• RiverRock@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago
    1. only one of these countries is imperialist.

    2. only one of these countries is a waning world hegemon with it’s boot on the neck of the planet and 900 military bases worldwide.

    3. the other has been forced into a position of fighting and weakening the hegemon, and therefore warrants critical support. This is why Africa, China and and most of the middle east support Russia in this war: every NATO tank and drone destroyed in Ukraine is one less to menace people elsewhere, one less to enforce murderous sanctions and austerity. The logic is very simple if you understand cause, effect and scale.

    • migo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago
      1. Of course, because Belarus, Wagner group in Africa, Caucasus, are all humanitarian efforts
      2. True, but Spain was still imperialistic despite England being more successful. Success doesn’t excuse actions and ideology.
      3. Now who doesn’t really understand world politics?

      You guys sound like liberals defending the invasion of Iraq.

      • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        35 minutes ago
        1. What are Wagner doing in Africa? Guarding mines and shit. What was Azov doing in Eastern Uktaine before Russia stopped them? Slaughtering 8,000 people with the blessing of the nazi coup government.

        2. Spain being imperialist (imperialistic is not a word) doesn’t make, for example, Morocco imperialist. You seem to think I’m saying Russia is a lesser imperial power. You are wrong: Russia is not an imperial power at all.

        3. You, emphatically

        You guys sound like liberals defending the invasion of Iraq.

        Oh, the US/NATO military venture designed to sieze control of a country’s resources by manufacturing a conflict with a government headed by a guy we put there in the first place?

        Yeah, imagine defending something like that. If this was 2002 your gullible ass would be calling me a Saddam Lover. But of course, now that we’ve already fucked up Iraq, that war can join the list of US crimes that liberals were definitely, totally for realsies always against from the beginning. You people are as craven as you are predictable. Always opposing every war after it’s too late and supporting every war when it actually matters.

        In 5 years or so when we get 9/11 2: This Time it’s Ukranian, you’ll say"Everyone knew that starting the Ukraine War was a bad and criminal idea, but this time it’s different! This time we need to support (a puppet government in the Philippines doing ethnic cleansing against Chinese people or something) against big, evil, fascist Gyna, who attacked for no reason! Democracy itself is on the line!" Over and over every few years, never learning, until we’re all dead.

      • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I don’t think you know what imperialism means. Russia can and is bad without being imperialist. They may have imperial ambitions but that’s irrelevant to the now where they do not have the capacity to be imperialist. I wish people would stop trying to dilute the meaning of imperialism to just mean country doing war or big country doing thing I don’t like.

        • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          53 minutes ago

          Imperialism is when a country fights another country and authoritarianism is when any government, especially a non-white one, does anything I don’t like.