Saapas

Your disagreement with the analysts and the articles has been noted. I don’t think there’s anything else to do here than agree to disagree.

You don’t think it fits, but the sources in the article certainly do.

Moreover, Wikipedia is saying some analysts, not even taking a definitive stance itself.

Wikipedia uses that sort of wording pretty often

I know you disagree with the analysts. I was just posting this to show that maybe the view on Wikipedia doesn’t align with you after all, in actual words or in “cut off” extra definitions.

Wikipedia is a very popular site that usually uses very common definitions as their basis. That’s why I originally used it.

Russia is clearly trying to create a local hegemony and using rhetoric from their imperialistic history. Well put here:

There’s also a whole article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_imperialism#Contemporary_Russian_imperialism

So they are not in the articles but you just feel like those are included, even though they don’t actually include it in words.

You could post the “cut off” parts here so we can see that they are indeed in the articles as requirements and not additions as I’ve said.

I’m saying I’m not trying to define their identity for them. I’m happy to just go with this

I wouldn’t be able to tell Portuguese and Brazilian people apart either. I hope that doesn’t erase their identities.

You claimed the definitions I posted had those additional requirements and that the articles agreed with you. Now you are having a big issue with the definitions and the articles. I was fine with you using your preferred definition so I’m not sure why you even had that particular fight.

Krhm. I said, I’d be happy to see you point out those parts in the actual articles. You didn’t do that. But interestingly, the article on imperialism does include this

If I’m in support of their invasion, annexation, expansion and creation of buffer state it doesn’t change anything about the actual actions. And it’s the actions and not the language that makes one an empire.

Secondly, no, I’m not adding.

parts of those summaries that explain the economic factor

I’d be happy to see you point out those parts in the actual articles. As a matter of fact, the imperialism article even has this addition about colonialism

My support doesn’t have any bearing on the definition of the word or what is actually happening. I’m flattered you think it does though.

You call their invasion and annexation “clearing out Kiev’s forces”. You don’t see how changing the language doesn’t make what’s actually happening any different?

And no, the definition didn’t include your additions. You are taking the definition, adding more requirements and still claiming it is the same requirement. Not how it works.

The definition you give doesn’t apply to Russia’s actions here. The part about expansionism in your definition is in service of maintaining empire, an economic status.

Empire-building links back to imperialism. I’m sorry but you can’t just add in new requirements until you are satisfied with the results. It doesn’t work like that.

I should’ve also included this part earlier with all the talk about colonies

You just rephrased the exact same actions in a different way. The reality is that Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed land and is trying to create a buffer state. Russia’s actions fit the definitions beat by beat, you just feel like using nicer sounding language about the exact same actions changes things when it just doesn’t.

Here’s the definition for a refresher

So every Russian-speaking Ukrainian is just a Russian?

Nobody claimed this

What exactly constitutes a Ukrainian in your opinion?

I trust their own identity and view on this one.

So which is it? Do they hate Ukrainians or do they think they are one and the same?

Both happen. And denying one’s identity is a pretty hateful act.

You’ve clearly seen the common definitions used for imperialism and choose to define it in a way that excludes Russia. I guess at that point not much else can be said that sure it doesn’t fit your definition but it does fit those very common definitions. Can’t go anywhere there if we just can’t agree on the definition to use.

I just find it strange to try and deny them being imperialist if the horrible things imperialists do are still fine. If you are fine with invasion, annexation, buffer state creating then being opposed to being grouped with other countries that do that seems minor.

I think scooters are fun and sometimes pretty handy. But I’m not sure why at least the rental companies aren’t made to more aggressively limit who can ride them. I guess the answer is money but still.

Attacking a country, annexing parts of them, creating a buffer zone out of country and trying to be the predominant country in the area is definitely not extending power, expansionism and trying to be regional hegemon

The struggle to just not call duck a duck reminds me of this meme

It’s especially strange since you seem to be fine with all of the very imperialistic actions Russia are doing, you just don’t like it being called imperialism.

I posted two very common definitions above and it’s imperialism because it fits the definition. It shouldn’t matter if you support it, it’s not a reason to not consider it imperialism.

Russia is invading countries, annexing land, creating buffer zones. That’s like run of the mill imperialism.