Russia vs. Western Colonialism concept

[Oleg Smirnov]

> Russia's Crimes of Colonialism
> By Casey Michel, Aug. 9, 2022, WSJ

> Mr. Lavrov blamed Western sanctions for the food crisis in Africa

After the righteous tantrum about the alleged link between the Ukraine and
global food crisis, a notable fact is that the ships loaded with grain that
have recently left some Ukraine's ports as part of the Erdogan-brokered
'deal', are shipping the grain to Europe and Asia, - but not in the regions
where people are truly suffering of hunger <https://archive.is/RPxIs>

The claim that the Ukraine's grain is extremely important, was a falsehood
from the beginning, and now, when supplies from there are "unblocked", they
will need some more excuses why it doesn't solve the global food problems.

> The idea that Russia avoided colonial expansion has surprising resonance in
> the West and elsewhere. Russia never had formal colonies in Africa, Latin
> America or South Asia.

Informal too, not only "formal". As I posted before <http://bit.ly/2Lo8Dnt>,
the west-European colonialism was linked with the maritime routes since the
15th century. Russia was apart from that, it was landlocked at the time.

> But the idea that the Kremlin avoided colonization projects altogether-that
> it dodged the "bloody crimes" for which Dutch, Spanish or Portuguese empires
> were responsible-is as risible as it is ahistorical.

The most bloody colonialist crimes had been committed in the North America
and Australia, which essentially led to genocide of the indigenous peoples
in these regions. It's notable that colonization activities in these places
were dominated by the WASPs: the English ("Anglo-Saxons") and similar kind.
And one more notable fact is that nowadays these atrocities are "carefully"
disguised by the notorious myth that all the natives died out due to deadly
epidemics.

Modern populations in the South and Central America, where colonization was
dominated by the Spanish and Portuguese Catholics, have natives integrated
in their majorities through mixing, in stark contrast to the North America.

| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas>
| --------------------- Part
| Country Indigenous Indigenous
|
| Canada --- 1.8% ------- 3.6%
| USA ------ 1.1% ------- 1.8%
|
| Argentina 2.4% ------- 27%
| Brazil --- 0.4% ------- 12%
| Mexico --- 7% --------- 62%
| Paraguay - 1.7% ------- 95%
| ...

It clearly shows the fact that namely the WASPs ("progressive" Protestants)
were, in real fact, the most racist (non-mixing) as well as the most brutal
in their action to clean up the land from the indigenous peoples.

And now they have invented this plausible "epidemics" excuse.

> It's not as though Russia simply appeared as a transcontinental juggernaut,
> stretching to the Pacific. It spent centuries conquering and colonizing
> Eurasia,

Just factually wrong. The ignorant writer just doesn't know that the main
Russian expansion happened not over centuries but in a rather short time
since the late 16th century and throughout the 17th century. And the
extremely fast speed of that expansion would make an acute thinker suspect
that it wasn't quite a "conquest" the way one could typically imagine it.

> extracting local wealth and subjugating colonized peoples to
> dictatorship from Moscow and St. Petersburg.

In the 17th century, there was no St. Petersburg yet btw. The early 17th
century was the so called Time of Troubles when many Russia's regions were
living on their own, without central government, and the very existence of
Russia as such was under big question. Along with that, the expansion to
the east was still going on rapidly, without plans and commands from the
"dictatorship in Moscow". At the very same time when the Russian volunteer
militias struggled to drive the Polish invaders out from Moscow, the
Russian Cossacks established new cities in Siberia and were already close
to the Mongolic area. And the Manchu were preparing to conquer the Ming.

And one more curious fact is that at the same time, the avid English were
making plans to invade Russia through Arctic, to establish their colonial
"protectorate" in the northern Russian lands <https://is.gd/2E6HrB>.

And I brought this historical fragment to show the fact that the Western
knowledge of history is usually very schematic and cartoonish, and most of
their hateful drivel on Russia is based on ignorant wishful fantasies.

> The difference is that other European empires colonized overseas, while
> Russia colonized overland, capturing adjacent territory.

The difference isn't only this. While those European empires sought to
either genocide out all the indigenous in favor of settlers (like in the
North America) or to keep their colonies as "resources", exploiting them
accordingly (like in Africa and Asia (India)), Russia sought to somehow
integrate the incorporated lands and peoples into its main self. That's
the reason why the European empires have lost their colonies while Russia
remains Russia (and the Europeans are extremely jealous about that).