance. Do you blame US for that too? It’s Russia’s aggresive stance towards it’s neighbours that caused the expansion of NATO.
deleted by creator