One of the lines of the Western discourse to justify their imperialist interventions or not to support the aggressor is to highlight the complexity of the conflicts and talk about the shock of the empires. Russia is said to be imperialist. This accusation is like the one made by the Latin American right, saying that there is a Cuban imperialism on the American continent. It is, of course, nothing more than propaganda. The fact is that, in Latin America, when speaking in Spanish, the Western hegemonic left has not been able to feed the discourse against the Latin American transformative left. In the Middle East, on the contrary, in ex-socialist countries such as Asia and Africa, the message of the West can easily be defended. Few speak languages they know and until recently it was almost impossible for alternative versions of events to be available in English or Spanish. Proclaiming the linguistic wall, many progressive sectors of the West defend the interests of their imperialist countries by equating the aggressors and the assaults.

Lenin's Imperialism (1916) is one of the most used works to explain the Imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In this book, John A. Influenced by the works of Hobson, imperialism presents itself as an inescapable consequence of capitalism, as a tool for the logical development and follow-up of the capitalist economic system. At this stage, the free competition for the dominance of capitalist monopolies disappears, capital is concentrated in a few companies and banks and, at the same time, the financial wealth, of paper, acquires a large size to justify its existence without a sufficient real estate.

For Lenin, modern imperialism would have five basic characteristics: (a) the concentration of production and capital creates monopolies that control economic life; (b) the merger of banking capital with industrial capital and the creation of financial oligarchy based on that capital; (c) unlike the export of goods, the export of capital is of great importance; (d) the creation of international monopolistic societies of capitalists that distribute the world among them; (e)

Russia does not fulfil any of the five characteristics, just the opposite, as its economy relies heavily on raw materials. However, it has shown its firm intention to be sovereign in recent years and has refused to have participated in it. Russia is one of the countries of the world with the lowest indebtedness rates (regardless of western capital); in 2001 the share of public banks was 35.9% and increased to 60% in 2015; and the State’s share in the economy has increased from 35% to 50-70% (varies according to measurement criteria).

On the other hand, how much is Russia present in our daily lives? How many products do we buy from them? Do Russian banks control our economy? The Eurasian federation represents only 2% of the world’s GDP, which is more or less the share of its population. Do we know when Russian parties are? Are Halloween, Santa Claus and Thanksgiving Day Russians? Do we have Russian military personnel on the doorstep? So why do you want to stigmatise Russia? It is precisely because Lenin is confronted with the five countries of such characteristics that it marks, in defence of its national interest, yes, but it is facing them, among other things, by helping their allied countries, which do not want to be at the service of imperialism, today Syria. The Latin American left is clear, Putin will not be progressive, but he will be allied to imperialism, as seen by Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, José Mujica, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.