This is nothing new. Liberals have always done this throughout history. They put all the blame on individuals to cover up the root cause of these constantly reoccuring wars and genocides.
Netanyahu isn’t the problem.
Israel is. The West is. Imperialism is. Capitalism is.
By: @commie______central
I would say the NATO leaders are responsible, as they’ve admitted their plan to provoke Russia into invading by breaking the minsk agreements and building forces up along the border.
“NATO made me bomb all those hospitals”.
You guys unironically use the exact same rhetoric Israel uses to justify what it does to Palestinians to defend Russian aggression in Ukraine because you incorrectly believe Russia is a balancing power to “the West” instead of just another flavour of imperialist, authoritarian oppressors.
Russia doesn’t have the finance capital required to be imperialist, and as such in a conflict between the clear imperialist hegemony and a reactionary nationalist state like Russia, Russia plays a progressive role. Churchill was a monstrous imperialist that committed genocide in India, but the Soviet Union was correct in identifying the UK as an ally against Nazi Germany, the larger threat at the time. Russia isn’t even an actual imperialist, and therefore its sovereignty should be respected, rather than continuously encircled with missiles pointing directly at Moscow.
I think this is really just a semantic argument because you seem to be writing specifically with Lenin’s rather narrow definition of imperialism in mind.
If we go by the common understanding of imperialism which has been in use for at least a century before Lenin even picked up a pen:
You can absolutely classify the aggression the Russian Federation inflicts on former Soviet states as imperialism.
Would Finland have joined NATO if Russia didn’t invade Ukraine?
Does their voluntary entry into a defensive alliance constitute an “encirclement”? Do they not have a right to conduct their own diplomacy as they see fit?
Furthermore, when both Russia and NATO agree that MAD is a legitimate defensive measure, can either argue in good faith that “stationing” missiles is aggression? Russia points missiles at NATO nations, NATO points them back, both blocs openly agree that this is what has prevented nuclear war from breaking out (so far).
Finally, while I don’t completely agree with the conflation of the US and NATO, I think we can agree that the US as an imperialist power has absolutely taken every measure it can to sabotage communist states. However should Russia not respect the sovereignty of smaller nations surrounding it? Based on the actions of Russia towards former Soviet states who remained “neutral”, joining NATO seems to be the only way for them to prevent a Russian invasion.
My issue isn’t with the word imperialism, but with imperialism as an existing material process. I don’t hold to Lenin’s analysis because I prefer Lenin, I hold to it because Lenin described an actual existing system that I actively oppose. I do not oppose anything anyone may want to label as imperialism simply because they call it as such. As for NATO being imperialist, that point isn’t based on voluntary joining or not, but the fact that it is a military coalition of imperialist countries.
Respectfully, how can you not see that your response is simply:
“If I ignore everything you wrote, and if you simply agree with what I want you to believe, I’m actually correct”.
Rereading your original post, it also seems to imply that if Russia was richer (remember that it is not a socialist nation, the Russian economy does run on finance capital), you would be happy to classify its actions as imperialism.
Based on this, out of principle should we not oppose these actions which are fundamentally unjust regardless of who is committing them?