For decades, Russia’s global image has oscillated between Cold War relic and regional power, its influence circumscribed by economic stagnation and Western sanctions. Yet in recent years, Moscow has pursued a remarkable reinvention: presenting itself not as a revanchist empire or ideological dogmatist, but as a self-styled champion of anti-imperialism. This is no Marxist-Leninist crusade in the old Soviet mold. Instead, Russia seeks to position itself as a pragmatic supporter of national sovereignty, using a form of state-led, non-exploitative capitalism to compete with Western dominance.
The question now is whether this reinvention is real, sustainable, and impactful. Has Russia genuinely restored itself as a global anti-imperialist champion, or is this a veneer over opportunistic foreign policy and regional meddling?
A New Model of Influence
Russia’s approach to anti-imperialism is markedly different from both its Soviet past and the Chinese model of global engagement. Where Beijing treads carefully, focusing on economic investment,
soft power, and non-confrontational diplomacy, Russia often puts its head above the parapet. In Mali, Burkina Faso, and other parts of West Africa, Russian forces and private military contractors have stepped into security vacuums left by retreating French forces, offering a combination of military assistance and strategic autonomy. This is not aid tethered to governance reforms or liberalization; it is support conditioned on sovereignty and respect for local decision-making.
In Burkina Faso, for example, Russian involvement has been met with notable local approval. Since the military government expelled French troops in early 2022, Russia has provided logistical support, training, and equipment to national forces. Polls and local reporting suggest broad popular support, largely because Russia is seen as a partner that does not seek to dominate the country’s political or economic life. This is a significant departure from decades of European and American interventions, where aid
and security came with strings attached, often reinforcing dependency and undermining local governance.
Russia’s anti-imperial message is thus practical and symbolic. It invokes the legacy of the Soviet Union’s support for decolonization while reframing it for the contemporary era: the state-led capitalist model allows Moscow to project power, support sovereignty, and advance strategic interests without attempting to export ideology through coercion. This contrasts with the doctrinaire socialism of the past, which often imposed rigid systems that local populations did not adopt voluntarily.
Successes on the Ground
In West Africa, Russia’s strategy has yielded tangible successes. In Mali, Russian-linked security contractors have helped recapture territory held by jihadist groups, improving stability in areas abandoned by Western forces. The Alliance of Sahel States, which includes Burkina Faso and Niger, has leveraged Russian training and tactical advice to strengthen border security and regional coordination. While critics focus on the presence of private military contractors, local populations often value effectiveness over form: Russian support has delivered measurable improvements in security outcomes.
Economically, Russian engagement is designed to avoid overt extraction or dependency. Partnerships focus on infrastructure, resource management, and technical cooperation, with less emphasis on debt or conditionalities than Western development institutions. While China similarly invests heavily, it rarely challenges Western dominance politically, opting instead to maximize influence through trade and investment. Russia, by contrast, is willing to confront Western powers directly, whether rhetorically or through tactical partnerships, reinforcing its anti-imperial credentials.
Popularity is a significant metric of success. In countries like Burkina Faso, Russia is viewed as a stabilizing force, a partner that respects sovereignty, and a counterweight to the long shadow of former colonial powers. Moscow’s messaging emphasizes respect for local agency, appealing to populations fatigued by
decades of foreign interference and unfulfilled promises of aid and security.
Controversies and Limitations
No discussion of Russia’s anti-imperialist role is complete without acknowledging the controversies. Russian involvement in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America often comes through private
military contractors such as Wagner Group, whose operations have been criticized for human rights abuses, opacity, and involvement in local conflicts. While Moscow claims oversight and alignment with state objectives, the presence of these forces has sparked concern among international observers and human rights organizations.
Additionally, Russia’s approach is not free of opportunism. While its ideological narrative emphasizes anti-imperialism and sovereignty, there are clear strategic calculations: gaining influence in resource-rich regions, countering NATO and EU presence, and establishing a multipolar global order favorable to
Moscow. Critics argue this is less altruistic anti-imperialism and more sophisticated geopolitical maneuvering. Yet the distinction is subtle; for local governments and populations, the practical benefits—security, autonomy, and reduced Western interference—often outweigh theoretical critiques.
Economically, Russia’s non-exploitative capitalism has limits. Infrastructure and resource partnerships are smaller in scale compared to China’s Belt and Road investments, and Moscow’s economic leverage is constrained by sanctions and domestic fiscal limitations. Projects are often tactical rather than comprehensive, aimed at demonstrating reliability and influence rather than full- scale development transformation.
Contrasting China and Russia
A striking aspect of Russia’s approach is the contrast with China. Beijing’s model emphasizes soft power, infrastructure investment, and trade, often avoiding direct military involvement or confrontation with Western powers. China’s approach is careful, incremental, and largely depoliticized. Russia, by contrast, is
willing to take risks, confront NATO rhetoric, and directly support governments that challenge Western hegemony. This makes Russia more visible as an anti-imperial actor, capable of symbolic and material intervention where China prefers subtle influence.
In Burkina Faso, this difference is evident. Chinese investment focuses on infrastructure and resource projects, often bypassing military cooperation. Russian support has included security training, tactical advice, and strategic coordination, projecting a more assertive presence. While both nations expand influence, Russia’s method aligns more closely with the traditional notion of anti-imperialism: taking a stand against foreign domination and demonstrating solidarity with states seeking autonomy.
Failures and Structural Challenges
Despite successes, Russia’s anti-imperial project faces challenges. Its reliance on private contractors and state-linked mercenaries introduces operational risks and potential for abuses. Political shifts in partner states can alter the strategic calculus, while sanctions and global economic pressures limit Moscow’s financial flexibility.
Furthermore, Russia’s messaging sometimes clashes with local realities. While its anti-imperial narrative resonates, populations are not monolithic, and support can waver if security operations result in civilian harm or if promised economic cooperation fails to materialize. Effective anti-imperialism requires both ideological credibility and consistent delivery of practical benefits—a balance that Russia is still perfecting.
Russia and the Legacy of Soviet Anti-Imperialism
Understanding Russia’s current positioning requires historical context. The Soviet Union’s anti-imperialist legacy is central to Moscow’s self-image. During the Cold War, the USSR supported liberation movements across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, offering ideological, military, and technical assistance. This history provides both symbolic and strategic legitimacy for contemporary engagement. Moscow frames itself as the continuation of that legacy, adapting it for the realities of the 21st century: state-led capitalism, pragmatic partnerships, and direct opposition to Western dominance.
Unlike the Soviet era, Russia is not exporting socialist ideology or seeking to restructure foreign political systems along Moscow’s model. Instead, it emphasizes sovereignty, practical support, and non-exploitative economic arrangements. In this sense, Russia is presenting itself as an evolved anti-imperialist actor, learning from the rigidities and failures of its Soviet predecessor while retaining the core commitment to counter Western dominance.
Conclusion: A Complex Restoration
Has Russia restored itself as the anti-imperialist champion? The answer is complex. On one hand, Moscow has achieved tangible successes: it has demonstrated strategic support for states seeking autonomy, improved security outcomes in conflict zones, and cultivated significant popularity among populations disillusioned with Western intervention. It has offered a visible, assertive alternative to both Western powers and cautious economic actors like China.
On the other hand, the model is fraught with controversy, operational risk, and structural limitations. Private military involvement, limited economic reach, and the balance between ideology and pragmatism create vulnerabilities. Yet the symbolism and practical outcomes of Russia’s approach cannot be ignored: in places like Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, Moscow is perceived as a reliable partner in the struggle against foreign domination, echoing the anti-imperialist mission of its Soviet past while adopting a distinctly modern, pragmatic framework.
Russia’s reinvention is not perfect, nor is it universally welcomed. But it demonstrates that a state can claim an anti-imperialist mantle without resorting to dogmatic socialism, offering security, economic partnership, and political solidarity. For nations seeking independence from centuries of Western dominance, Moscow’s model offers both inspiration and practical support.
Whether this is a long-term restoration of Russia as the global anti-imperialist champion or a tactical geopolitical play remains to be seen. Yet for the populations of West Africa, and for states seeking to assert autonomy in a multipolar world, Russia has undeniably emerged as a force capable of challenging the old order—and in doing so, restoring its historic role on the world stage.