U.S. and Russia: Colonial Past and Present

When comparing his mission to that of Peter the Great in history, President Vladimir Putin has given rise to claims that Russia's policy is aggressive.

Moscow political analysts explain Putin's mission as a response to the expansionist policy of the U.S.

Below we will try to clarify how grounded the Russian claims are.

It should be emphasized that the modern continental territory of the United States was formed in the 19th century. Since the end of the 19th century the US expansion covered the Caribbean Atlantic, islands and archipelagos of the Pacific. At that time some of these islands were out of the jurisdiction of other states. Others came into the possession of the United States as a result of wars, and some were bought back from their owners. Below is a list of these territories:

Guanan Islands

Hawaiian Islands

Spanish colonies - Guam, the Philippines.

Cuba, Puerto Rico

American Samoa Islands

Panama Canal Zone

Virgin Islands

Japanese Ryukyu Islands

South Pacific Mandate

Corn Islands

As is evident, there are no independent countries in the list above whose sovereignty has been encroached upon by the United States. Apart from Cuba and the Philippines, there are no such significant territories. These are mostly small island territories, the seizure of which did not bring tension to international relations of the great powers. It should be remembered that most of these territories gained independence quickly without any wars. In other words, the United States did not prevent the acquisition of sovereignty to territories under their administration. From this list, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, a small part of the Guanan and the Virgin Islands remained under U.S. administration. The rest formed as independent states. Puerto Rico wants to become the 51st state; however, Washington does not agree. It is hard to imagine that the Kremlin can give up a territory that wants to become an integral part of the Russian Federation.

As distinct from the United States, Russia has always hindered the independence of its colonies and, whenever possible, held or returned them by force. In the 1920s, Bolshevik Russia strengthened and began occupying the independent countries formed after the collapse of the Russian Empire.

Americans participated in the World War I and were among the winners, but unlike Britain and France, did not participate in sharing lands and colonies of the defeated countries.

The same thing happened at the end of World War II.  The USSR emerged from the war with territorial gains in Western Ukraine, the Baltics, Bessarabia, and East Prussia (Kaliningrad). A little earlier, a part of Finland had been annexed. Besides, the Kremlin made all Eastern European countries its satellites. Moreover, all the countries that had been liberated with the participation of American servicemen, unlike Eastern European countries, became fully independent, so they sometimes conducted anti-American policy, for example France.

Unlike Russia, the United States returned the Ryukyu Islands to Japan for political reasons in the 1970s. It is worth reminding that 98 islands stretching for 1,200 km along the border with Taiwan and are a strategically important area for Washington. The islands of the South Pacific Mandate, passed to the Americans from Japan as a result of World War II, transformed into four new states.

And the Russians are still not returning the four small islands of the Kuril Ridge. Readers can compare the two cases themselves and evaluate the aggressiveness.

The United States is capable of annexing any country on the American continent. Hardly any country in the world could prevent this. The continent is washed by the ocean, and there is no country with such a powerful navy, which could help the state subjected to aggression. The Russians themselves have constantly told the Americans: "You have your own zone, do what you want there, but in Eurasia leave us. As we can see, the U.S. did not take advantage of this offer.

Looking back at events in Venezuela a few years ago, the country, which ranks first in the world in terms of oil reserves, is of strategic importance to U.S. national interests, where millions of people came out in rallies demanding a change of power. The rallies were led by a member of the parliament, pro-American politician Juan Guaido. The politician had the support of the European Union and neighboring countries. But despite the pressure from the opposition, the government withstood the onslaught and held out. The United States could, by using armed forces, create rebel zones (something like the DNR) under the control of the opposition. But they did not go for it, thus showing their respect for the people's choice.

On the border with the U.S. is a country populated mainly by Anglo-Saxons-Canada. Like the U.S., a former British colony, inferior to the U.S. in population, economy and armed forces, like the Ukraine of the Russian Federation. However, it does not occur to the Americans under any sauce to start the procedure of annexation of Canada to the States.

According to the Russians, it was the U.S. that pitted Ukraine against Russia, bringing the situation to war in order to relax Russia. Well, if it is so easy to carry out such agitation among Ukrainians, then why don't the Russians respond asymmetrically by pitting Canada against the U.S.? This is possible only in one case, if the U.S. had aggressive intentions against Canada. If Russia did not pursue an aggressive policy against Ukraine, then Kiev would not seek military rapprochement with the West and confrontation with Russia.

The most common Russian trend is the bombing of Yugoslavia. But the Americans did not install a pro-American government in Belgrade. Serbia has not become an anti-Russian country. Belgrade has very warm relations with Moscow at the moment. Serbia has not joined the anti-Russian sanctions. Consequently, the NATO operation was actually carried out to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe resulting from the breakup of Yugoslavia. Having solved this problem, the Americans did not limit the sovereignty of post-Titov Serbia.

The U.S., as a former colony that gained its independence through a terrible war, is inherently respectful of the sovereignty of other countries. The aggressive nature of the United States can be seen by those forces that are prevented by America from pursuing its aggressive plans.