• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    Russia was never “imperialist” in the way the west is. They never had an Empire as the Soviet Union. Russia cannot become an empire by invading other countries, imperialism functions by massive financial capital to extract from the global south. Russia doesn’t have the capital for that, and is more industrialized than western countries that need it to stay afloat.

    As for NATO, it’s to ensure western imperialism stays intact. The US is the main beneficiary, but western Europe participates because they also profit from brutal exploitation of the global south.

    • FreeFacts@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      They never had an Empire as the Soviet Union.

      But they did. That’s why Mao called them social imperialists.

      As for NATO, it’s to ensure western imperialism stays intact. The US is the main beneficiary, but western Europe participates because they also profit from brutal exploitation of the global south.

      That just brings into question how NATO is a threat to Russia then? The only way that would be true is that either a) Russia sees them as imperialist competition, or b) the threat is that Russia can’t attack its neighbors without retribution.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        17 hours ago

        They weren’t. The Soviet Union never developed the financial capital with which to extract super profits, it had no colonies. Mao was wrong. The Sino-Soviet split was filled with drama, and both sides were right about some things and wrong about others.

        NATO is a threat the same way your neighbors that hate you all buying guns and joining together millitarily is a threat. In the event of war, it’s right on your doorstep. Encirclement is a known tactic, the US does it in another form, by using aircraft carriers and millitary bases.