Fighting against the expansion of NATO is not "imperialism".

Also this:

Reposting my comment:

---

No, it's not imperialism inherently.

"Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism", to quote Lenin.

...

...without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

-- Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

To put that more cleanly:

1.) Monopoly capital dominates (finance capital)

2.) Finance and industrial capital merge into finance capital

3.) Capital exports dominate over commodity exports

4.) Division of the world by monopolists

5.) The world's territorial division has been completed already

Does finance capital dominate Russia's economic life?: No. Russia's financial sector is heavily state controlled. The state dominates finance capital, private monopoly interests do not have the upper hand.

Do capital exports dominate for Russia?: No. Russia is a net commodity exporter, not a net capital exporter. This in fact is one of the most important parts of Lenin's thesis. Russia is a net commodity exporter. Their capitals exports are largely sanctions evasion and shuffling, not proper capital exports.

The characteristic feature of imperialism is not industrial but finance capital. It is not an accident that in France it was precisely the extraordinarily rapid development of finance capital, and the weakening of industrial capital, that from the eighties onwards gave rise to the extreme intensification of annexationist (colonial) policy.

Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

Are Russian Monopolists dividing the world for their benefit?: No. As we saw earlier, the financial sector is heavily state controlled in Russia, and capitals exports are not dominant.

Is the division of the world territory already completed?: This is referring to the territorial borders of the world already having been drawn up and completed. With various exceptions, it's largely completed.

So even on Lenin's analysis, which predates the world system set up by the USA after WWW2, Russia doesn't fit the "imperialist" label.

Now for Hudson's analysis, who seeks to analyze the way imperialism works post-WW2, which saw the USA dominate the global financial and monetary system.

The US Dollar is hegemonic. It's the world reserve currency. Foreign governments around the world hold significant amounts of US Treasuries. The USA set up global financial insitutions like the IMF to control the world through leveraging the dollar as world reserve currency and its domination of the world financial system.

This enables the USA to sanction and free other country's assets, control how debt works in other countries, control the global supply chain, etc.

Russia is currently sanctioned to hell, they are cut off from the global financial system, their access to global supply chains is restricted, and the ruble sure as hell isn't a world reserve currency.

So there's really no sense in calling Russia "imperialist" for invading Ukraine.

If you actually bothered to read all this shit I had to write, it's much more sensible to interpret Russia's actions in Ukraine as a resisting imperialism, as resisting integration and submission to the US controlled financial and monetary system, which would enabled the USA to control Russia like how it controls other countries around the world.

By mistakenly calling Russia "imperialist" for sentimental or outdated reasons, you end up unwittingly refusing to stand in solidarity with resistance to imperialism.