Imperialism: a state policy or practice of extending a country's power and dominion over other nations or territories. It is primarily achieved through direct territorial conquest, military force, or by gaining heavy political and economic control over the region.

How is that vague? And how does that not describe invading and occupying Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya? Or, engaging in political interference campaigns all across Europe and Central Asia?

You can pretend all you want, that these things "didn't happen", or "don't mean what they mean"...but that would be completely disingenuous. Russia is an Imperialist state, which aims to expand its influence and territory, by any means necessary. Whether that's economic influence, political interference, or direct military aggression.

Every single part of that definition applies.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

It's a vague, liberal definition. Again, the imperialist stage of capitalism was well understood already by Hobson, a non-Marxist economist. The Wikipedia version is so vague it can apply to Burkina Faso kicking out France, or to the Statesian North annexing the confederacy. It's worthless and non-technical, resulting in a vibes-based understanding.

You have yet to prove why you believe the Wikipedia definition to be better than the commonly understood Marxist interpretation, which was the driving analysis for the last century.

Russia does not aim to expand influence and territory by any means necessary. This is baseless extension of their desire to annex the four oblasts far beyond their actual context. When you don't have a materialist understanding of imperialism like I do, and instead work off of vibes, you come to clearly incorrect analysis like you are here.