Everybody has seen the narrative that Russia attacked Ukraine because Putin is trying to reclaim territories of USSR and that if Ukraine falls then Russia will go after other countries in Europe.

However, if expansionism is the goal, then why isn’t Russia invading places like Kazakhstan, Georgia, or Uzbekistan. These are much weaker countries that don’t have NATO support. Kazakhstan in particular has a huge territory and plenty of natural resources. It would be far easier for Russia to invade a country like Kazakhstan than Ukraine, yet Russia seems to be able to coexist with these countries just fine.

Personally, I don’t see how this can be reconciled with the whole imperialism narrative the west is trying to push.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOPM
    12·
    1 year ago

    Agree with the overall take, but I found this bit amusing

    Like the other countries of BRICS, Russia is separated from the countries of the imperialist “core” by a huge developmental gulf. Its GDP per capita is about one-sixth that of the United States[5] and its finance capital is strikingly weak.[6] Russian foreign direct investment is also notably small,[7] as would be expected for a capital-poor country with vast natural resources awaiting development.

    We’re now seeing this whole model of development being invalidated. Turns out financialization leads to fictitious development in practice. It looks good on paper, but it’s not material in nature. What we’re seeing in the war is that it’s industrial development that really matters. Russia might have about one-sixth that of US GDP per capita, but much higher industrial capacity. This is what actually matters for the real economy of producing things that a country needs.

    As a corollary I also recommend reading through this view of Ukraine from China https://archive.ph/2ppei