zazen

Thanks man, likewise. Agree on your points regarding the paper tiger. The thing is Russia / China having hypersonic provide the asymmetrical edge to tackle a otherwise mightier militarily that outspends them x number of times. People’s initial reaction is to say this is false because of the blatant act of invading another country. But it reminds me of a saying “China is a socialist country with Chinese characteristics” If we apply that same framing to capture the nuance of Russias actions it would be “Russias actions in Ukraine resemble a military operation with the tactic of invasion” - it’s a tactic but not the totality of the story. Someone can be aggressive (the one who finally acts outs ie Russia or Hamas) but not the aggressor in the situation - the one who provoked with a thousand cuts.

@gambler Absolutely nuts man

Surely the world’s greatest militaries wouldn’t just let these drones be flying freely over their airspace. Must be testing or probing for threats..

BRICS A BRICS currency isn’t imperial or tyrannical - it’s a reaction to imperialism and tyranny. The argument that challenging the US dollar is inherently bad conflates dominance with domination and power with coercion. BRICS isn’t trying to dominate the world - they’re trying to create a system where no one can dominate the world. BRICS is about multipolarity - where power is distributed among many nations. It’s not about replacing the US at the top but about removing the top altogether. Multipolarity inherently reduces coercion as there’s less room for a single power to impose its will on others. The West’s unipolar approach is like a school playground: They’ll let everyone play, but they still own the school and make the rules. If anyone challenges their authority, they get detention or expelled. The West doesn’t even have the weight to justify its self appointed role anymore. Majority of the world’s population and resources reside in non Western countries. Even on economic and military terms they are close to parity. There was a time when the global development game had only one player in town. Being the sole bidder meant they called the shots. They had power because there were no alternatives and developing countries desperately needed help. It was a buyer’s market where the buyer had all the leverage. But then China and others are coming along creating flipping the dynamic. With some competition it’s become a seller’s market where those countries can pit offers against each other and negotiate terms that work for them. Democratic at home, anti-democratic away The West loves to preach democracy and freedom, but their actions on the global stage tell a different story. They have a black and white approach to geopolitics, forcing countries to pick a side: either pledge total allegiance to the Western bloc or face consequences. It’s the schoolyard behaviour you’d expect from children, not global superpowers. They bully and strong arm nations into compliance while denying them the autonomy to navigate their own relationships with countries like Russia or China. This isn’t diplomacy but coercion. While the West loves to wag its finger at so-called “dictatorships” for their lack of democracy, it operates in a profoundly anti-democratic way globally. The West doesn’t tolerate plurality in global politics- it demands a unipolar order where every country falls in line. In essence, they commit macroaggressions on a global level, whilst their own are busy cancelling each other over micro aggressions. Contrast this with the so called dictatorships they love to vilify. Sure, countries like Russia or China might have authoritarian systems, and they might lack the Western version of democracy. But they often provide stability, and in many cases, that stability is exactly what their populations value most. If the people within those nations accept - maybe even prefer a system that works for them, isn’t that its own form of democracy? The will of the people. If a leader delivers stability and meets the needs of their people, then maybe the West’s fetishisation of their own brand of democracy isn’t as universal as they’d like to believe. The hypocrisy deepens when you realize that on a micro level, yes, these so-called “dictators” exert control within their borders. But on the macro level, the West is the one suppressing democracy by refusing to accept any dissenting voices or alternative systems on the global stage. They demand a unipolar world while their behaviour actively creates the opposite - a multipolar world where the “outcast” nations are forced to band together for survival. Sanctions against Russia, for example, have driven it toward deeper alliances with China and other Asian powers. The West, in its desperate bid for dominance, ends up accelerating the very multipolarity it claims to resist. This behaviour is counterproductive, but it’s also emblematic of the imperial mindset: the assumption that coercion is strength and compliance is unity. What we’re witnessing is not the spread of freedom but the enforcement of a rigid global hierarchy that punishes anyone who steps out of line. When offered the option of a bipolar (G2) world order instead of a unipolar one - China still opts for a multipolar one. Apologies for the length, felt the extrapolation is needed as we’re propagandised against non-Western nations, especially China. Gonna chill now and get in the festive mood. Merry season everyone.

We can broaden the discussion but have to be wary not to broaden our definitions too much or we risk diluting the meaning of the word. A trading empire doesn’t necessarily mean it’s imperial - it’s about how it’s done. Which is nothing like the past British East India company, the current neo-colonial French currency network, or todays US corporate vulture funds that privatise and orient the host nations politics and economy to primarily serve their own interests. The first article was balanced. As it said - the notion that Chinese debt traps are a malicious plot is de-bunked. Then it mentions: “China has moved to recalibrate its infrastructure finance in recent years. In 2021, Xi introduced the concept of “small and beautiful” projects better targeted at the partner country’s needs – a concept he repeated at the recent summit. It is this alignment with the requests of African leaders that differentiates China’s engagement with Africa from that of the west.” The point being that they work as partners and not in a predator prey dynamic that is exploitive, extractive or undermines sovereignty - typical hallmarks of imperialism. Western led organisations often impose rigid austerity measures and privatisation schemes that strip countries of their sovereignty and keep them indebted. China renegotiates loans, delays payments, in some cases even forgives small loans, and recalibrates to their partners needs. They focus on maintaining long-term partnerships over the short-term gains that Western corporations seek for their shareholders. The Sri Lanka case is misrepresented as an example of Chinese imperialism but here’s the context: Sri Lanka’s debt crisis wasn’t caused by China but was primarily due to borrowing from Western financial institutions at much higher interest rates than China. 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt was owed to China whilst majority was tied to Western debt. The existence of debt doesn’t make the West inherently imperial either - that’s how growth / development can be funded to countries needing it. But it’s in the nature of how it’s dealt with and the strings attached that make one kind of debt more imperial than another. China offers loans at lower interest rates and shows greater flexibility in addressing repayment issues. When Sri Lanka or any other country struggles to repay their loans - China doesn’t foreclose or dispossess the assets to undermine sovereignty. In the case of Sri Lanka port - they negotiated a 99-year lease for operational control, but the port itself remains formally owned by Sri Lanka. That allows Sri Lanka to raise immediate funds to alleviate its debt crisis while retaining ownership of the port. It’s actions are more about securing repayment or ensuring operational efficiency, not seizing strategic assets for imperial domination. The second article was framing everything negatively and is entirely ungrateful. What does the writer expect - for countries to just dish out money with nothing in return? Complaining about environmental concerns as if the industry being referred to (energy) isn’t notorious for it, or that its Chinese labour doing the work - as if it’s some small task to skill up locals to be able to operate technical machinery - and as if all that implies Sino-Imperialism. China can help build foundational infrastructure which takes a while for tangible benefits to be seen - the rest depends on the country itself to maximise and build upon that foundation. I was just speaking to a relative in Kenya actually - traffic that caused 1-2 hour travel times now takes 10-20 minutes on Chinese built high ways. Even something we take for granted such as having electricity 24/7 and not having power outages. The benefits of this aren’t immediate or obvious. Imperialism involves subjugation, exploitation, and the stripping of sovereignty. Chinas way of doing business is strategic and no doubt self-serving, but contrast it to the exploitative legacy of Western led financial practices and it’s clear it isn’t imperial. China’s actions may reflect power imbalances, but they don’t strip nations of their dignity, sovereignty, or long term control over their resources or assets. Two examples to show clearly how control is exerted: From Chat GPT “The CFA Franc system exemplifies economic control akin to modern imperialism. Used by 14 African nations, this currency system requires member countries to deposit 50% of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury, granting France significant influence over their monetary policy. These nations cannot independently print money, adjust currency values, or fully access their own reserves without French oversight. This system perpetuates economic dependency and limits policy flexibility, constraining these countries’ ability to foster growth and self-reliance. Unlike China’s infrastructure deals, which leave behind tangible assets, the CFA Franc system locks nations into a cycle of control and subjugation. The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system in trade agreements, allows multinational corporations to sue governments for policies that might harm corporate profits. This makes nations vulnerable to legal action even when enacting laws to protect public welfare or promote local development. For example, if an African government imposes environmental regulations or raises taxes to support its economy, corporations can use ISDS to claim damages, undermining national sovereignty. This dynamic prioritizes corporate profit over public interest, enforcing a system that suppresses local industries and policies, unlike China’s generally non-interfering approach to its business partnerships.” That’s economic and corporate imperialism at its finest - because it undermines sovereignty coercively and orients a foreign countries economics and politics to favour the imperial nation. China comes in without domestic interference, doesn’t finger wag about human rights or how they should slow down development to save the planet - never mind that the West developed off of cheap fossil fuel energy, builds critical infrastructure needed as a stepping stone to industrialisation, listens to their partners needs and concerns, and is lenient and flexible when it comes time to service debts. It’s co-building vs extractively bleeding a nation of its resources.

Yeah, I think it’s fine to share interesting and valid messages despite the messenger not being up to par. Dan Bilzerian going at it is also signals a major shift. This situation of a political apparatus being held hostage by a foreign nation has been known but suppressed since a while: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00988R000100090004-9.pdf This doesn’t mean Israel can be entirely blamed for US foreign policy as US have their own interests also. It’s a symbiotic relationship - with plenty of deception involved - but it seems theres more deception from Israel than the other way round.

It's a false equivalence to conflate territorial disputes with conquest. This is why context matters because two actors can do the same act on the surface but inhabit totally different realities. They'll get the same headline but have different stories. It's technically true that both Israel and China are getting more land, but not totally true in the sense of the how and why. That's the difference between being a dominant player and a dominating player in a game. Israel’s actions are like breaking into someone’s house, evicting them, and claiming the deed as your own - quite literally in this case. China’s disputes are like arguing over where the fence should go between two yards that have been poorly marked for decades. It's messy and contentious but not outright subjugation and war between neighbors. Saying China has so many territorial disputes, therefore implying it's imperial and expansionist, is like saying America has the most laws in the world, therefore it’s tyrannical and anti-freedom - a libertarian position. Asia and specifically Southeast Asian has a distinct geography with plenty of archipelagos and islands that are being worked out between neighboring countries - that doesn't equate to any of them being imperially expansionist - unless we broaden the definition of the word to include every assertive act of a nation as such. From Chat GPT: The Neighborhood Analogy Picture a chaotic neighborhood where no one can agree on boundaries, and everyone has their own interpretation of the rules. Let’s break it down: China: China’s the neighbor obsessing over the property lines. They’ve dusted off some ancient maps their ancestors drew centuries ago and insist the shared driveway belongs to them. Sure, they’ve put up a few fences and planted some shrubs on disputed land, but no one’s been kicked out, and they’re still yelling about it at every block meeting. This isn’t imperialism; it’s territorial nitpicking. Russia: Russia’s watching nervously as NATO, a known homewrecker with a baseball bat, moves into the neighbor’s house. Russia doesn’t trust this situation, so they break into the yard, lock the shed (Crimea), and stand guard over their cousins camping out in the backyard (Donbass). It’s messy and aggressive, but they see it as survival, not conquest. Israel: Israel’s playing an entirely different game. They march into someone else’s house, bulldoze half of it, remodel the rest, and claim it was theirs all along. They don’t just stop there—they move their friends in and put locks on every door. It’s not about defense; it’s about occupation and domination. America: The U.S.? They’re the neighborhood enforcer, walking around with a clipboard and a security badge they gave themselves. They install cameras on every street, charge tolls on the roads, and sometimes bulldoze whole blocks because they think the layout “needs improvement.” They say it’s for everyone’s safety, but somehow, their house gets bigger and shinier every year.

@BlueOak We have to take into account the context, intent and scope of actions taken. Two actors can behave in the same way but with different motives and to different extents. Distinctions and nuance matter otherwise on the spectrum of behaviors we can end up including actions into a certain definition they barely should be in. Its easy to fall into the trap of conflating aggressive, assertive and authoritarian actions as imperial. A nation navigating its national security concerns domestically and around its borders, consolidating territorial claims it has historic ties to, and securing economic partnerships - isn't necessarily imperial. A nation may also be a dominant player but not a dominating player ie being a major trading partner of a country means your a key dominant player, but that doesn't imply they've dominated their way into that position. ''You think these people are somehow more enlightened and not driven by the exact same 6 human needs we all are?'' - motivations for power and security are universal, the form they take matters. China’s strategy prioritises economic leverage, regional security and non-interference over coercive domination, exploitative resource extraction, and dictating domestic politics and governance in a way that undermines sovereignty. Its better described as economic statecraft rather than imperialism. In general - "The hallmark of imperialism is the exploitation, subjugation, and domination of foreign lands and peoples, driven by the intent to accumulate power, wealth, and resources for the imperial entities gain." Tibet (Domestic consolidation, not foreign conquest) Tibet wasn't formally recognised as a sovereign nation state by the international community - which is why it's largely been accepted as part of China’s territory. Tibet was historically part of China’s sphere of influence, although with plenty of autonomy. Its incorporation in 1950 was less about expansionist ambition and more about consolidating historical claims and securing national borders during a period when nations around the world were doing the same. The context and backdrop was that China became fractured from their civil war and needed to unify itself. The century of humiliation was a wound that was still healing, and the British who inflicted it only left India which got independence in 1947 - that included their presence in Tibet. The Opium wars showed them how foreign powers can use trade,military force, and regional footholds to destabilize and dominate them. Their vulnerabilities and the need to have buffer zones to protect their core territory was at the forefront of their mind. So the lack of formal recognition for Tibet’s independence, the historical ties to China, and the history they were just coming out of distinguish it as case of territorial consolidation rather than the annexation of a foreign sovereign state. It's contentious but not outright imperial conquest. Framing every move China has made since then as imperialistic, based on a single historical event during a very different global context is a mis-characterisation. East Turkestan or Xinjiang Conflict (National security - Domestically authoritarian, not imperial) Like mentioned on the page before, no country wants to secede and fragment itself. Scotland from UK, Catalonia from Spain - both have been contested and blocked from getting to critical levels that threaten the unity of the state. It's natural for countries to maintain their territorial integrity and national security. Having violent separatists within your territory cause chaos and disruption is something no serious nation will stand for - especially when they could possibly be co-opted by foreign players hostile to you, especially if your aim as a country is long term strategic development of your people. No doubt their response is authoritarian and against human rights. But it's not quite imperial when its internal governance with a strong fist. It isn't foreign subjugation and it wasn't prolonged internal subjugation either as it ended in 2019. https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1868177840048628167 ''Wait, aren't these the very same Uyghur separatists that the US State Department said they had "no credible evidence" existed, and that Mike Pompeo decided to remove from the US's list of terrorist organizations in 2020? How bizarre that this non existent group were key players in Assad's fall and are now aiming their gunsights on China... Also could it then mean that the Chinese government's argument that it was fighting separatism in Xinjiang by self-described "mujahideens of East Turkistan" was not a mere "pretext for a crackdown" as the West argued. By the way, interesting to contrast China's response to this challenge with Assad's. Whilst Syria broke down in a full scale civil war, China did indeed operate a "crackdown" that involved identifying all the people in Xinjiang who empathized with this ideology and sending them to what it called "vocational education and training centers" (and what the West calls "reeducation centers"), where they were basically given a choice: either re-integrate into society by learning a useful skill (hence the vocational education and training aspect) or you'll be headed to prison next. They ran this program during approximately 2 years until December 2019. At the same time, China spent a considerable amount of resources developing Xinjiang which saw its GDP per capita increase by 150% since 2011, whilst Syria's own GDP per capita was divided by 5 with the civil war. They notably developed the tourism industry, transforming Xinjiang into one of the most visited Chinese provinces, with an astounding 265.44 million tourist visits in 2023 alone (https://english.news.cn/20240109/5f18d0e79b9b4208ac7e95d9fbfa2d28/c.html…). Xinjiang's GDP per capita (around US$10,469, https://ceicdata.com/en/china/gross-domestic-product-per-capita/gross-domestic-product-per-capita-xinjiang…) is now higher than countries like Brazil, Thailand or Vietnam.'' This situation exposes the often dangerous naivety of Western "human rights" groups. What exactly did they wish would happen in Xinjiang? What should you do when you see one of your provinces being targeted by the same militant groups that just helped reduce Syria to rubble? Looking at the outcomes, one has to wonder whether these 'human rights' advocates ever seriously considered the human cost of what they were advocating for. The metrics that matter for actual human rights - people's safety, their ability to live and work in peace, access to education, economic opportunities, freedom from violence - all point to the superiority of maintaining stability through development over allowing militant groups to operate freely.'' This situation reveals yet again the often contradictory and hypocritical nature of Western foreign policy. The same militant groups can be labeled as 'non-existent' or removed from terrorism lists when operating against geopolitical rivals, then suddenly become visible when operating elsewhere. Even more tellingly, when China responds to this threat with a combination of security measures and economic development, it was condemned by the same Western powers that have conducted decades of military interventions, drone strikes, and indefinite detentions across multiple countries in the name of fighting terrorism - with far more devastating consequences for civilian populations. The hypocrisy is striking: apparently, it's acceptable to kill and displace millions in the name of fighting terrorism, but attempting to prevent it through economic development and rehabilitation programs is somehow beyond the pale.'' Sea dispute claims (Contentious territorial security reacting to US naval presence) China’s actions in the East and South China Sea involve regional territorial disputes with neighboring countries, not the conquest or subjugation of sovereign states. They are asserting sovereignty over maritime zones and securing strategic trade routes, not dominating or exploiting other nations in particular. This is also a response to US naval presence in a critical area that China uses for its trade. When you have a hostile nation eyeing you up as the next major threat after Russia, your bound to fortify your own neck of the woods in the South ''China'' Sea, so they can't choke you off. It's reactive defensive posturing, not proactive domination and exploitation over other people and lands. They're settling boundary issues and territory, similar to the Kashmir region between India and Pakistan - but India or Pakistan can't be said to be acting imperially in a disputed territory within their very own region. China's actions are reduced to being imperial - for literally responding to the imperial actions of the US who continue to boogeyman them into the villain category. Similar to Ukraine / Russia - it's a reactive and defensive oriented approach to encroachment and containment - any resources that happen to come from it are incidental and secondary but not primary. Intent and scope matter. They aren't subjugating people or extracting resources from resource rich lands - simply securing their trade routes so they can do business which is consensual and participatory, and the right of every nation. The worlds current hegemon unfortunately has a habit of economic sanctions and crippling their adversaries who challenge their dominance. “Long before China began building its now-infamous artificial islands, countries like Vietnam and the Philippines were already reclaiming land in the area. In the 1970s and 1980s, Vietnam fortified reefs and built outposts in the Spratly Islands, while the Philippines followed with its own reclamation projects in the 1990s. Even Japan, in the East China Sea, had engaged in activities to bolster its territorial claims. By the time China entered the picture with large-scale land reclamation in 2014, it was decades behind its neighbors in these practices. The notion that China’s actions are imperial by design conveniently ignores the geopolitical context that precipitated this escalation. In 2011, the United States announced its “Pivot to Asia” strategy under President Obama, a clear shift in focus to counterbalance China’s growing influence. This involved strengthening military alliances, deploying advanced weaponry, and increasing the U.S. naval presence in the region. For China, this pivot was perceived as nothing less than an attempt at encirclement—a continuation of Cold War-style containment. Proof of this shift is evident in the U.S.‘s enhanced military agreements with countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, and in its expanded “freedom of navigation” operations to challenge China’s claims. By 2014, China’s artificial island-building was a direct response to this perceived hostility. Far from an imperial land grab, it was a calculated move to secure its strategic interests in the face of growing Western military encroachment. The islands served as a defensive countermeasure, a way to assert control over vital trade routes and deter potential threats. The fact that China built these islands decades after its neighbors and under the pressure of U.S. containment policies undermines the claim that this is purely about imperial ambition. It’s not dominance for the sake of conquest—it’s about survival in a geopolitical game.” I'll comment later to discuss how China deals with foreign nations in business and trade next - all the above is the regional and domestic side covered.

That’s good. There seems to be some kind of ceasefire deal progressing with Saudi - Hamas - Israel.

Tier 2 should be able to recognise the flaws in extremes and point them out. Libertarionism can far too easily become capitalism repackaged in a higher moral philosophy of freedom, dignity and sovereignty. It can be corrupted when it becomes a ideaological cover for corporate or elite interests because those elite interests often claim liberty for themselves (producers) but limit it for others (consumers). It can have overconfidence in the market to solve all problems and prioritises freedom from the state but overlooks the positive freedoms states can provide such as health care, welfare and education. But it does quite well to point at the flaws of bloated states and over-regulation in that they end up producing less of what they intend. There has to be some regulation and oversight. It's all about balance.

Has anyone here seen Joker 2? I just saw it this past weekend, and with recent incidents such as Luigi's CEO assassination and now this - it made me think of the parallels. The connection here is that there is pain being dealt with in the wrong way. Their acting out like Joker when they could have or should have been Batman. All, including Batman - essentially view the system as unjust - but Batman and Joker diverge in their paths to redressing that injustice. People empathise not because they condone violence, but understand the pain it can come from. A Joker destroys, because he no longer sees the soul at all. He rejects society because he feels like society rejected him - didn't see him or nurture his soul enough to allow him to connect with it, so that he could connect likewise with the soul in others. Batman was given a love that was taken from him by violence, spawned from a system of unjust crime and corruption - Joker was never loved at all. Batman had hope for society because he once had love. Without giving spoilers - Joker 1 was about the conditions that twist the individual (Joker), Joker 2 is about finding that others have also been twisted by that same system - and finding a solidarity in that ie revolutionary rage. But, they deal with the pain in the same cold manner of the system that caused it - not seeing the person behind it. People didn't love or see the man behind the mask of Joker, they were in solidarity with the pain, but not the man behind it. Luigi had more tools than most to be a Batman - wealth, access, intellect (not intelligence or wisdom) - but chose the path of a Joker.

Remember “All eyes on Rafah”. A place we thought Palestinians could at least be and remain safe. It’s not that we took our eyes off, it’s that despite having our eyes witness scenes of destruction and death - our leaders continued to back such a thing.

Before someone says - “but Russia undermines Ukraines sovereignty, thus it’s imperial” - context and intent matter. It can’t be context for me but not for thee. I asked chat GPT as I’m spent on this topic now and need a break but it gave some insight into the nuance: **Chat GPT** To answer this more clearly: Russia’s actions in Ukraine do undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, but that doesn’t automatically make them imperialistic, because the key defining feature of imperialism isn’t merely a violation of sovereignty—it’s domination and control. Let’s break this down step by step: 1. Not All Sovereignty Violations are Imperialism Imperialism, by its nature, is about domination—the long-term subjugation or exploitation of another nation, often for material gain or ideological control. It obliterates sovereignty entirely, turning a country into a colony, puppet state, or a resource-extraction hub. • Control is Key: Imperialism requires the intent to control the political, economic, or cultural systems of the target nation. It’s about bending the nation’s existence to serve the imperial power’s interests on a systemic level. In Ukraine, while Russia is violating its sovereignty, its goal isn’t control or domination of the entire state. Instead, its actions are primarily focused on securing its own borders by preventing Ukraine from aligning with NATO and becoming a potential base for Western military forces. While this is coercive, it doesn’t amount to imperialism because the goal is defensive, not expansive. 2. Russia Isn’t Seeking Full Domination of Ukraine If Russia were truly imperialistic: • It would aim to annex all of Ukraine or establish complete political control over Kyiv, replacing the Ukrainian government with a puppet regime aligned entirely with Moscow. • It would also exploit Ukraine’s resources, labor, and economy for Russia’s own enrichment in a manner akin to historical European colonialism or even U.S.-led global economic imperialism. Instead: • Russia’s primary demand has been for Ukraine to remain neutral and outside NATO, which suggests a focus on security rather than domination. • Its actions in Crimea and Donetsk/Luhansk are regionally specific, not aimed at controlling all of Ukraine. Crimea, for example, was annexed to secure Russia’s strategic naval base in Sevastopol, while support for separatists in the Donbas region serves to create a buffer zone, not a colony. 3. Sovereignty vs. Security The conflict in Ukraine is best understood as a security war, not an imperial one: • Russia’s actions undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty to a degree, but they are reactive to NATO’s expansion, which Moscow perceives as a threat to its own sovereignty and security. • Russia isn’t obliterating Ukraine’s sovereignty entirely: Ukraine retains its government, its borders (outside the contested areas), and its international recognition as a sovereign state. This is vastly different from imperial domination, where sovereignty is erased or twisted to meet the needs of the imperial actor. Think of the Cuban Missile Crisis: • The U.S. violated Cuba’s sovereignty by blockading the island and threatening force to remove Soviet missiles. But the U.S. wasn’t seeking to dominate or control Cuba—it was reacting to a perceived existential threat from a hostile power. Similarly, Russia’s actions in Ukraine stem from its fear of NATO military presence on its border. 4. The Misuse of the Term Imperialism By labeling Russia’s actions as imperialistic, we risk overextending the term to encompass any act of coercion or sovereignty violation, which dilutes its meaning. Here’s why Russia’s behavior in Ukraine falls short of imperialism: • Lack of Long-Term Control: Imperialism implies sustained control over a nation’s political and economic systems. Russia’s demands focus on neutralizing NATO influence, not running Ukraine’s government or economy. • Security vs. Exploitation: Russia’s motivations are security-driven, not resource-driven. It doesn’t seek to exploit Ukraine’s economy but to mitigate what it sees as an existential threat. By comparison, the West’s historical imperialism involved colonial domination, forced labor, and systemic economic exploitation. Even today, Western economic and political dominance often subjugates nations through institutions like the IMF, which dictate terms that reshape entire economies. 5. Conclusion: Control, Not Just Sovereignty Russia’s actions undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, but they don’t meet the threshold of imperialism because they lack the intent to dominate and control Ukraine as a whole. The defining feature of imperialism is sustained, systemic control for material or ideological gain. Russia’s focus on security concerns and creating regional buffers distinguishes its actions from imperial domination. Mischaracterizing this conflict as imperialism obscures the nuances of the situation and hampers efforts to resolve it through negotiation.

When the definition of imperialism is so broad it can include many things, it loses meaning. Business, trade, selling or supplying arms? Imperialism. Therefore, anyone supplying me a good can be deemed imperialistic, including my local grocer. Also, Russia's presence in Syria is by invite from the sovereign government which is a point often missed, and that's a key distinction - influence still operates with some respect for sovereignty, imperialism undermines and obliterates it. @BlueOak Related to above and to your comment. I see where you're coming from and that's why its important to include nuance and distinctions when describing things, and to avoid conflating actions. Common words used to describe imperialism by many dictionaries is domination and control. Russia and China don't primarily operate in that way with other nations when they trade or do business - they are largely voluntary transactional partnerships that don't dictate domestic policy which undermines the countries sovereignty. They don't impose sweeping economic controls or restructure entire economies to serve their corporations the way the IMF or World Bank does. They negotiate partnerships where the host countries retain more agency than they typically do under Western corporate imperialism. China and Russia act in a way that lacks systemic dominance and control. Influence has its downsides too, but its a far cry from imperialism. Regarding coups. In a coup the entire state’s sovereignty is compromised by replacing the leadership. Separatist movements create localised disputes but leave the broader state intact. So supporting separatist groups with intent to fortify a buffer zone isn’t the same as orchestrating a traditional coup - because the goals and methods are fundamentally different. A coup involves the direct overthrow of a central government, replacing it with a favorable regime. Separatist support focuses on fragmenting a country by backing localized movements that seek autonomy or independence. Russia’s actions in places like Donetsk and Luhansk (Ukraine) or Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia) aim to fragment rather than outright replace the central government. Its more like a proxy conflict. And by backing those Russian speaking regions or separatists, Russia maintains those buffer zones to protect its core interests in its mainland. Regarding the 8 wars since the fall of the USSR. For the internal ones - its normal for states to fiercely oppose secession. It’s not imperialism but self-preservation. To pretend Russia’s actions to maintain its own unity are anything different ignores the universal logic of statecraft. No one blinks when Spain suppresses Catalonia’s independence movement or when the UK debates Scotland’s potential separation. Because if one region separates, it sets off a chain reaction: "If they can leave, why not us?" That’s why even democratic states fiercely oppose secession. Imagine if everyone could separate all the way to the minutest sectarian groups at which point the world is made up of micro states. The wars external to mainland Russia, like Georgia for example, the context is this: in the spring of 2008, NATO declared its intention to bring Georgia into the alliance at the Bucharest summit. That wasn’t just a symbolic gesture but a red flag waved directly in front of Russia, signaling that a critical buffer state would soon be aligned with a military bloc historically hostile to Moscow. In Autumn of 2008 things kicked off - the year of NATO declaring its intentions. Reactive and defensive, not pro-active and imperial. Add to that the precedent of Kosovo, where the West recognized the independence of a breakaway region from Serbia. If the West could recognize Kosovo’s independence, why couldn’t Russia recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? I'll address Scholar below about the Cuban missile crises parallel and finish my point on buffer zones which we are talking about above. @Scholar Continuing from above and to your point about the Cuban Missile crises. It was unique to its time, but geography doesn’t change. The geography of Ukraine as a buffer zone remains as relevant today as it did when Napoleon and Hitler marched through it. Nations secure buffer zones not because of what’s happening today, but because of what could happen tomorrow. Nations are prisoners of geography. I get we’re not in a Cold War era now - but we can't ignore the context of today’s Western Alliance, which Ukraine wants to bring onto Russia’s doorstep. If we're honest, NATO and the US aren’t just some friendly neighborhood watch. The West’s modern context is one of interventionism. So if the context of the Cold War validates the US reaction to the Cuban Missile crises back then - then the context of how the Western alliance has been acting offensively today validates Russia's concern of them perching up on their border also. You mention that the US can defeat Russia easily. I'll just say that the West has no defense against hyper-sonic missiles as of yet, but they are working on it. And to remember that the Soviet Union fell, but wasn't defeated which is a key distinction. Even Napoleon or Hitler who both had the most fierce military's in the world at the time couldn't do it - though they did inflict a lot of damage no doubt. The issue today is trying to defeat Russia on its hometurf means deleting existence lol.

A thread to explore how the Global South, Middle East, and Far East are strategically positioning to hedge themselves against Western hegemony. We’ll examine the imperial mindset that has long driven Western dominance and how much of the world has experienced the consequences of this legacy, now seeking to distance themselves from it - with few exceptions. Africa and the Middle East, in particular, are crucial to understand. The Middle East serves as a geographical bridge between East and West, and both regions are rich in resources and demographics, making them regions with global ripple effects. Additionally, with a sizable and growing population of Muslims living in the West, especially in Europe, it’s vital to grasp how Muslims generally perceive the West and the wider world. Many discussions about de-imperialization and the shifting global order involve Islamic nations or societies deeply connected to Islamic thought. Gaza has become a pivotal and symbolic moment in this broader shift. The brutality of the situation has forced many Westerners, myself included, to reflect on our governments complicity and behaviour. It raises questions about the drive for survival, the moral bankruptcy, and the cultural decay that fueled past colonial genocides - and that now underpins what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled as a plausible ongoing genocide requiring measures to prevent it from becoming a certified one. Despite this, the West continues to support Israel with impunity. I’ll be sharing a variety of videos from The Middle Nation channel, which offers a unique perspective from an American born revert to Islam. His style, reminiscent of Malcolm X, bridges the gap between cultures with thought provoking critiques of the West. While his views can at times feel overly critical, they are worth considering - if only to challenge our own biases, or perhaps his, which may reflect a broader generalization of Muslim perspectives. Understanding these perspectives can help us make sense of a fast changing world. The first video: The Pathology of America - Dehumanization, greed and the decline of empire

If there’s one historical parallel that perfectly explains Russia’s position, it’s the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US came dangerously close to launching World War III over Soviet missiles being stationed in Cuba, just 90 miles from its borders. That threat was intolerable to the US and it responded with blockades, brinkmanship, and a refusal to allow what it saw as a direct existential threat. Now shift the frame to Russia. NATO has crept steadily eastward for decades, ignoring Russian warnings. Ukraine is next in line which would put Moscow within striking range of NATO weapons that could obliterate Russia’s core cities in minutes. To Russia, this is its Cuban Missile Crisis, plain and simple. And yet, the West acts as if Russia’s security concerns are irrational, dismissing them as imperialism or paranoia. If the US could justify risking nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, why can’t it understand why Russia would feel threatened by NATO troops and weapon systems stationed in Ukraine? This isn’t about justifying invasions but it’s about recognising reality. Russia is reacting the way any major power would react to hostile forces closing in on its borders - including the US. Ukraine’s security concerns are valid, yes. But so are Russia’s. Just like Israel fears the West Bank overlooking Tel Aviv, Russia fears Ukraine hosting military systems aimed at Moscow. These fears are deeply rooted in history. Ukraine has been the corridor for multiple invasions into Russia, from Napoleon to Hitler. Geography doesn’t care about ideology. Both sides have valid fears, and both deserve acknowledgment. But the Western refusal to see the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse - because it’s Russia on the receiving end this time - prevents any meaningful understanding of the situation. This isn’t a morality play, just geopolitics. If the West can’t see the parallels, then we’re doomed to repeat the same cycle of escalation and destruction, with catastrophic consequences.

Corporations and imperialism differ in their mechanisms but share the same ethos of exploitation and domination. Corporatism is an evolved form of imperialism that operates in systemic silence. The invisible hand of the market as the capitalists say - but it’s more like the invisible jaws of a hungry beast. Imperialism wears a suit today. It’s a trans-national empire with no flag that expands endlessly, unmoored from the soil that birthed it. We like to think corporations are just companies, but a company is like a house - rooted, defined, and tethered to the community it serves. A corporation is an estate - a sprawling, insatiable entity that devours farmland, gobbles up neighbouring plots, and stretches across oceans to seize distant lands. It’s not just bigger, but a different beast altogether. Even the language we use to describe corporations betrays us. In the UK, these imperial estates are registered under an entity quaintly named Companies House. The term “house” implies stability, stewardship, something manageable and local. It evokes the image of a family business expanding its walls or a neighbourhood shop opening a second location. But corporations have no walls or roofs - they have no limits unlike a house. It’s a juggernaut that steamrolls over everything in its path for the sake of accumulation. Corporations begin as seeds of economic growth, promising prosperity to the lands they emerged from. But they’ve since outgrown those lands. They’ve transcended the nations that gave them life, severing any ties of loyalty in their quest for endless expansion. Their purpose isn’t to serve but to conquer - to expand markets, exploit labor, privatise commons, and monopolise resources. They’re now global juggernauts leeching off the global South with ruthlessness. That imperial reach has turned inward, preying on their own people. The same extractive mindset that drains other nations also hollows out the domestic working class. Corporations see no distinction between the factory worker in Bangladesh and the single mother in Ohio drowning in credit card debt. Both are resources to be extracted, exploited, and discarded. They close factories, outsource labor, and inflate urban centres into unlivable nightmares. Corporatism isn’t just imperialism with a new face - it’s the metastasis of imperialism into something far more insidious. It no longer needs armies to conquer when it has supply chains, and no longer needs colonies when it has markets. The world it envisions isn’t divided by borders but by balance sheets, and the only war it wages is against the powerless, wherever they may be found. It may not come with flags, banners or drums, but the conquest is unmistakable. The estate keeps growing, the farmland keeps disappearing, and the people both at home and abroad are left disillusioned after being preyed upon. Luigi Mangione & the American System Meltdown Quotes from the above video: “The killer (Luigi Mangione) and the killed (Unitedhealth CEO) in this case are both men from the same class and economic strata. A lot of the working class are justifying Mangione’s actions, which should terrify the ruling class. I do not believe that non-violent means of communication and peaceful protest, economic protest, is useless. And I don't believe they are ignored, in fact. I think that the idea that these types of efforts are futile is propagated precisely because power does not want people to engage in them, because they are useful and can be useful and effective. In theory, his privileged position in the society puts him within the power structure, but he took the action of someone who's outside the power structure, beneath the power structure, which means that even he has been made to believe that the power structure is invincible, and he's not the only one. Being from the Tik Tok generation, he has grown up on a less controlled narrative and he's been exposed to the perspectives of people outside his class strata, and perspectives about his class strata, meaning people subject to the power structure that he's a part of. So he's exposed to the experiences and the views and the attitudes and opinions of the people that he's never supposed to be exposed to, while also growing up within the power structure. That amounts to an infiltration. Because you can no longer control the narrative that the children of the elite consume, you can no longer ensure that they will have been successfully educated and indoctrinated to carry on with the preservation of your system. This is a very serious problem for the system. The system has to deny the effectiveness of what is effective. They never want people to think that they have a viable option of resistance and change because the fact is almost every single successful social movement in America has actually improved the lives of people and has been achieved through non-violent methods, through patient long-term strategies. Because the system has an uncivilised predatory mentality, because the power structure is tyrannical, they need everyone to feel overpowered and to feel helpless. But when you have such an adversarial relationship with your own people, and at the same time have implanted in them a Darwinian concept of human animals into their heads, eventually with no other options being regarded as plausible, you make violence inevitable. It's not inevitable because it has to be. It's not inevitable because there really are no other options in reality, but because you have insisted to make people believe that there are no other options. And you've done that because you would rather turn your society into a bloody conflict zone than accept changing or accept power being held accountable. Luigi Mangione is from that demographic group that's supposed to be invested in the system he's from, that class that's supposed to protect the system because they benefit from it, but you're losing control even of the stakeholders of your own power structure. I don't think you can even comprehend how dangerous that is for you, because Luigi Mangione is also from that demographic and class in your society that was raised to feel entitled to take matters into their own hands. Furthermore, he's from the class and demographic in your society that, as I said, is a part of the power structure, which means that he also comes from the most ruthless, calculating, and most capable demographic in America for efficient and targeted violence. That's the class he comes from and he has the qualities of that class, the predatory class, the dominating class, and he's just one of many from that class who are turning on their own.”

Cooperation doesn’t mean condoning. If that’s your standard then no one should cooperate with NATO or US - they should be globally shunned. Also, understanding isn’t justifying which many here seem to conflate me or Leo with doing. I agree those countries should have self determination and they are valid to want to lean West after their experience of Soviet Russia. I just think Ukraine especially is a unique strategic threat to Russia considering its history. If Eastern Europe’s historic experience of Russia makes their aspiration towards a “defensive” alliance like NATO valid - then surely Russias historic experience of being invaded from Ukraine makes its own security concern valid also. Especially if the alliance Ukraine wants to be under the umbrella of is one which has not been solely defensive but offensive, and is operated by countries in the West that are antagonist. If it was a benevolent, defensive actor - Russia wouldn’t perhaps fear it as much and could entertain living side by side. Imagine if Texas decided to separate from the US tomorrow if it felt the gov had become too liberal. Would the US government simply let it go? Of course not. The Civil War itself is proof of this - the US fought a brutal war to prevent Southern states from seceding, not because of imperialism but to maintain the nation’s integrity. If Scotland voted for independence tomorrow, the UK wouldn’t just roll over. London has already resisted such moves, arguing that it would fracture the union and weaken the nation. Same with Catalonia in Spain cracking down hard on Catalonia’s independence referendum in 2017, declaring it unconstitutional, arresting leaders, and suppressing the movement with police force. When regions seek to secede, the larger nation invariably resists - not out of greed or imperialism, but because it views secession as an existential threat to its unity, economy, and security. The idea that Russia’s actions to maintain unity and prevent fragmentation are uniquely “imperialistic” ignores the reality that all nations resist fragmentation for the same reasons - though it’s unfortunate how bloody and violent they can be.

There’s so much to go into so I’ll try stay on topic and be concise as this thread is veering off. I get where you’re coming from and it’s true there are systemic problems with power itself that cause it to justify itself. That’s what we have to watch out for and distinguish. We’d all prefer cooperation over wars of course. But cooperation requires acknowledging Russia’s security concerns as valid rather than dismiss them as nonsensical and frame any action it takes as imperial. The West can’t seem to cooperate with others as it paints them as boogeymen. The problem is when we conflate things that happen to coincide but aren’t truly motivated by each other. Survival, security, wealth, and power are interconnected in the long run, but that doesn’t mean every instance of war and defensive manoeuvring is imperial. Context and intent matter a lot. Ukraine has resources and strategic value, but those are incidental to the primary driver of security. Russia’s focus on buffer zones stems from centuries of invasions through the very regions it’s now protecting. That’s not greed or exploitation but survival logic. The resources and geography of Ukraine are bonuses, not the motivating force. Imperialism is about domination for profit and power far beyond what’s needed for security. When the US invades Iraq or Libya, thousands of miles from its borders, for oil or regime change, that’s imperialism. When Russia intervenes in Ukraine or Georgia, a stone’s throw from Moscow, to prevent NATO encirclement, it’s a defensive posture, even if coercive and ugly. By conflating survival with imperialism, we risk mischaracterising defensive moves as imperialist ones, which leads to misdiagnosing the problem and proposing the wrong solutions - ones that could escalate conflict unnecessarily and which are as the West avoids the negotiating table and instead fights the phantom of Russia they have lingering in their psyche from the Cold War era. The West is still fighting a phantom Russia - a Cold War relic that no longer exists. Instead of engaging with the reality of modern Russia, it clings to outdated perceptions of an expansionist, imperialistic power akin to the Soviet Union. This misperception clouds judgment and drives policies that escalate tensions unnecessarily. Now I get why Leo emphasises truth seeking as essential.

I think the main issue is mischaracterising Russia as an imperialist power, which risks misdiagnosing the problem, which results in wrong solutions that may be disastrous. Being a superpower or a great power doesn’t inherently mean being an imperial power - the distinction is in how a nation uses its power and the intent, scope and context behind its actions. Superpowers naturally exert influence and occasionally engage in intervention, but not all superpowers pursue imperialism. There’s also a blurry grey area between intervention and imperialism. A distinction can be made between influence, intervention and imperial - the actions of which often get lumped together including their negative associations. Influence is about persuasion and follows power like a shadow we can’t escape. Intervention is actively intervening, usually defensively or reactively. Imperialism is proactive domination and exploitation for material gain or the preservation of dominance. It’s often justified by ideology, carried out through aggression or coercion, and its focus on far off lands reveals motivations rooted in greed rather than security. If a power is truly imperial - driven by greed, resource extraction, and ideological dominance - then it must be stopped by all means necessary. But Russia’s actions don’t fit that mold so neatly. 1) How can you say Russia isn’t imperialist when it has fought 8 wars to rebuild and reconquer former USSR territories? With the above in mind, imperialism in Russia’s context dilutes the meaning of the word. If imperialism as it’s historically understood is about projecting dominance far from home, driven by greed and exploitation then Russia isn’t engaged in it. At least not yet as Leo mentioned. What Russia’s done in its post-Soviet era is nothing like the imperialism it did engage in, in the past. It hasn’t annexed territories for wealth or power disconnected from its own survival. It’s acted in its immediate neighborhood where the stakes are existential, not imperial. Those wars happened or are happening on Russia’s doorstep, in regions that have served as invasion routes for centuries - from Napoleon to Hitler. Which is why Ukraine is Russia’s red line - half of invasions launched from there. Ukraine, Georgia, Transnistria aren’t exotic conquests but buffer zones critical to its integrity. Likewise with Chechnya or separatists which risk fragmenting the country. It’s definetely messy and coercive, but not imperial in the sense that its actions are primarily dominance driven for expansion and exploitation. It’s less about conquest and more about security. Russia is already the most resource rich nation on earth with the largest land mass spanning multiple time zones and with a shrinking population making it harder to defend. Its size is exactly why it’s vulnerable as there are many countries it can be encircled from or contained by from the West. Strategically, it wouldn’t want to expand to have even larger borders to protect with even less men. Historically, empires expand when they have the demographic dividend for it. Russia’s actions in places like Chechnya or Georgia underscore the point that these conflicts are not imperialist, because they’re not motivated by the kind of greed or resource exploitation that defines imperialism. If Russia’s intent were to build an empire for profit, why would it invest immense resources into wars in regions that offer no significant economic return? Chechnya isn’t a treasure trove of resources, and Georgia isn’t a goldmine for exploitation. 2) Your mind believes that wars with neighbors over land or influencing spheres are more morally justified than wars over oil or trade. Why? I’m not justifying anything brother, just understanding the situation. Wars over land and influence often come from a primal need to secure survival, while wars over oil or trade are more about greed and domination. Losing control over a neighboring territory can mean the difference between safety and invasion, or stability and chaos. Russia’s conflicts with its neighbors aren’t about expanding a global empire, they’re about not being surrounded by adversaries. There’s a visceral, defensive logic to that. We don’t have to agree with it, but it’s understandable. When wars are fought thousands of miles from home over resources or trade routes, the justification gets thinner. Those wars don’t protect the homeland, they feed the machine. They’re not about survival but about greed and maintaining dominance far beyond what’s needed for security.They’re inherently expansionist and imperial. Wars over land and spheres are ugly, yes. But at their core, they’re about not losing buffer zones for survival whilst wars over oil and trade is taking more than ever needed in the first place. China has shown that it’s possible to be a regional hegemon without necessarily being imperialistic. Circling back to the beginning of the comment - being a superpower or a great power doesn’t inherently mean being an imperial one. Russia’s actions can be called imperialistic once they shift significantly beyond its natural buffer zones to places like Scandinavia, the Baltics, or Eastern NATO countries such as Poland. Intervening in these regions, far removed from any genuine threat to its core security needs, would cross the line from defensive posturing into true imperial aggression. Until then, we need to be wary of Western propaganda distorting the reality of the situation and dismissing Russia’s security concerns. The stakes are too high to not see the situation with clarity. *** Just saw your comment after I posted this. That’s an issue I was also having with the definition of imperialism - it was too broad to be used - I think distinctions between influence, intervention and imperialism bring more clarity. Including soft power and cultural influence broadens the term to the point where any great power’s actions could be labeled imperialistic. It can make the definition less precise and risks equating all geopolitical influence with imperialism. Otherwise, we could say the West and the US has been extremely imperialistic in this regard as people even in the remotest places drink Coca Cola, wear jeans and listen to Taylor Swift.

@Scholar I think I’ve engaged far more with your points than you have mine. The point is, we don’t agree on some points even existing to even agree with or disagree with. We’re both starting from different places. For example, you presume that Russia wants to enslave and rule half the continent, that it’s a weak pathetic backwater and geopolitically irrelevant, yet somehow at the same time is more imperial and coercive than the US. Those presumptions are relics of a Cold War hangover - they once held truth but no longer do. In fact, it’s the modern West that embodies most of those traits today - being imperial, interventionist and coercive. Or in other words being pro-actively imperial rather than reactively protective. Regarding the “natural” hegemon - I agree that the US has many natural strengths lending to its position. It’s geographically blessed and protected by vast seas and weak or allied neighbours. That’s a big part of why it can dick swing and flex across the world with little consequence. But this is the same reason why people critique its need to be imperial or interventionist in the first place, which are inherently coercive. It has no need to violently venture out as there are no real threats to its existence, just its global dominance. Instead, the US projects itself into regions it doesn’t have any natural connection to. It goes beyond its own natural advantages to dominate regions where its “natural hegemony” would not otherwise extend and requires un-natural constructs for it to do so ie dollar dominance, global institutions, military bases etc. The US dollar is the ultimate symbol of a construct that isn’t so natural but that artificially benefits a lifestyle of excess many Americans are able to enjoy. It’s not backed by gold, commodities or anything - just the collective faith in US dominance, which is enforced by military might (800 bases) and global coercion. The moment nations begin trading outside it or start building alternative financial frameworks they are dismissed at best or delivered democracy at worst - Libya, Iraq. But don’t mind me, that’s natural hegemony.

@Scholar Being critical of US foreign policy isn't being a commie or hating on America as a whole, or its people. That's a lazy cop out similar to Zionists claiming someone to be a anti-semite for being critical of Israel's actions. You’re being emotional and condescending towards me and for example Raze in another thread calling him a bane on existence and to be removed from the forum so don’t mind me being snappy back. Not as a natural reflex but to reflect back what you put out. You’re the one being irrational and triggered by criticism of the Western narrative that seems to have seeped deep into your marrow. The purpose of highlighting the West's behavior is to highlight bias and hypocrisies, and to be relatable if one is unable to place oneself in the shoes of another - in this case Russia. Because if you can put yourself in Russia's shoes, you would realise that no nation would allow or entertain the possibility of antagonistic players to put bases and point missiles towards you from a neighboring country - US wouldn't accept Russia or China doing that in Mexico. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example of how no nation, especially a major power, tolerates the placement of antagonistic military assets near its borders. The US reacted and came dangerously close to nuclear war to prevent what it perceived as an existential threat. Their response wasn’t ideological but strategic and about national security. I know of Russia's barbarity and its imperial history, but that's the point - it was that way in the past some decades ago now since the Soviet Union fell and has become a different entity today. You invoke the Soviet Union’s legacy to frame modern Russia as inherently imperialistic and ideologically aggressive. If Russia is to be judged for its Soviet past, the US must also be judged for its record of interventionism, both past and present that is ongoing today. Over the past 20–30 years, the US surpasses modern Russia in terms of the scale and destructiveness of its actions. The behavior attributed to the Soviet Union - global military interventions, regime changes, ideological imposition - fits the US and its allies more closely in the modern era. The very lens you use to demonize Russia more accurately describes the US's actions in the present moment. You’re projecting the sins of modern imperialism onto Russia while excusing or downplaying the fact that the US is the empire dominating the globe today. You in fact moralise about how this is fine as it's the natural hegemon and beneficial for the world, then accuse me of moralising. Hegemony isn’t natural or a one time purchase - it’s a subscription that requires plenty of upkeep in order to maintain - and yes, that includes power plays and coercion - something you downplay and seem to illogically think smaller players do instead. Coercion implies you have the strength to be coercive in the first place. If you are weak, you are are not feared enough to be able to be coercive in the first place. Can a baby coerce you as an adult? Maybe Russia wouldn't have to worry about NATO being on its border if it actually was what it said it was ie defensive. Instead, the whole world just witnessed it along with the US empire act imperialistically across the globe for the past decades. If Eastern Europe fears Russia behaving as it did in its past Soviet era decades ago - since which it has changed - why shouldn't Russia fear the Western alliance behaving aggressively with far more recent proof of it behaving so across the planet up to today. It’s entirely rational for Russia to distrust NATO’s intentions. If an alliance that claims to be defensive behaves offensively, why would any rational actor welcome its presence on their border? You started a thread with Wesley Clark going in on Mearshimer realist fan boys so you may appreciate him describing how there has been a hijacking of US foreign policy by vested interests: ''The purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, not to deter conflict'' referring to their plan to destabilize the Middle East. The difference today is that most nations go to war out of necessity. The US seems to end wars in order to start the next one. This is my critique of Mearsheimer also (which you falsely believe me to be a realist fanboy of when in fact I don't belong to any ideological camp) - he wants to end the war with Russia to focus efforts on containing China next.

Quite a viral podcast at the moment going into the USS liberty incident (false flag) with a survivor veteran. Israeli deception.