No, Poland is not a vassal. Hungary demonstrates it is quite possible to have a foreign policy that is literally hostile and still being part of the Union. At any time any country can leave the Union as UK demonstrated. So all member in the EU wants to be part of the union, they are not vassal. Poles do not want a communist government influenced by Russia. This is a fact. As of 2022, 97% of poles view Russia unfavorably and 89% view EU favorably. You cannot be more clear than that.

No, not propaganda, it is reality with data, and totally inconsequential to the discussion. Industrial growth is a small part of all the factor involved in quality of life, and while Soviet growth in the 60s and 70s was real, that stopped in the 80s and 90s causing the fall of the Soviet Union. The same industrial growth was common in all European countries post WW2.

What you should care is the vast majority of poles agree that joining the EU was one of the success stories of the century for Poland, with 70% to 85% saying that life is better under the EU. Poles are some of the most pro EU countries in Europe. The amount of independent pools on this is staggering. You need to be really dumb to not see this. And yes, some people have communist nostalgia, but the vast majority agree that was a dark age for Poland.

If you deny life in Poland is much better on all useful metrics now that Poland is sovereign and allied with european nations in the EU than before as dominion of the Soviet Union then your brain is rotted and I pity you.

You define imperialism as military conquest alone

Not true. I will use wikipedia definition: “Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism).”

This perfectly matches both the behaviour of the US and the behaviour of Russia. This does not matches every war in history. It was coined in the 19th century to describe Napoleon III’s attempts to gain political support by invasion.

You claim the Ukrainian people support their current government. Under martial law, with opposition parties banned, media consolidated, dissent criminalized, what does that support actually measure? Polls in a war zone with no free press are not evidence. They are propaganda tools.

You are getting confused with Russia. Free press is allowed in Ukraine. According to Reporters without Borders, Ukraine ranked 62nd out of 180 countries, one of the strongest performance since it’s independence.

Russia has offered terms: neutrality, demilitarization, recognition of Crimea, self-determination for the Donbas.

You are forgetting also all territories currently occupied, the entirety of of Donbas and Luhansk they do not control. Neutrality and demilitarization with an imperialistic power at the border that has attached and conquered their neighbor since it was born as country means letting the door open for further conquest down the line. With no guarantee this is surrender. Russia is not willing to give anything for peace.

You ignored the core of my last message

Because it is irrelevant and a waste of time. US meddle with external country as it is an imperialistic nation. Russia meddle with external countries as it is an imperialistic nation. So what is there to discuss? Who does it more globally? The answer is the US. Who does it more in Ukraine? The answer is Russia. Now that we have this out of the way let’s focus on the core of my first message.

The position that serves Ukrainian workers is peace, sovereignty, and the right to determine their own future.

And the only way we saw this can be achieved for countries that border Russia is join the EU or NATO. Poland is now free, Czechia is now free, Romania is now free, Slovakia is now free, the Baltic states are now free, Hungary is now free (but we need to wait for next election to know if this will remain true).

Expansions with military conquest is imperialism. Imperialism may use economic coercion but it is not required. Ukrainian people support their current government. Russia does not want to negotiate anything short of full surrender. There is nothing else to add

We are not discussing US vs Russia. We are discussing Ukraine vs Russia. I do not care if Russia is worse or US is worse. Both are terrible, and Ukraine deserves to be his own country. Removing Ukraine from euromaidan and pretend it is a US coup is ridiculous.

Both Russia and US are imperialistic nations. So in Russia (the imperialistic invader) vs Ukraine (the victim of invasion), we must stand with Ukraine.

you are saying this like Russia propaganda machine and hybrid warfare is not multiple times more extensive and pervasive. Moscow financed the pro Russian government with between US$50 and US$300 million and further energy schemes in the billions. To prevent an agreement with the EU Russia invested 15 billions.

Russia was pouring millions in Ukraine before 2014

Russia has spent $300m since 2014 to influence foreign officials, US says

How do not see how anything that I have shared or that you have shared change the fact that 2014 Euromaidan was not a US-backed coup

That is simply false. A simplification that is not helpful. Ukraine is allied with Europe and was a strong ally of the US under Biden. Now Ukraine has a practical approach: in no way makes sense to help Russia and Iran as both are bombing Ukraine, so it is better to help the US to force them not to further help Russia and help with NATO cohesion as Ukraine depends on NATO working for them on continuing support against Russia.

2014 was not a US-backed coup, you would need to demonstrate that. The scale and spontaneous origin of the protests, the leaked US diplomatic phone calls, and the immediate return to democratic elections monitored by OSCE are all clear indication that it was not an US-backed coup. Stop spreading false propaganda

The biggest country in the world military conquering his neighbors is imperialism. The only reasonable things to do is supporting Ukraine against Russia, and Iran against US and Israel.

The US is helping Russia against Ukraine despite Russia helping Iran against US. (Lifting sanctions to Russia, raising oil prices financing Russia, withdraw military and financial support from Ukraine)

Was the Empire of Brazil political autonomy controlled by Portugal in 1880? If the answer is no, then it was not a colony. Not that difficult to grasp. Was the US under Andrew Jackson a British colony? No, even if the local elite was European British elite of origin for the most part. Pedro II of Brazil considered himself Brazilian, born under an independent Brazil. Foreigner according to Portuguese law, educated in Brazil, with no loyalty to Portugal, he is considered one of the most important figure in Brazilian history.

I am so embarrassed in front of your clearly superior knowledge. You made so many unbiased relevant defining points tonight that I really struggle to reconstruct my flawed vision of global socioeconomic dynamics.

Ok, you won, my original claim that “Germany industrialized without colonial benefit” is false. I am defeated. I will claim that “Germany industrialized with minimal colonial benefit where minimal represent an economical input that is less then 5% of GDP by 1880”.

then I will stop this charade. Have a nice day, king of worthless discussion

Learn to read the context when discussing, it is really like chatting with a robot…

Rubber was not a thing in 1880

CONTEXT: Germany 1880, trying to establishing the relevance to national wealth of rubber imported from colonies.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: do the math, in 1880 we are before the invention of pneumatic bicycle tire, before the automobile industry, before rubber plantation in Congo and Asia. Global production is 11K tons, almost entirely from the Empire of Brazil, not a colony of a European country, most of which goes to Britain, US and France. At 1880 that is less then 0.2% of GDP for Germany. To me in the context of establishing the reason for Germany wealth being driven by colonial exploitation that is nothing. If for you 0.2%, 0% of which is from a colony, is worth discussing over then you are totally missing the point.

Shipping insurance wasn’t a thing in 1880

CONTEXT: original quote “European banks, shipping, insurance”. We are talking about the system put in place to facilitate exploitation of colonies.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: Stressing “European”. Europe was not a thing. Shipping insurance was a thing since medieval age. Was Florence banking system and Genoa shipping insurance in 1300 put in place for exploitation of colonial empires? No, it was put in place to facilitate trade. My mistake in assuming you meant a unified “European” system of exploitation as the alternative was just silly. If you really meant banks and insurance then good for you, on a national level that was a thing and totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Germany didn’t import minerals or agricultural supplies

CONTEXT: you said “British and French colonies supplied cheap cotton, rubber, minerals”. I asked you which mineral. Your quote is not a quote, I never said that. The context is still colonial exploitation, and by asking which mineral I have implied there is no mineral import from British or French colonies relevant to the conversation.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: The only mineral not from a European country in your list was tin. Germany had tin deposits on the border with Bohemia, but most of the Tin was from Cornwall. So most of what was true for rubber is true for Tin we are talking a very small portion of GDP most of which was from Britain. The rest was from Malaya

The fact that you cannot grasp a contextual analysis and instead search for futile points to strawman when your points are trash tell me everything I need to know. Seems I hit the nail on the head as they say (bullseye). 🤣

I am not a german teenager, are you a fucking AI? Because you are sounding just like AI following a script of bad training.

“cannot isolate a national economy”, “never purely national”, no shit Sherlock. But we are discussing insignificant parts of a nation wealth. Rubber in 1880 Germany was like 0.2% on GDP if I am being generous. Deutsche Bank is a national bank. By 1880 Germany with no colonial empire was a capital exporter, not importer. Sweden and Spain, your typical african colonies.

Why are we discussing this shit?

This entire reply is bullshit. Is difficult to keep up with so many lies.

In 1880 Germany was mostly self sufficient in generating capital from traditional industries (like agriculture) and the rise of the middle class. The only foreign capital injection was from France as part of the settlement reached after the Franco-Prussian war in 1871. You continue to lie about “European banks, shipping, insurance” like this was a thing in 1880. Capital was coming from national banks and industrial reinvestment. And the same lies continues with rubber (not a thing in 1880), and mineral (which one exactly?). I can grant you import from US cotton plantation, but while they had problems with slavery, that was not the result of colonial exploitation, but access to market.

False equivalence. China and India are not shaping the rules of the global market […] Germany in 1880 was part of the core that designed and enforced the colonial order. China in 2026 is challenging that order.

False. The hegemon in 1880 was the British Empire, the bank of England and the Royal Navy. Germany was actually against the British world order, and the raise of Germany as adversary of the economic dominance of the British Empire is one of the core reasons for WW1

Stop pretending that isolating one variable in 1880 explains a global system of accumulation.

I am fucking tired of generalization applied to “the West” like a giant forever unified monolite of evil as a way to deflect from the same shit done all the time by powerful nations like China that has implicit procurement (chinese companies, materials and labor with no knowledge transfer), political (you must cut ties with Taiwan) and economical (you must export to us oil, copper, cobalt ) conditions on loans.

This was just an example to show that colonial exploitation is not the reason why some countries are rich. It is not for China, it is not for Germany, it is not for Italy (for both countries the colonial empire was a massive net financial loss).

And you repeating the same lies is so tiring that makes me think those books are not that good.

I am not going in circle! I am being precise.

I set the date as 1880 multiple times exactly because both Italy and Germany were among the richest countries in the world by that date without a colonial empire. Who cares about 1941, this is not relevant to the conversation. It is indeed the case that industrialization came before colonization. As I have stated before, steel and carbon are the main driver.

If market access is enough of a benefit to be part of the exploitation system, that means that China and India which are also benefitting from global market access and capital, are part of the system of colonial exploitation. If you grant that 2026 China and 2026 India are colonial exploiter according to your world view I will grand that 1880 Germany and 1880 Italy are colonial exploiter according to your world view.

Chinese investment does not come with structural adjustment programs. No demands for privatization, austerity, or deregulation. No regime change tied to loans. Debt renegotiations happen without military intervention.

does EU lending program for Africa? Not to my knowledge. Do you have some data that justify this? You continue to assert stuff that is not backed in reality.

Ok again for the 3rd time:

ok, again, I was very specific in my sentence.

Britain and Belgium are brutal example of growth driven by colonial exploitation. Germany and Italy are not. So while we agree that is the case for Britain and Belgium, those are not good sources to explain why this is “necessary”.

Why are you fighting me on opinion we share already? - Because you are not sharing the opinion.

We fucking do in the context of that sentence. Obviously I did not meant that we share “all” the opinion we discussed in this conversation! The lack of context awareness of each of your sentences is so frustrating, and is exactly the same problem highlighted at the start of this message

Finally, I do not understand why you give China a pass. When China gets billions in capital from the World Bank, or trillions in FDI after they joined the WTO why are they not benefiting from colonial exploitation, but 1880 Germany was a colonial exploiter because they bought raw material on the open market? When China force the “One China” principle, the “No Paris Club”, and tied procurement clauses (no skill transfer and no job creation) it is fine, but EU lending frameworks conditions likes anti-corruption, green transitions, and finance sustainability are bad? Why the double standard?

You are just stating that colonial relationship is the main driver of capital accumulation. Your entire argument depend on this. And I do not see enough evidence to justify this. Can you provide factual evidence that is necessarily the case and not something that happen sometimes? Lacking that this entire discussion is based on nothing.

You are an idiot for peddling this “smarter Europe” nonsense (one level removed from phrenology style nazi race science). The facts are not on your side.

I will happily say “smarter Mongols” when they were in an hegemonic position (because of innovative military technology, strong administrative capacity and command of economy and trade). There is nothing racist in that sentence. I am not claiming that European people are biologically more intelligent. That is absurd. I am saying that the cumulation environmental, cultural and historical events made it so in that moment in time they made choices we now consider smart because enabled objective we now consider valuable. You are an idiot for interpreting something so clear, in a “race” kind of way.

You are fighting straw man and making unjustified assumption about what I think. Should I read on how Europe underdeveloped Africa to have this conversation? That is an universal truth that most sane person agree on. Why are you fighting me on opinion we share already?

So in the end of all of this discussion we are more or less agreeing on reality.

The only difference is that you think that somewhat private companies should refrain from increasing their value by any means that could introduce a dependency between two separate countries, and that means in practice you want to ban foreign direct investment globally. I simply say that there is no support for this in the current capital based society by both the companies and the countries receiving the investment. There is nothing forced in China neocolonialism for example. That is pure foreign investment exploitation.

But just to clarify some points, Europe is actually richer because it was smarter, better governed and more innovative. How the fuck do you think was possible for an island of 10 million people to control half the world? Why does the world let them do it? Do you think that this was not the same as the time Rome, a city state in the middle of Italy, controlled the entirety of Europe and Nord Africa? Colonialism is a consequence of being richer, innovative and better governed, not a driver.

This is propaganda slop. Germany industrialized on cotton from colonized Africa, rubber from the Congo, minerals from occupied territories. Its banks financed colonial ventures. Its firms sold into colonial markets protected by British and French guns. Italy likewise. No direct colonies does not mean no colonial benefit. The entire European system was integrated. Extraction in the periphery subsidized accumulation in the core. That is the material record.

No, the material record says that most important drivers for early Germany industrialization were coal and steel, railways, chemical and electrical engineering and agriculture. Raw materials import on the global market accounted for at most 10% of the GDP. Certainly relevant, but to say that Germany industrialization was built on colonialism is simply false. It was built on locally sourced pure german coal mined by poor german people.

No I am not confirming your point at all. Not attaching another country that is exploiting neocolonialism is not the same as supporting: it is tolerating an abuse. Thats it.

The social, economic and military stability of the West is absolutely not built on neocolonial extraction. That is utterly absurd. You need to frame this statement. If a german company is providing capital, jobs and infrastructure to a developing country via foreign direct investment is it neocolonial extraction for you? What exactly is the neocolonial extraction of Spain for example? Are we talking bought assets of telephone companies and banks in latin America?

The West is rich because it developed a highly productive, technology advanced, well-governed domestic economy. Germany was one of the strongest industrial economy by 1880 without a single colony. The same was true for Italy.

Nobody deny that some western and non western countries have some strong form of control and direct power projection on developing countries (as I said already, mainly US, Russia, China and France). But that comes with being a powerful country (or powerful company) that has the means to impose themself on other. That has always been the case.