Ukraine is a victim of Russian and western imperialism

US President Bill Clinton, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk after signing the Trilateral Statement in Moscow on January 14th 1994. Photo: William J. Clinton / Wikimedia.org

In the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I was asked once “how come a country can just take land in the 21st century and no one seems to be bothered about it?” The short answer to this is because we live in a postcolonial world. For centuries we lived in a political system where stronger states conquered weaker nations and it was the normal state of affairs. It was only recently that the European powers recognized that their imperial conquests were immoral and inhumane and began to move towards the recognition of the universal values of human rights, respect for human dignity, and the sovereignty of small nations. Unfortunately, imperialism, being the norm for centuries, cannot be easily erased. Its curse lives on in the West in different forms, with some now dubbing it as “neo-imperialism”. One former empire, the Russian Federation, not only does not recognize its crimes of conquest but continues to commit them with no moral quarrels. It is between and against these powers, both Russian imperialism and western neo-imperialism, that Ukraine finds itself fighting for its independence.

Imperialism and colonialism

The Cambridge dictionary defines the word “imperialism” as a system in which a country rules other countries, with the imperial power sometimes having used force to gain this influence. Imperialism was seen across historical empires and is closely associated with territorial gains. What is important, however, is the ideological conditions under which territorial expansion can take place. Every aggressive state which has expanded its territory by force had to create a narrative of inherent superiority, be it on ethnic or ideological grounds. For Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the idea of “Lebensraum” (living space) and the apparently natural superiority of the Aryan race deemed it lawful and, in fact, necessary for Germany to destroy the neighbouring Polish population. This would allow the Germans to occupy Polish land, with its vast fields of nature, in order to have adequate living (or breathing) space. Germany, after being humiliated in the First World War, had an inherent duty, as a superior nation, to take these lands to ensure the natural prosperity of their superior German race. Imperialism is, therefore, not only a justified process but often the natural way concerning the progress of a nation. No territorial expansion can take place without the underlying narrative of superiority behind it. As a result, it is precisely this ideology that ultimately enables and defines imperialism – the belief that your very existence is superior to others and that you have the inherent right, or even a necessity, to conquer.

Colonialism, a system in which one country controls another country or more through the establishment of colonies, is a manifestation of imperialism. There is no colonialism without imperialism. Between the 15th century and sometime after the Second World War, the European empires colonized the majority of the world under the pretext of European modernity and the Enlightenment. In the second half of the 20th century, and with the birth of universal human rights, the colonized nations of the Third World rose and declared independence from their colonial masters. It was during this time that a consciousness about the crimes of European imperialism emerged. Western academia subsequently began to study the impact and legacy of European colonial expansion through the creation of postcolonial studies. The West has condemned transatlantic slavery and imperial conquest, and European colonialism has now ended.

Whilst the decolonization movement shook the European empires and forced them to rethink their colonial past, the curse of imperialism proved not easily cured when it came to the colonizers. Despite the end of the era of conventional European conquest, the western powers continued to engage in what has been branded neo-imperialism – providing aid only to countries that agree to adopt western principles of governance, the monopolization of the market economy, and continued labour exploitation are just a few examples. American incursions into the Middle East since 9/11 have also been proclaimed as a new form of western imperialism. What connects these new forms of imperialism to the old means of conquest is the continued and persistent narrative of western inherent superiority. This can be seen in the promotion of democratic governance as the best political system to ever exist, the American divine crusade against terror, and the exploitation of the Third World to support the capital growth and welfare of the West, which inherently deserves it the most.

The decolonization movement that swept across the Third and First Worlds in the 20th century bypassed the Second World (Soviet Union and states formerly under the occupation or influence of the Soviet Union). This was due to European powers having little to no presence or interest in the Second World. Edward Said, the pioneer of western postcolonial studies, specifically excluded the Russian Empire from his seminal book Orientalism. This is because Russia was not an overseas empire. This exclusion was to have significant consequences for global stability as it allowed Russian imperialism to proliferate unchallenged for decades to come. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a symptom of western academic blindness to Russian imperialism.

Russia also did not concern itself with discussing its imperial crimes. When the Soviet Union collapsed, and the restored independent states requested recognition of the Soviet occupation and illegality of documents such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Russia instead chose denial. When Chechnya demanded independence from Russia and fought two brutal wars of independence, Moscow chose the path of total destruction. At the same time, the West covered for these crimes against humanity under the cloak of “Islamic terrorism” and the “internal problems of Russia”, which the West had nothing to do with. When postcolonial studies emerged in the western world to deal with the colonial legacy, Russia branded postcolonial scholars as proponents of a radical left/feminist ideology, incompatible with the conservative traditional values of Russia. As western science excluded Russia and Russia excluded itself, Russian imperialism continued long after the collapse of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The Kremlin invaded Georgia in 2008, illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 in the heartland of Europe, assisted Assad in maintaining his authoritarian grip in Syria in 2015, and invaded Ukraine again in 2022. Russia did this in what was supposed to be an international rules-based global order – a postcolonial world where conventional conquest has ended.

The origins of Russian imperialism and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24th 2022 is yet another manifestation of rampant Russian imperialism in the world of the international rules-based order. The Russian Empire was the third-largest and most durable empire of all time. Historically, Russia conquered its current neighbours in the West (Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine) as well as the indigenous populations and countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus in the East.

A historical Russian imperialism can be found in the very formation of what is now known as the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian historian Volodymyr Yermolenko notes that since the 15th century, when Russia freed itself from the Mongol occupation, it already had a global, imperialist aim. Whilst the European nations firstly established themselves locally, as nation-states before embarking on colonial expeditions with the Enlightenment, European modernity and racism as their imperial ideology, Russia instantaneously proclaimed itself as the “Third Rome” (successor to both the Western and then Eastern Roman Empire) and a successor to Kyivan Rus’. The very idea of Russia has become the idea of imperialism and expansion. Imperial ideology allowed Russia to start weaving the narrative of Russia’s Slavic and religious superiority over other nations in the region, making overland conquest not only justified but somewhat anticipated and natural. Catherine the Great famously said that the only way to defend Russia is to extend its borders, revealing that the very existence of the Russian state means expansion.

In the occupied lands in the West, the Russian Empire ruled through assimilation and Russification, usurping conquered nations, banning languages and eliminating the local intelligentsia. It also imported Russians, who appropriated culture and history as their own as a means of perpetuating Russia’s imperialist narrative of inherent superiority. Later in the 20th century, the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World War also contributed to the narrative of Russian superiority. This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of those who died in the war in the Eastern Front were of Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnicities. Overall, the idea of inherent Russian superiority is not inherent at all – it was mostly manufactured by force and by falsifying history. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and the occupied nations declared independence, Russia was expected to head on a democratic path. However, rampant corruption, a Russian national identity closely intertwined with imperialism, Soviet nostalgia, poverty, and an unwillingness to let go of its remaining occupied territories revived Russian imperialism. This was seen as early as 1994, when Chechnya fought the Russian Federation for independence.

The narrative of superiority and manufactured history formed the basis for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which regained its independence in 1991. Three days prior to the war, on February 21st 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an hour-long speech that focused on a falsified historical account. This aimed to prove that Ukraine does not exist and that Kyivan Rus’ is the legitimate birthplace of modern Russia. He added that Russia and Ukraine are indivisible, brotherly nations. However, in reality this brotherhood is based on the brutally enforced centuries-long Russification of Ukraine. Furthermore, speaking of the 2014 Euromaidan in Ukraine, Putin declared that Ukraine’s EU/NATO aspirations were simply western imperialist meddling in the Russian zone of influence. This was all done in an attempt to bring the NATO border closer to Russia. Putin denied agency to the 44 million Ukrainians, deeming them objects (rather than subjects) between western and Russian imperial games. The denial of agency and idea of inherent Russian superiority, with Moscow only taking back what belongs to it, provided justification for the invasion of Ukraine. This caused the greatest global security threat since the Second World War and a new wave of Russian war crimes.

Nuclear imperialism

Russian imperialism in Ukraine, however, was enabled by western nuclear imperialism. Nuclear imperialism in postcolonial terms refers to the current geopolitical order whereby only the dominant states, often the former empires, possess nuclear weapons. This has created new forms of domination in the absence of imperial conquest. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, is the primary source of evidence for nuclear imperialism. The NPT came into being during the Cold War to ensure that nuclear weapons proliferation was controlled and that non-nuclear states do not obtain nuclear weapons. Only the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council (France, the US, the UK, Russia and China) are recognized nuclear weapons states. Non-signatories like Pakistan, Israel, India and North Korea are believed to possess nuclear weapons but they are not recognized as nuclear powers. Their possession of nuclear weapons possession is considered rogue, in violation with international principles that are dictated by the West.

It is imperialism because only the former empires are deemed to be responsible nuclear states, whereas other nations are naturally perceived as irresponsible, reckless and dangerous. Not only has this been proven blatantly false in light of Russia’s nuclear recklessness in the war in Ukraine, but also the western states were the ones that used nuclear weapons on civilian populations (the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the UK’s nuclear testing in the Pacific). Nuclear imperialism reveals that even if the conventional conquest has ended (at least in the West), imperialism and the idea of inherent superiority live on through new forms of domination.

It was in this new western neo-imperial order that Ukraine found itself in 1991, when it inherited a large nuclear arsenal from the Soviet Union. Ukraine, having restored its independence, and wishing to follow a western path, was looking to break away from Russian influence and join the western democratic family. In accordance with the NPT, and to be fully accepted in the international rules-based order, however, Ukraine was asked to give up its nuclear arsenal. The permanent five members of the UN Security Council promised Kyiv security guarantees in return. The Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994 to that effect and was long deemed one of the success stories of nuclear disarmament. That was until Russia, one of the countries that promised the security guarantees, attacked Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022. Another, China, also supported Russia through economic means. What is more, the remaining western signatories (the US, the UK and France), whilst providing military assistance to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia, failed to protect Ukrainian citizens and land from Russian terror, destruction and occupation. Ukraine’s disarmament ultimately showed that the security guarantees that it was provided only helped the former empires to maintain the imperial order of domination. The western states ensured Ukraine could not start a nuclear war in self-defence, which could put the West itself at risk. It also helped Russia protect its perceived right to invade. By not signing the treaty, Ukraine was at risk of potential banishment from the international rules-based western order. However, giving up its nuclear weapons made it vulnerable to Russian imperialism. It was between two imperialisms, nuclear and Russian, that Ukraine had to choose from, with either decision leading to a loss. Whilst Ukraine chose the western path due to its moral stance and commitment to western values, ultimately it was the western nuclear imperialism that enabled Russia to launch the attack.

Denial of agency

Manifestations of western neo-imperialism did not end with nuclear imperialism. When Vladimir Putin ordered his armed forces to take Kyiv in three days, it was widely believed both in the West and Russia that Ukraine would fall immediately. CNN reported on February 25th 2022 that “the initial US assessment from before the invasion – which anticipated that the Ukrainian capital would be overrun within one to four days of a Russian attack – remains the current expectation.” The UK Joint Forces Command’s General Sir Christopher Deverell, in an interview with Sky News on February 27th, said that Ukraine will likely fall at some point. Similarly, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported on March 11th that Russian officials also expected a swift victory.

None of these predictions by major global powers were correct, as unmatched Ukrainian courage has been able to resist Russia’s imperial ambitions to this day – Ukraine remains a sovereign and free nation. The failure to understand Ukrainian resistance is explained by both Russia and the West failing to give agency to Ukraine. They did not accept that Ukraine is a subject with its own feelings, existence, history and people to whom the scars of Russia’s imperial crimes are etched deep. Ukrainians know through the mass deportations, forced Russification, repressions, and the Russian-made famine that killed millions in Ukraine in 1932-33, that surrender to Russia means death. Resistance becomes a fight to survive. For imperialist Russia and the post-imperialist West, this is difficult to understand. This is because their knowledge and being is founded on the conquest of the powerful and the defeat of the weak. Kyiv’s effective resistance is an oxymoron in the current postcolonial world order and the confusion both in Russia and the West on what to do next is evidence to that.

As western science continues to be hegemonic, largely excluding the Second World from colonial inquiry, the question of Ukrainian resistance will baffle western academia for years to come. For those who lived under the occupation of the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire or the Russian Federation, this resistance was not only not expected but anticipated. Yet today few western powers listen to their Polish, Ukrainian or Baltic counterparts, as the West is still unable to accept that the formerly colonized can have agency. Whilst Russian imperialism is not yet ready to acknowledge its crimes through dialogue, if the western powers really desire to move on from their imperial era then they must accept that non-imperial powers have agency. This is the first step to truly breaking the curse of imperialism and adhering to the values of human rights, democracy and freedom that the West claims to protect. In his book Lithuania transforms the West, Dr. Furmonavicius demonstrates how Lithuania, a state unlawfully occupied by the Soviet Union in the 20th century, showed the West the real values of democracy and human rights when it upheld democratic processes and the right to self-determination against the USSR. While the West was very wary of demanding that the Soviet Union uphold universal human rights, Lithuania showed the West how to commit to its values. Vilnius bravely restored its independence against great psychological, moral and economic pressure from the USSR. This later turned violent when 13 civilians were murdered by the Russian army. Lithuania restored its independence and the USSR ceased to exist as a result of it, saving the US billions in the Cold War arms race.

Military support

The West’s military support for Ukraine also displays features of the western neo-imperialist order. Ukrainian resistance, from the outset, has been tainted by comments that it is only because of western military assistance that Kyiv is able to successfully defend itself. It is correct that the death toll has been significantly reduced by the arming of Ukraine. However, to insist that Ukraine is only able to resist due to western weapons removes agency from the Ukrainian nation, thereby treating Ukrainians as objects. This assumption does not explain how, for example, in the first few days of the war Ukraine repelled a significant Russian attack on Kyiv. This is despite receiving little military equipment from any of its allies.

The imperialist undertones are also present when discussing the type of weapons supplied to Kyiv. Little attention is given to Ukrainian pleas for full military support, such as closing the sky over the country. Instead, the western countries look at what Russia’s response may be to such a move. The narratives of fear of escalation continue to feature heavily in political discussions. This is a worrying shift in a world that supposedly promotes universal human rights to all. Russia invaded a sovereign country, yet it is Ukraine who must act with caution as not to upset the invading power. Due to the continued imperialist world order, the western powers, whilst supporting Ukraine, will nonetheless often treat Russia more favourably than they do Ukraine. This is especially true in terms of military action and permission to strike enemy targets deep inside Russia. By doing this, western states indirectly legitimize Russia’s expansionism despite publicly condemning it. In this way, they prolong the war.

Imperialist manifestations are also evident in the gradual nature of military support. Rather than provide Ukraine with all the necessary military equipment to swiftly defeat Russia, the western countries provide weapons in a slower manner, as if playing two games – showing that they value sovereignty, freedom and human rights while at the same time ensuring that Russia does not lose and the imperial world order is maintained. The defeat of Russia and possible disintegration of the Russian Federation poses a risk to the West due to Moscow’s dispersed nuclear arsenal and China’s imperial ambitions regarding Russian territories in Asia. It is for this reason that the western states are cautious about a Ukrainian victory. The problem, however, is that this half commitment to western values allows Russia to continue the war. This strengthens Moscow’s position on the international stage and shows to other dictatorships that force and violence work (undermining western values). This allows such governments to successfully continue to promote populism and other “divide and conquer” tactics in western states, thereby weakening the West’s global influence. A good example of this is the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024, which caused a rift between the US and Ukraine and fractured the West’s previously united and firm position against Russia. This, in turn, strengthens Russia and further weakens all western powers.

Conclusion

Unchecked Russian imperialism has caused one of the greatest security threats since the Second World War and opened up yet another brutal theatre of Russian violence. Russia, failing to cure itself from the disease of its own imperialism, invaded Ukraine. In doing so, it killed and tortured civilians and POWs, destroyed infrastructure, kidnapped children and committed thousands of other war crimes. However, it was ultimately new western forms of imperialism that enabled Russia to invade in the first place.

It is clear that there are still visible remnants of imperialism. The West must now choose firmly if it wishes to become an example of a prosperous and long-lasting democratic order that supports its allies worldwide, or if it wants to remain an imperial power. There is a test coming up ahead. Poland has recently requested the US to assist it with acquiring nuclear weapons on its territory in order to deter any further Russian incursions into Europe. Whether the West will retain the policy of nuclear imperialism or allow Poland, a non-former empire, to lawfully possess nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty remains to be seen.

It is important to reiterate that Russia bears the ultimate responsibility and guilt for the invasion of Ukraine. It is not possible to change Russia. However, people living in democracies have the power to influence and shape the West to abandon its imperial chains. If there is one less imperialism to address, that in itself is a small victory towards a truly free and democratic world, in which questions like “how come a country can just take land in the 21st century and no one seems to be bothered about it?” will no longer be relevant.

Gabriele Kaminskaite is a Masters graduate in International Relations from the University of Manchester and an early career researcher. She utilises postcolonial theory to deepen the understanding of Russian imperialism in variety of its forms and manifestations. Her thesis argues that the contemporary Russian opposition’s rhetoric is often tainted with imperialist discourse, with a focus on Alexei Navalny. Gabriele also supports the local Ukrainian community in Manchester, UK in raising awareness about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. @gabriellekamin

Please support New Eastern Europe's crowdfunding campaign. Donate by clicking on the button below.

Colonialism, imperialism, Russian empire, Russian imperialism, Soviet Union, Ukraine, Ukraine-West relations, West