Ask Lemmygrad

I guess what i was trying to say was that all capitalists have imperialist aspirations and/or capitalism eventually leads to imperialism

In capitalism broadly, not necessarily in individual states. Weaker states and every state is a weaker state in the face of the historically unprecedented US hegemony may never be able to achieve that at least as long as the stronger state and its hegemony are intact (things which may take decades to really crumble).

Remember, these things are historical processes guided by material reality. Constrained by it too. The US couldn't become the hegemon it was before WW2 without using a lot of force against other European powers, but after WW2 it assumed the mantle more or less peacefully.

Please do, I've linked other sources in my main reply in this thread but the article itself has some good discussion.

To boil it down though without even getting into Lenin and more complex discussion (which you should look into), a simple heuristic is this: How are they acting? What are they doing? Are they plundering like the west is? Joining them? Doing so separately or are they opportunistically selling to the anti-imperialist bloc which regardless of motives (inability to sell to imperialists and forced to sell to non-imperialists) means they're helping them. Their UN vote record while not perfect (neither is China's) has far more skepticism and vetoes in recent years of US attempts to use the UN to justify aggression against victims of imperialism and the anti-imperialist bloc. Who are their friends? Their friends are the resistance, their friends are historical victims of imperialism. Their enemies are the imperialists. The capitalist who sells us weapons for the revolution will be the last one we take to face justice simply because they are of use to us and helping us even if out of greed. Intent here does not matter, results do. And the results are Russia has been a steadfast friend of many countries the US has tried to isolate. They've gone to bat at the UN for them, they've sold them arms, they've done many things diplomatically and otherwise to assist them.

Russia's bourgeoisie found themselves in the 90s in a world with a sprawling hegemonic capitalist empire built off the corpses of centuries of European colonialism which it had inherited after WW2 and the dividing of the world. They had no where to go, they couldn't go colonize Africa, they were too weak and the French, British, Americans wouldn't have allowed it. They couldn't colonize the Americas or Asia. They found themselves in a position dictated by the currents of history, by choices made by others and had to make do. This forced them into our corner. They tried, oh they tried to get in with the US, to be buddy-buddy, to be friends, to in the early 2000s support the US at the UN so they'd let them into NATO and they could be part of that capitalist world order but the US said no. They were rejected, kicked to the curb, marked for elimination so they could be carved up. As Blinken said if you're not at the table you're on the menu, Russia was not allowed a seat at the table, it was very much on the menu, its vast resources and people desired to be plundered, their government and bourgeoisie suppressed and strangled with most of the profit taken for the west.

While it is true that capitalism tends towards imperialism, it doesn't mean that all capitalist nations are imperialist automatically. Imperialism requires a developed M->M' circuit (finance capitalism) which necessitates the export of investments abroad to maintain rate of profit, which is why it is the final stage of capitalism. Only Western nations have achieved this, just take a look at where the biggest asset management firms are located (London, New York). Saying that all capitalist nations are imperialist is akin to saying that all socialist nations have already reached communism. That is just not how stages of development work.