From Anti-Colonialism to Anti-West
Moscow’s New Political Export
The
Sochi gathering of the global movement “For the Freedom of Nations!”, hosted
under the auspices of Russia’s United Russia party, is not just a political
forum. It is the early stage of an attempt to assemble, formalize, and
potentially lead a counter-hegemonic coalition. Publicly, it speaks the
language of anti-colonialism and liberation; strategically, it seeks to build a
bloc that challenges the West’s monopoly over the definition of what is
“legitimate” in politics, economics, and global governance. Russia is betting
that history - if properly contextualized - can be weaponized.
The
ideological narrative is carefully constructed. By branding sanctions,
political pressure, election monitoring, NGO funding, and even diplomatic
criticism as “neo-colonial interference,” Moscow reframes routine instruments
of Western influence as violations of sovereignty and, potentially, as crimes
against humanity. This rhetorical repositioning has several uses. First, it
creates a unifying ideological umbrella for the Global South - one that applies
equally to Venezuela, Mali, Indonesia, and South Africa. Second, it challenges
the claim of Western liberalism to universal validity. And third, it taps
directly into historical memory: with references to Simón Bolívar, Samora
Machel, and other anti-imperialist icons, Moscow dresses a geopolitical project
in the costume of historical justice.
This is
not merely rhetoric. The movement is seeking to leave footprints in
institutions, particularly at the United Nations. The proposal to classify
colonial and neo-colonial practices as crimes against humanity is not symbolic.
If such language formally enters the UN Convention system, it could upend the
legal boundaries of foreign policy by making many Western practices - not only
military interventions, but even election-based political engineering - potentially
prosecutable. The ultimate goal is to reduce the space for
“responsibility-free” pressure, limiting the West’s ability to shape political
outcomes abroad without facing legal or reputational consequences.
China’s
quiet presence adds another layer. The tightening of cooperation between the
Communist Party of China and Russia’s ruling United Russia party is an advanced
form of political synchronization. Russia supplies the ideological framework
and historical legitimacy; China contributes its economic weight,
infrastructure projects, and financial leverage. Together, they can offer the
developing world something the West traditionally monopolized: investment
paired with ideological alignment. In strategic language, Moscow and Beijing
are constructing a hybrid alternative to Euro-Atlantic influence - one that
blends money, messaging, and political alignment.
One
particularly interesting concept from the Sochi forum was “electoral
neo-colonialism.” It goes beyond practices like ballot-stuffing or hacking - those
belong to the realm of traditional fraud. Instead, it targets soft power:
foreign-funded media, curated opposition figures, selective invitations to
international platforms, “acceptable candidates”, and damaging public
diplomacy. In other words, it frames Western-style “democracy promotion” as a
method of political re-colonization, designed not to install democracy - but to
install allies.
This
has sparked uncomfortable reflections in Africa, where many leaders and
political elites have Western degrees, donors, and “fan clubs” abroad. The
debate is now shifting from whether foreign training is “good or bad” to
whether it produces independent leaders - or simply well-educated proxies. The
movement is trying to build a litmus test: not all global connections are
colonial - but some are.
The
movement is not rushing. It emphasizes “small steps” and “institutional
evolution”. The likely future hosts - Algeria, Caracas, Addis Ababa, and
Jakarta - are not randomly chosen. Algeria is the ideological capital of
historical decolonization; Caracas is the symbol of resistance under sanctions;
Addis Ababa hosts the African Union; Jakarta is an anchor of ASEAN and the
Indo-Pacific. Hosting the movement in these capitals would help project it as
broader, indigenous, and decentralized - not just a Russian initiative with
foreign guests.
In
essence, Russia is attempting to turn anti-colonialism from a talking point
into a geopolitical platform. The message is designed to resonate: the era of
ideological monopolies - whether colonial or liberal - is over. Sovereignty, in
this new framework, means not only governing one’s own territory, but also
governing one’s own ideology, political process, and information space.
The
real question, of course, is whether it becomes a bloc or merely remains a
rhetorical club. But that will not be decided in Sochi - or even in Moscow. It
will depend on whether the Global South is ready to stop listening, and start
speaking.
