EADaily, August 22nd, 2025. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to strikes by Western long-range missiles deep into its territory.
Even if Russia barely fails to meet your strict standards of marxist imperialism calling Russia an imperialist state isn’t incorrect though because the common definition of imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force which can hardly be argued that Russia isn’t actively doing both of those things.
Russia doesn’t “barely” fail, it fails outright. It fails for similar reasons nationalist countries like Iran fail, or countries like Columbia. The definition you’re using is useless, as it applies to literally every country. It doesn’t examine why or how it arises, or how to stop it.
The definition you used is applicable to literally every country on the planet. It isn’t useful, every country uses diplomacy, every country uses their millitary. It doesn’t matter how common it is, among those who seriously attempt to ubderstand imperialism, such a definition is far too oversimplified to be useful. You even tried to say a country could imperialize itself.
The Marxist interpretation of imperialism says imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within the capitalist nation which is pretty clear that it isn’t talking about monopolies on a global scale.
Being nationalist and deeply capitalist in an inwardly driven economy seems to fall squarely into the definition making Russia an imperialist state by the marxist definition.
Russia is inwardly driven, it is blocked from becoming an empire by NATO and the west. By being inwardly driven and “imperialist,” by your claims, it would be imperializing itself.
Those weren’t my claims they were claims of yours I repeated because it proved my point that those claims proved it was an imperialistic state based on marxism’s definition of such.
No, my claim is that even though the preconditions for imperialism are almost met for Russia, they don’t actually have the means or space to run an externally driven, imperialist economy.
Even if Russia barely fails to meet your strict standards of marxist imperialism calling Russia an imperialist state isn’t incorrect though because the common definition of imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force which can hardly be argued that Russia isn’t actively doing both of those things.
Russia doesn’t “barely” fail, it fails outright. It fails for similar reasons nationalist countries like Iran fail, or countries like Columbia. The definition you’re using is useless, as it applies to literally every country. It doesn’t examine why or how it arises, or how to stop it.
The definition I’m using is the commonly accepted one and language matters because how else are you supposed to communicate concepts?
The definition you used is applicable to literally every country on the planet. It isn’t useful, every country uses diplomacy, every country uses their millitary. It doesn’t matter how common it is, among those who seriously attempt to ubderstand imperialism, such a definition is far too oversimplified to be useful. You even tried to say a country could imperialize itself.
When did I say that?
I know you accused me of it but after reviewing our conversation I can confidently say I didn’t say that.
Back here:
Russia is inwardly driven, it is blocked from becoming an empire by NATO and the west. By being inwardly driven and “imperialist,” by your claims, it would be imperializing itself.
Those weren’t my claims they were claims of yours I repeated because it proved my point that those claims proved it was an imperialistic state based on marxism’s definition of such.
I can see how that would get confusing though.
No, my claim is that even though the preconditions for imperialism are almost met for Russia, they don’t actually have the means or space to run an externally driven, imperialist economy.