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.
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ve also heard people talking about how Russia invaded Ukraine for oil? Even though Russia has plenty of oil already…
It seems to me like westerners are working backwards to explain why the war happened. Like, they don’t know the history of the region or of NATO so they make stuff up to fill the gaps in their understanding.
And it just so happens that all they know about war comes from the US. So they think Russia is invading a country for resources because that’s what America would do. And they think Russia is attacking a country to expand its sphere of influence because that’s what America would do too.
Yeah, a lot of it comes down to projection.
The West has never forgiven Russia for its revolution, not even after the USSR fell.
I think the other part of it is that the west is really salty that they didn’t get to colonize Russia after USSR fell. The hope was that western companies would swoop in and take control off all the natural resources and industry in Russia. Instead, Russia managed to retain sovereignty and the west never forgave it.
Forgive my ignorance, but I often read comments about how Russia was gutted in the 90s after the destruction of the USSR by neoliberal policy/privatization. But if so, how did it meaningfully manage to retain sovereignty in a way that other countries who were made vassals were stripped of theirs? Is it mostly just that domestic Russian capitalists were powerful enough that they were the ones doing the lions share of the looting and that’s why western capitalists still couldn’t subsume them like they wanted?
Neoliberal privatization is how Russia got its oligarchs, but a lot of state industry was preserved as well. When Putin got in charge, he started pushing a more sovereign policy and the state managed to assert itself over the business interests in the end. The state takes a much more active role in managing economy in Russia than in western countries, and financial capital is not allowed to dominate.
deleted by creator
The Venn diagram for people who haven’t read Lenin and can give the correct definition for imperialism is basically just two circles.
Is Russia ‘sub-imperialist’? is a good, relatively short article on this subject.
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
Well crimea is super valuable so i can see why its more desired than a grassy wasteland filled with valuable mineral resources and people. So i see what youre saying but i also see what they are saying.
Crimea isn’t really a good example given that it was part of Russia until Khrushchev gave it symbolically to Ukraine back when it didn’t have any real meaning given that both Russia and Ukraine were part of USSR. Crimea is predominantly populated by Russians who had no interest being part of Ukraine after the coup in 2014.
