chimera wrote on Dec 12
th, 2024 at 10:51am:
For decades, both US and China stated they were anti-imperial. They were in fact anti British Empire for different reasons. Russia joined the anti-imperial camp while occupying East Europe.
As the word 'empire' is not used for their own interests, then the claim continues. Gradually, the old compulsion is taking shape -
China in Tibet, north India and China Sea.
Russia in Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia and maybe Baltic areas.
The US has several Pacific territories and semi-territories world-wide.
Where these collide, the militaries are involved and battles of empires are seen in actions if not in names. The European empires began as explorations, gold digging or spice-trading. They were commercial companies, then military expeditions and finally empires. Events now may be the introduction to the next imperial conflicts while denying it's happening.
The terms 'empire' and 'imperial' are impossible to avoid when characterising super-states such as the US and China, as their actions tend to be indistinguishable from those of self-declared empires, such as the British Empire.
All super-states do what they will, while the rest suffer what they must.
The US deflects from accusations of imperialism by claiming it's not an empire because it doesn't stay and administer/rule a foreign state directly.
But, as is historically well-known, super-states can rule just as effectively indirectly.
The US establishes military bases everywhere it can, which, when needed, are equipped to be fully operational as an advanced hub for prosecuting war or foreign state administration.
China establishes economic strangleholds on foreign states that bind them or give them little choice but to submit to its will.
The territorial claims of both these super-states, unlike traditional empires of history, however, are usually strictly limited to their region, using the history of their peoples' habitation there to support their claims - this being the basis of their claim that they are not imperial.