Out of curiosity, have you read any of the following authors' works on imperialism, empire, or the development of capitalism? Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, David Harvey, John Smith, Michael Hudson, Zac Cope, Anievas and Nisancioglu, Samir Amin? If not, what have you read? Maybe Giovanni Arrighi, Paul Kennedy, or Niall Ferguson? I'm not saying this as a rhetorical 'gotcha'. I'm curious as to how you define imperialism.

Russia should continue to be glad they aren’t actually fighting NATO yet, they can hardly beat the Ukrainians as it is.

I have three questions.

At what threshold of involvement can it be said that NATO is involved?
What's NATO's excuse for Afghanistan or almost any of its other wars against third world countries? I use scare quotes here because while it usually fails to achieve it's surface-level, publicly-stated aims, I don't think it did 'fail' in it's real goals. That is, it's impossible to fail by participating in a war when the point of the war is merely to participate in war to make profits for the MIC.
If Russia's stated aims are demilitarisation and denazification, what does 'beating Ukraine' look like? I.e. are you judging Russia's success or failure according to metrics in which it has no interest?

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

-- Russia shouldn't invade other countries and kill people there actually
-- Yeah, but what about that other time other countries killed people? Also, had you read Lenin? Lenin has something to do with this actually, also here's a bunch of names. As you can see, that means Russia should invade other countries and kill people actually