The Imperial Paradox: How Historical Empires Lead the Anti-Colonial Global South

The contemporary geopolitical landscape presents a striking contradiction that has received insufficient attention: two of the most prominent leaders of the Global South movement, Russia and China, are themselves historical empires whose current borders were forged through centuries of territorial expansion and conquest.

This paradox raises fundamental questions about the coherence of anti-imperial solidarity in organizations like BRICS, where former colonizers position themselves as champions of the post-colonial world order.

Russia’s transformation from the medieval Principality of Moscow into the world’s largest country represents one of history’s most dramatic imperial expansions. Beginning in the 16th century, Russian forces systematically conquered and absorbed vast territories stretching from the Baltic to the Pacific. This expansion incorporated dozens of distinct peoples from Siberian indigenous groups to Central Asian Muslim populations and often through violent conquest and subsequent cultural assimilation policies.

The Soviet period, while ideologically distinct, continued this imperial pattern under the banner of socialist internationalism. The USSR maintained control over the territories acquired by the Tsarist empire while extending influence throughout Eastern Europe and beyond. Today’s Russian Federation, despite its reduced size, still encompasses over 100 minority ethnic groups across eleven time zones which is a living testament to centuries of imperial expansion.

China’s imperial history follows a similar trajectory. What we now recognize as China emerged through the gradual expansion of Han Chinese civilization, absorbing or conquering neighboring kingdoms, tribes, and territories over more than two millennia. The incorporation of southern China, the westward expansion into Xinjiang, the absorption of Tibet, and the centuries-long process of cultural sinification transformed a collection of diverse regions into a unified empire under Han Chinese hegemony.

Both nations built their modern territorial foundations on the systematic conquest and integration of peoples who often had little choice in the matter and this a process that bears uncomfortable similarities to the European colonial projects that the Global South movement explicitly opposes.

The imperial legacies of Russia and China are not merely historical curiosities. They actively shape contemporary geopolitical behavior in ways that mirror classical imperial expansion. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and its earlier interventions in Georgia, Moldova, and Central Asia reflect what many observers characterize as neo-imperial ambitions. Moscow’s justifications such as protecting ethnic Russians, reclaiming “historically Russian” territories, and establishing spheres of influence, echo the rationales employed by empires throughout history.

China’s approach to Taiwan similarly draws on imperial precedents. Beijing’s claim to the island rests heavily on historical arguments about territorial integrity and the unification of lands that were once part of the Chinese empire. The assertion that Taiwan has been an “inalienable part of China since ancient times” reflects an imperial worldview that prioritizes historical territorial claims over the principles of self-determination that nominally undergird the post-colonial order.

These contemporary territorial ambitions create a fundamental tension within BRICS and broader Global South solidarity.

How can nations actively pursuing what many view as imperial expansion credibly lead a movement ostensibly dedicated to opposing imperialism and colonialism?

The answer lies in understanding that much of the current Global South movement is defined less by genuine anti-imperial principles than by opposition to Western and particularly American, leadership. For Russia and China, adopting anti-colonial rhetoric serves as a convenient tool for challenging the existing international order while deflecting attention from their own imperial characteristics.

This instrumentalization of anti-imperial sentiment allows Moscow and Beijing to position themselves as natural leaders of nations seeking alternatives to Western dominance, regardless of their own relationships with smaller neighbors. The fact that many Global South nations have experienced Russian or Chinese pressure, interference, or territorial disputes becomes secondary to the shared goal of reducing Western influence.

The BRICS framework exemplifies this dynamic. While the organization presents itself as a voice for the developing world against Western imperialism, its dominant members are either historical empires (Russia and China) or regional powers with their own histories of territorial expansion and internal colonization (Brazil and India). Only South Africa fits the profile of a clearly post-colonial state, yet even it grapples with the legacy of internal colonialism.

This imperial paradox within the Global South movement has significant implications for international relations and global governance. It suggests that the current challenge to Western leadership may not represent a genuine transition toward a more equitable, post-imperial world order, but rather a shift toward multipolarity dominated by different major powers.

The danger lies not merely in the hypocrisy of imperial powers leading anti-imperial movements, but in the potential normalization of territorial expansion and coercive behavior toward smaller states. When countries positioning themselves as champions of sovereignty and self-determination simultaneously pursue territorial claims against their neighbors, it undermines the very principles they claim to defend.

Furthermore, this dynamic may weaken the Global South movement’s moral authority and effectiveness. Nations genuinely seeking to escape colonial legacies and build equitable international relationships may find themselves caught between competing major power projects rather than achieving genuine independence and self-determination.

Addressing this imperial paradox requires a more nuanced understanding of contemporary geopolitics that moves beyond simplistic binaries of West versus Global South, or imperial versus post-colonial.

It demands recognition that imperial ambitions and coercive behavior toward smaller states are not exclusively Western phenomena, but patterns that can emerge from any concentration of power.

Until the Global South movement grapples seriously with the imperial legacies and contemporary ambitions of its leading members, it risks becoming merely another vehicle for a majort power competition which will destroy the “rules-based” order which has allowed globalization to lift developing nations economically,

The credibility of any anti-imperial movement ultimately depends on its willingness to apply its principles consistently, regardless of which power seeks to violate them.