doomer

Exactly, thank you. I think the "if the USA is involved its always the invading force" bothers me so much because it wipes away that cognitive dissonance with delusional dogma.

The reason I agreed with that comment is because, even though it's not absolutely true and as you correctly point out, it leads to a dogmatic and oversimplified view of history, it actually is correct in the current conjuncture. The US is the sole world hegemon. It is the culmination of imperialism, a monopoly power that holds complete financial dominance on the world stage. 80% of international financial transactions are in dollars. In the broad arc of history, US financial and military hegemony (which are in direct contact and dependence with each other) is currently the motive force of world history. Not an atom moves in the international stage without the US having somehow put it into motion because the US is world hegemon, that's what world hegemony means.

Read back to the Leninist definition of imperialism.

If you are open heartedly telling me that Putins Russia is an ally on eliminating inequality and distributing capital back to the producers then I don't get where that is coming from.

They obviously aren't allies in the strategic goal of the left, to defeat capitalism and institute socialism. But they are tactical allies in demolishing the hegemonic power of Western finance capital, yes. The individual capitalists behave as individual capitalists always do, protecting their financial interests in the short term. But the actual motive forces of the Russian national interest lies, momentarily, in the same direction as the interests of the global working class: in the fight against imperialism.

Ultimately the reason I'm completely opposite to you, despite having a lot of the same principles (which I respect you for, you're miles ahead of the vast majority of liberals) is because to me, imperialism is a historical phenomenon that exists within the context of the material relations between the ruling classes and the working classes. I'm thinking the USD, US treasuries, international debt owed to the US, the IMF, World Bank, etc. Meanwhile it appears that your definition of imperialism is something a lot more metaphysical and general, that I would argue is actually fruitless to fight against without identifying that expansionist tendencies are inherent to the nation-state.

Setting aside Russia's moral right to the invasion, let's look at their economy since. It's tanked! Are you really suggesting that the Ukraine war was a strategically sound idea?

Absolutely. The alternative was to allow Ukraine to join NATO and continue being encircled by hostile fascist governments (see Georgia coup, baltic states, etc). When the threat is existential, sacrificing economic stability in exchange for continuing to exist is a sound decision.

Also, and I don't think Putin had this in mind, it turned out to be a good idea to decouple from the world economy which was about to be completely trashed by Trump in 3 years after the invasion. Funny how that worked out.