I'm sure there's plenty of others as well. The tentacles of colonialism are getting scarcer, but are still very much there.
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/france-pull-troops-out-niger-f...
[1] - https://time.com/6301177/niger-african-support-russia/
As far as gains and losses, you're correct when looking purely at the economic aspect of it, but that's not all there is to it. Indeed, my fear is that the West is finding it very hard to understand (and believe in) what Russia is doing precisely because it is so focused on economic cost-benefit analysis, and ignores the ideological aspects, which dominate the Russian political elites today.
---
"NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene."
---
That's just one paragraph. The whole cable is an easy read, interesting, and full of evidence. But what makes that cable fun is not only how clearly it emphasizes we knew exactly what would happen, but also who wrote it. It was written by William J Burns - the current head of the CIA.
A very strange thing to say, given that war against Ukraine is an extremely blatant attempt at re-colonization (with a heaping dose of full-tilt racist ethnic cleansing to boot).
Putin's designs in Africa are clearly different, and "colonialism" probably isn't the right conceptual model to apply there. But this insinuation you're making that he's on some kind of "anti-colonial" mission there (or that that he's lending the people in those countries a helping hand in any other way) is equally bizarre, an fundamentally quite naive.
Russia's motivations in Africa obviously aren't anti-colonial or whatever. It's the same stuff that's going on with South Africa, Brazil, China, and so on. They're simply pivoting towards the 85% of the world, the 'global south' - a pivot that began many years ago, but which the conflict has accelerated due to strained relations with the 15%. The stronger and more independent the global south, the more beneficial and productive the pivot.
[1] - https://ukraine.un.org/en/264355-report-human-rights-situati... (page 10, note 38)
You're way off base on that. Just look at any of Putin's numerous (and incredibly obnoxious) pronouncements on the topic of Russia-Ukraine relations.
I don't think further discussion will be productive here. I'll have to leave you to sort these issues out on your own.
> It was written by William J Burns - the current head of the CIA
When Burns joined the CIA in March 2021, Russia was already building up troops for the invasion. I’m not sure what, if anything, you’re insinuating here.
The importance of it being written by Burns is that there are a lot of cables written, often shooting in many different directions. But in this case, the intelligence on what would happen with Ukraine not only remained consistent, but the individuals writing it were and remained extremely high level players within the government. So the idea the US was, in any way, surprised by what happened can be quite safely discarded as false.
Except Ukraine wasn't seeking NATO membership, they were going to sign the EU cooperation agreement until Russia bullied and threatened them into backing out. Again, Russia is ultimately the one encouraging NATO expansion.
> And the catalyst there was us backing a coup that overthrew a [democratically elected] Russian leaning President, sending the largely ethnic Russian regions (including Crimea and Donbas) into outright rebellion, starting the exact civil war Burns had predicted.
The US didn't want Yanukovych ousted. The Nuland tape shows that the US was trying to set up meetings between him and oppo leaders after he opened up spots in his interim government (because both sides wanted a neutral mediator and the EU was dragging it's feet, hence the famous comment). He chose to flee, though, and was voted out by parliament.
It wasn't the EU that was desperate for Ukraine to join, it was the US. We wanted to use them as a strategic tool against Russia, whereas them actually joining the EU would cause nothing but problems for the EU because it'd result in a mass flooding of labor, cheap grain, and so on. Flooding the EU with cheap grain sounds awesome, but it would imperil farmers and agriculture, in general, in other countries. It's an issue that persists to this day with numerous countries banning the import of Ukrainian grain - something that could not be done if Ukraine was in the EU. The only relevant reference from Nuland regarding Yanukovych was a desire to "see if he wants to talk before or after." [3]
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-russia-deal-speci...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs_Union_of_the_Eurasian_...
The US has no interest in bolstering one of their main economic competitors with millions of skilled workers, don't be silly. European industries drool at the prospect of getting access to a skilled metal worker for a few hundred euros per month.
In this paragraph, you unintentionally reveal why Ukraine saw mass protests when Yanukovych sabotaged closer relations with the EU after last-minute Russian pressure. Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, but opening up to the EU for movement of goods and labor would've meant sharp and massive rise in the living standard of Ukrainians - as has happened everywhere else in Eastern Europe.
Poland is roughly the same size as Ukraine in terms of population. Poland requested EU membership in 1994 and started implementing reforms required for membership soon thereafter. It joined the EU as a full member in 2004. Here's what the process did to the GDP: https://i.imgur.com/008Ynan.png
Ukraine was on the verge of similar explosion of economic development. Imagine your wage rising five to ten times in mere ten years.
And naturally, that massive rise in living standard would've alienated Ukraine from Russia and greatly reduced Russian influence on Ukraine because they have nothing comparable to offer. In the worst case scenario for Russia, seeing the prosperity in Ukraine could've mobilized their population to demand change and topple Putin.
Plain human greed and desire for "more stuff" was one of the key drivers behind USSR's collapse too. When Gorbachev loosened censorship in the late 1980s, people learned how Europeans and Americans lived, and wanted the same things for themselves and their children: nice clothes, Sony stereos and German washing machines. A very simple, natural instinct.
That's disingenuous. He was looking to offset the damage caused by Russia's trade restrictions done in retaliation for considering or signing the agreement. The Reuters article mentions this:
> Next year Ukraine will have to cover foreign debt payments of $8 billion, according to its finance ministry. It was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, partly because Moscow was blocking sales of Ukrainian-produced meat, cheese and some confectionery, and scrapping duty-free quotas on steel pipes. Some officials said the restrictions showed what life would be like if Ukraine signed the EU agreement.
Also, three months before the summit in which it was supposed to be signed, Russia essentially stopped all imports from Ukraine[0] but resumed them after the agreement failed[1]
I think the timelines also support this. As per your link, the customs arrangement between Ukraine and Russia was terminated on August 14th. As per the Reuters link, Yanukovych was actively hostile to joining the Eurasian Customs Union a month later, and only sided with Russia about 4 months later. He only seems to have only finally changed his mind once it became clear that not only was he not going to get rich(er) off the EU or the IMF, but he also got Russia to offer him $15 billion as well as sharply lowering the prices paid by Naftogaz - a Ukrainian state run gas company that was headed by a Yanukovych appointee - Yevhen Bakulin, who has a fun rabbit hole to go down, in his own right.
The catalyst was shooting of peaceful protesters that killed over 100 people, and the president fleeing as soon as he realized that he had lost the support even among his own party and would be facing criminal charges. You mention that Yanukovych was a democratically elected president, but you conventiently fail to mention that he was removed from office by the parliament with unanimous 328-vs-0 votes.
And there was no civil war. It was entirely manufactured by Russian military and special services from the start. From a judgement by the European Court of Human rights:
The Court held, on the basis of the vast body of evidence before it, that Russia had effective control over all areas in the hands of separatists from 11 May 2014 on account of its military presence in eastern Ukraine and the decisive degree of influence it enjoyed over these areas as a result of its military, political and economic support to the “DPR” and the “LPR”. In particular, the Court found it established beyond any reasonable doubt that there had been Russian military personnel present in an active capacity in Donbass from April 2014 and that there had been a large-scale deployment of Russian troops from, at the very latest, August 2014. It further found that the respondent State had a significant influence on the separatists’ military strategy. Several prominent separatists in command positions were senior members of the Russian military acting under Russian instructions, including the person who had had formal overall command of the armed forces of the “DPR” and the “LPR”. Further, Russia had provided weapons and other military equipment to separatists on a significant scale (including the Buk-missile used to shoot down flight MH17). Russia had carried out artillery attacks upon requests from the separatists and provided other military support. There was also clear evidence of political support, including at international level, being provided to the “DPR” and the “LPR” and the Russian Federation had played a significant role in their financing enabling their economic survival.
By the time of the 11 May 2014 “referendums”, the separatist operation as a whole had been managed and coordinated by the Russian Federation. The threshold for establishing Russian jurisdiction in respect of allegations concerning events which took place within these areas after 11 May 2014 had therefore been passed. That finding meant that the acts and omissions of the separatists were automatically attributable to the Russian Federation. /---/ In the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the dependence of the entities on Russia had decreased since 2014, the jurisdiction of the respondent State continued as at the date of the hearing on 26 January 2022.
If you get your facts straight, the story changes completely.
But the point here is that the civil war began in March. Could Ukraine have snuffed out the rebellious regions without Russian interference? Most likely, but countries feeding arms and support to rebellions that they support is pretty run of the mill geopolitics stuff (and was also 100% expected by the US per the diplomatic cables). Similarly, it's highly unlikely that the Ukrainian coup would have succeeded without US backing and direct involvement. In the 8 years that followed (until the invasion) Russia repeatedly tried to organize some sort of a cease fire and mutually agreeable solution for the breakaway regions - basically letting them have some sort of special administrative status while remaining part of Ukraine. This resulted in the Minsk accords. Those accords were then repeatedly violated, with both sides blaming the other, until the situation reached a climax in 2022.
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/world/europe/ukraine.html
In the first stage, they captured Crimea. Then, on 12 April 2014, the war broke loose in Eastern Ukraine after 50 Russian commandos led by Girkin captured the town of Sloviansk. Sabotage groups sent to rile up people and sow confusion were active even earlier than that (Ukraine managed to detain a number of them).
There were no separatists, no rebels, no break-away regions, nothing before Russia manufactured them to create an appearance of a civil war and deprive Ukraine of foreign support. That was all a cover story for the military operation - on of the most effective deceptions in the history of warfare.
For anybody unfamiliar the many many islands in the East Indies historically have had easily distinguishable cultures and largely seperate rule until the Dutch consolidation.
The Dutch were replaced as "rulers" by a small group, the most overtly colonial act being the invasion of West Papua following the west largely shrugging their shoulders when independance was sought and "free elections" were rigged via torture.
I'm sure there's good writing on the subject, a cursory search turned up
https://www.e-ir.info/2015/12/17/neo-orientalism-indonesias-...
which seems adequate as a starting point.
And I said they even though Im one of them because I hate the culture of the country. Foreigners arent any depper, of course. They go "ohhh lisbon is so beautiful" and that's as far as they go.
It is also wild seeing how people are reacting to the President talking about reparations.
Less stretched though is the struggle to end South Africa’s apartheid and the Israel Palestine conflict. Both Apartheid South Africa, and modern day Israel are fighting to legitimize a settler colonial state (preferably ethno-state of European descendants) which unevenly allocates land and rights to the descendants of the European colonizers (see also Northern Ireland before the good Friday agreement).
And finally we have Western Sahara, which is a full on colony just like Angola, and has an ongoing colonial war for liberation (just like Algeria). The only difference is that the colonial power is Morocco, which is not a European power.
Ukraine is a bit different in that both the official Russian ideology and the prevailing public opinion don't see it as a colony, but rather as "lost heartland" that is inhabited by what are still fundamentally Russians who have "strayed". So the long-term goal there isn't to acquire a new colony for the metropole to exploit - it's to forcibly assimilate its Ukrainian population into the metropole in its entirety. Now in practice this isn't that simple either, because of course the occupied territories are exploited. However, one could argue that it is still not colonial exploitation, because its economic nature is fundamentally the same as the relationship between Moscow and basically every other Russian region. That is, it would make sense to say that occupied Ukraine is a colony if you're also willing to say that pretty much all of Russia is also effectively a colony of Moscow (which is not an unreasonable way to describe it, to be fair - just not a conventional one in Western historiography).
The Good Friday Agreement brought both Civil Rights and equal political representation for Northern Irish Catholics. It also gave a political avenue for further decolonization (including their ultimate goal of reunification with Ireland), making more terrorist activities kind of unnecessary.
I would consider that a pretty good results of violent resistance against your colonizer.