• meeeeetch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    11 months ago

    Nothing to do with it? There are thousands of uninvited members of a foreign military in five of their oblasts right now.

    • BB69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not every invasion is imperialism.

      It was a stupid decision by a leader trying to cement his legacy by repairing the USSR and attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

      Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

      Not invading a satellite of years past first through clandestine methods then with a true military force.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        11 months ago

        attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

        In other words, trying to rebuild the empire, i.e. imperialism.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 months ago

        Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

        None of the lands you just listed were unoccupied. They literally had indigenous people that were eradicated or absorbed into the empire.

        …like what Russia is trying in Ukraine.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think they mean unoccupied by them. So for example, WWI wouldn’t be imperialism because Germany and France both claimed to be the Holy Roman Empire and Flanders is within that territory. I disagree but I understand the argument

          • BB69@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes, although WWI is a bad example. Continental domination wasn’t the goal of WWI, it was the result of the web of alliances. You could argue that taking control of colonies owned by the other European nations is imperialism, but that seems like late stage colonialism issues. Can’t colonize once everything is occupied.

              • BB69@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Definitely Henry VIII.

                I can agree with Italy as well, it was supposed to be a show of strength and gaining of new territory. I wouldn’t call it colonization, Ethiopia was more advanced than what most neighbors were able to field.