A territory controlled by another/foreign country. Although with the facade of retaining its identity
In fact it would be difficult to describe the Warsaw Pact countries as anything other than as colonies of the Soviets.
They were generally defined as "client states" rather than colonies.
Mostly academic for majority of people living there but the former has a puppet government of locals whereas the colonies are run by the expats.
In fact it would be difficult to describe the Warsaw Pact countries as anything other than as colonies of the Soviets.
Europe colonized huge parts of the world. The USSR opposed the colonizers. By definition, the USSR was anti-colonial. It would not make any sense for the USSR to be anti-colonial and have colonies. Therefore, the people who claimed that the USSR was a colonial power must be anti-revolutionary lackeys of the capitalist colonizers. It's very obvious when you think about it logically.
A territory controlled by another/foreign country. Although with the facade of retaining its identity
As @dissonance has noted, this is a definition of imperialism, colonisation/colonialism is something different.
(tl;dr Meaning always has to be interpreted in context.)
I originally drew attention to the imperialism/colonialism distinction because of that tweet by AmmonCheskin copied up there^^^. You will see that the tweeter talks of the "Russian Empire", with a strong implication that they think that said empire included (by definition?) colonies and therefore should be written about in the Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History. The meaning that matters for the purpose of that argument is the meaning the word has for the editorship and contributors of that journal. (Other meanings are no doubt available and valid in other contexts.)
Interestingly, the publishers blurb about it says:
Journal of Colonialism & Colonial History (JCCH) is an important resource to scholars of all aspects of colonialism, from pre-colonial societal studies to current post-colonial theory. It covers the broad range of issues that relate to imperialism and colonialism from the tenth century through modern times including the social effects on the population, the political structures under imperial rule, the transition to independence, and the lasting impact of living under colonial rule.
(Its not clear if the "and" in "imperialism and colonialism" is conjunctive or disjunctive.)
So the fact that the journal doesn't have articles about Russia could be because of a "huge blind spot in Western engagement with Russian empire" as the tweeter suggests, or it could be because "colonialism" as used in that context doesn't include the type of imperialist conquest seen in Europe over recent centuries (including Russian imperialism), so articles about Russia would be rejected as outside the scope of the journal. I am sure there are many journals which contain articles about imperial Russia, the Soviet Union and the modern Russian Federation. It would be interesting to see if any of those articles speak of Russian activities as "colonialism" or "imperialism" or both. A thorough trawl of the literature would need to be done before you could make any point of the type that AmmonCheskin is trying to make in their tweet.
so articles about Russia would be rejected as outside the scope of the journal
To some degree, this is just restating the problem in different words. If that is the case, then it would mean that there are scholars who submitted articles about Russia but the editors decided that Russia didn't fit their notion of colonialism so they refused to publish them.
I suspect that a contributing factor would have been that the USSR would have refused access to any researchers interested in criticizing Russian policy and any embarrassing documents would not have been made available even to sympathetic researchers.
They were generally defined as “client states” rather than colonies.
Sounds so much friendlier than "occupied country".
To some degree, this is just restating the problem in different words. If that is the case, then it would mean that there are scholars who submitted articles about Russia but the editors decided that Russia didn’t fit their notion of colonialism so they refused to publish them.
No it isn't re-stating the problem, but apart from that I agree with this. I would draw your attention to the rest of what I said.
What it almost certainly means is that the authors should have submitted to a different journal (of which I am sure there are dozens). In fact, academics in this field almost certainly already know what types of subject-matter that journal publishes articles on and so wouldn't bother submitting off-topic articles to it.
Academic journals specialise, as do academics. Specialist academics with a common area of interest tend to use certain words in a special way when operating within their specialisation. Unless it is the case that there are no other journals in which articles about Russian imperialism can be published, there is simply no problem here at all. If an academic historian was able to put up a convincing case that Russian/Soviet/Russian Federation activity has in fact been "colonialist" (as that word is used by historians) I am sure many journals would welcome it (sounds like a sexy topic to me). It is up to you to show there is an actual problem here, so far there is nothing to demonstrate that.
this is a definition of imperialism, colonisation/colonialism is something different.
My definition was lifted from Miriam Webster, it's *literally* the dictionary definition of colony. I think we're splitting hairs though frankly.
Well no, the different usages of "colonialism" put forward differ by more than a hair's breadth, they are distinct.
It is a matter of accepting that others may use a word differently from the way we do, but in context that usage is valid.
Anyway, I think Wikipedia has a good general approach:
Colonialism is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas,[1][2][3] often by establishing colonies[4] and generally with the aim of economic dominance.[5] In the process of colonisation, colonisers may impose their religion, language, economics, and other cultural practices. The foreign administrators rule the territory in pursuit of their interests, seeking to benefit from the colonised region's people and resources.[6] It is associated with but distinct from imperialism.[1]
Perhaps this topic deserves its own thread 🧵🤷♂️
I know the threads gone a bit semantic but the important thing we can take from thols2's example is that Russia can characterise their invasion of Ukraine as anti imperialist.
For a Russian audience that truth may hold stronger than how we define imperialism (or colonialism) in Wstern text books. Or on here even...
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1518119766547857408?s=20&t=eFcsIZf7D2BGW8lYZRDGLw
Sorry for the twitter link..
It would appear or not that Putin Has/has not been to church today.
Crazy times.
It did not stop them firing rockets into apartment blocks in Ukraine today
Caught up with long missed riding buddies on a club ride this morning - two of them have offered to house Ukranians but are struggling with the visas/bureaucracy. One of them has taken so long that she's given up on the UK and has ended up in Germany. There's a certain historical irony there.
Another has a Russian daughter in law. She has a sister in Ukraine, her mother is in St Petersburg but can still access Western news, while her granny is somewhere else in Russia and only gets state sponsored news. The three differing versions of the war are apparently - and understandably - very very different.
Not to flog a dead horse, but colonialism sounds exactly like what Russia is practicing within it's own republics. Not an expert on the term by any means but it sounds right by Greyspoke's definition.
(Who knew so many white folk lived in the far east?)
Putin didn't go to church for his photo opp then? I hope he's too poorly.
Putin didn’t go to church for his photo opp then? I hope he’s too poorly.
I think he's also scared, very scared, and so he should be.
https://www.rt.com/russia/554454-oil-depot-on-fire/amp/
Assuming the oil depot fire is true.
Is there a likelihood this is deteriorating maintenance brought about by sanctions inhibiting availability of spare parts?
I have RT about as honest as the Daily Express on next winters weather forecast. Actually, about as honest as DE on anything the pathetic joke of a "news"paper.
Is there a likelihood this is deteriorating maintenance brought about by sanctions inhibiting availability of spare parts?
In the space of 2 months?
Just over the border in Russia
2 fuel depots seem to have suffered the same accidental fires the moskva experienced
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1518424979943182336?t=a85mWX7V_UEcPrbUrB80LQ&s=19
Is there a likelihood this is deteriorating maintenance brought about by sanctions inhibiting availability of spare parts?
My money is it has the same cause as the Moskva fire - ammunition igniting. Ukrainian ammunition, that is.
Video apparently indicating missile strike
https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1518466556535136261?t=IgAf6gGc5yARDXnGlubV0g&s=19
Ukrainian Tochka only have range of 70km, fuel depots actually 140km from border
Do they have anything longer range?
Or a very brave sortie by UAF?
Seems that this is on an oil pipeline that supplies Europe?
And this post from 5 days ago...
https://twitter.com/wordswork4me/status/1518483432183054336?s=19
Seems like a bonkers false flag to me
We will know soon as to capitalise on it Putin would have to go for national mobilisation now.
In the space of 2 months?
No idea, it's why I'm asking
I am viewing this through western repair supply chain, and not oil and gas either but telecommunications and automotive. We used to hold just enough spares for a week or two.
I wonder what the non public reaction in the German government is today.
Seems like a bonkers false flag to me
Not convinced on the 'false flag'-ness of this - they wouldn't actively harm their own army to help the war effort. They'd more likely just bomb a bunch of Russian civilians, who are cheaper and less important than diesel fuel. (see also the apartment bombings c. 2000).
And it makes sense that they'd want to move people away from potential strategic targets. Especially if they might have been hearing rumours that the Ukrainians are planning a strike.
Interesting that the Tochka's don't have the range for it though. When the Ukrainians hit the depot in Belgorod, there was footage out almost immediately of the helicopters that did it. Most sources today do seem to think that this was a missile...
Im not sure if the Ukraine Air Force has any air launched stand-off missile capability.
Actually I've see a couple of OSINT military types say they think the Tochka missiles could have done it after all, if they were close to the border.
Motor Archery Division?
Yes it's MAD isn't it?
Could they be re-using Russian missiles? And would those missiles be accurate enough?
It could of course be internal - either Ukrainian special forces or protesting Russians?
Again, the mystery of some of the actions may only out much later...
I think I'd be more surprised if it was air based attacks, and less surprised if it was teams on the ground sabotaging these facilities
No idea, it’s why I’m asking
I am viewing this through western repair supply chain, and not oil and gas either but telecommunications and automotive. We used to hold just enough spares for a week or two.
Critical spares should be kept at hand. I suppose it depends really on what margins they are running on, what the safety culture is like and ultimately whether they can shut down at all. I can't really see any good reason for so many safety related events to occur so close to each other, stranger things have happened but it does seem to much to be coincidence.
Judging by the Russian military, I cant imagine Russian industry is much better off? Maybe these industrial accidents happen all the time.
Im more inclined to think that poorly run facilities with old/broken/non existent safety systems are pretty easy to destroy either by sabotage or a small strike.
I think I’d be more surprised if it was air based attacks, and less surprised if it was teams on the ground sabotaging these facilities
That's my view but if its the Ukranians launching attacks on Russian territory, by whichever method, the Russians are being very secretive about it. Are they that paranoid about the domestic reaction that they wouldn't use it to justify "we are attacking our neighbours to protect ourselves against their vile Nazi attacks on us"
I'm not following their thinking ( if there is any) whichever way round.
Are they that paranoid about the domestic reaction that they wouldn’t use it to justify “we are attacking our neighbours to protect ourselves against their vile Nazi attacks on us”
I think that's the difficulty. Making out that it's the enemy risks showing the Russian
leadership as impotent.
Not surprising its still going.
Bunsfield took several days to put out including leaving one reignited tank to just burn out.
Wow
if true presumably there is footage somewhere of the targeting
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1518591504499023873
A question - I have just read over my afternoon cuppa that there is fresh long distance artillery and matching freshly trained Ukrainian troops. Laser frikkin' guided as well.
1. Could this be a real game changer - really accurate long distance artillery, that aims direct at the Russian army, instead of the Russian technique of aiming for nearest school/hospital/civilian housing area? Or will Russian plane be able to pick them off?
2. Laser guided - I understand this means pointing a laser at a target to work, and the shells 'steer' themselves onto target. If this is the case, is it an aircraft or drone, or some really brave spotter in amongst enemy to do it?
These things and more apparently:
If this is the case, is it an aircraft or drone, or some really brave spotter in amongst enemy to do it?
Can be any of the above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_designator
The artillery package as a whole will make a big difference. Virtually unlimited 105mm ammo, counter battery radar (to target Russian artillery when it fires), drones and commercial satellite imagery to find targets.
These oil places are inherently big and flammable so must be pretty easy to hit either from range or via sabotage. It’s evidently targeted though and not a barrage of artillery.
The fact Russia is warning the US against supplying these weapons is a big hint they're seen as potentially extremely effective, IMHO
The artillery package as a whole will make a big difference. Virtually unlimited 105mm ammo, counter battery radar (to target Russian artillery when it fires), drones and commercial satellite imagery to find targets.
Fingers crossed then that this can be brought to bear accurately on the Russian artillery and missiles...
