I would love to hear the thoughts of this leftist community, not least any comrade in Russia. In the US it's so hard to get any serious Russia news/analysis because of the propaganda here- you have red guys that love Russia & Putin to own the libs, and you have blue guys that hate Russia & Putin because it's their favorite boogeyman. I ask because I personally don't like Putin for his war on gayness (wake me up when we get to war of gayness) but I understand that countries in the US's crosshairs are those that make their history under the least self-selected circumstances. I was looking at some stats when this question came to mind:
UA
RU
So material conditions have definitely improved under Putin, which is a miracle considering the fall of the USSR and the disgrace of Yeltsin, which makes me think there are probably people out there who like Putin for rational reasons, besides owning the libs. I would love to hear your thoughts either way.
Lots of people in Russia like him (unfortunately).
To the extent he's not a total puppet or push-over for the west, a Yeltsin, he's good. To the extent he's still quite weak, still defers to the liberals in Russia and should really be stronger against a west that has irrevocably shown itself with its Ukraine duplicity to be beyond any trust, he is bad and it would be better if someone who had more sense in this area replaced him. To the extent he and his party amplify reactionary culture war stuff he's bad. To the extent he's not a socialist or for the restoration of the USSR he's bad. To the extent he serves the Russian bourgeoisie he's good in the sense that he isn't subservient to the trans-antlantacist bourgeoisie but bad in that he serves bourgeois interests at all instead of the peoples. He's bad but his predecessor was much worse and if the west including seething Russia-hating liberals who are victims of the Russia-gate psyop got their way he'd be replaced by someone even worse.
What a good, in-depth answer. Thank you!
Do you think that if Russia were to get stronger and wealthier (as they are now) at a certain point they would act like an imperial bully, like the USA? These accusations are often leveled at China and in that context are completely baseless, but do you think it would be true of current Russia led by Putin? Would this imply a grain of truth to the "keep Russia weak" tactics of the US? Not speaking to the legitimacy of that plan (it's illegitimate) but just trying to understand the power dynamics and implications.
Imperialism is part of a certain developmental stage of capitalism. Frankly with the giant US monster sitting atop it's NATO throne I don't think they could get that far. I think with the current US position, their European lap-dogs, their utter domination of so many spaces from finance, the dollar hegemony thing, cultural hegemony, technological hegemony, and on and on plus the head start the US has on them that it would take quite some doing for them to do anything but the most meager and paltry example of it. Right now and for years their power, their foreign power, their friendships with other nations has been built off being a US alternative who doesn't act like the US, who will sell you weapons when no one else will, who will unlike the US evac you when you side with them if US color revolution forces topple you (Assad).
There really isn't a niche for a puny second order imperialist in Russia at the moment given US dominance. Countries on their border are either hostile NATO/EU states or in great danger of falling into that orbit if Russia makes things miserable for their people or leadership by trying to victimize and imperialize them, they can with no effort hop into the US sphere and get US support on multiple levels against Russia which then increases the danger of Russia's encirclement and becomes a strong incentive not to try that. Countries further afield Russia has no real way to exert pressure to. They're an arms dealer and on occasion when it's not too inconvenient for them a fair-weather UN voting friend on the security council (who still rarely stands up to the US in a major way). They don't have the economic dominance, nor military expeditionary power, nor intelligence subterfuge power (school of the Americas, all the training the US/NATO give to other forces to bring them into their way of thinking and gain blackmail, friends, influence, etc) that the US has to try pulling off color revolutions or palace coups.
History is not a matter of what is desired or wanted, some sort of idealist battle of wills. It is constrained by material and historical forces. The US inherited when it invaded Europe at the end of WW2 the fealty and influence of centuries of European colonialism. It consolidated the power of western capital and empire under its name. Power they'd been cultivating for centuries. Language inculcation, media like newspapers, TV stations, etc that people around the world supposedly now freed from colonialism were still exposed to. Intelligence networks, networks of collaborators in the cold war and before that from colonial loyalist dogs and collaborators and their families who often are still wealthy and influential in the formerly colonized world. The US built on this and by the time of the illegal dissolution of the USSR had total dominance. Russia started from not zero but a curious place in the early 2000s when they'd finally managed to kick out or replace most of the worst western spies, collaborators, etc who had made life chaotic in the 90s. They started as the place that replaced the USSR, inherited its obligations and tried to play up being that kind of friend to the downtrodden because it was the cards they had to play.
Even if the US collapsed December this year, the legacy, the lingering power, the chaos of the power vacuum would mean Russia would struggle to simply take its place. Oh it could in that instance start doing some imperialism but it couldn't become anything like what the US was. The Europeans wouldn't assist it for one but resent and fight it as they do today in trying to maintain control of their African former colonies vs Russia assisting the new anti-colonial governments there. Without the cemented centralized power the US has built up they'd have a hell of a fight trying to do it. The 90s are going to be a drag on them for a long time. So they couldn't become a major imperialist power in 10 years after the theoretical US collapse at this point no. The world would become much more multi-polar, there would be trends to try and re-establish imperialist plunder from Russia vying against Europe vying against China's win-win.
Would Russia's bourgeoisie even now like to be imperialist and plunder? Yes. Can they? No. No more than China can press a button and turn the US into a socialist state.
What an in-depth answer, thank you very much!