Yes and no... Colonisation as a whole - at least insofar as territorial expansion - is something every imperial power is guilty of and the Russian Empire very much so and hence, their control of everything from Germany to Canada in the 19th Century... Also explains why Russia continues to have let's say issues along their borders with the likes of Poland, Western Ukraine, the Caucasus etc. because of the ongoing bitterness from said expansionism
The Russian Empire also had limitations financially and logistically in the 19th Century and hence, for example, selling Alaska to the US for like $7 million
With regard to Africa, I do recall the Russian Empire having good relations with Ethiopia in relation to their fight against colonialism against Italy(?) and the fact that the majority of Ethiopians are Orthodox Christians probably endeared them to the Tsar
The USSR is a different story... They didn't see themselves as an empire in the traditional sense but rather the head of a movement, an ideology, to free people from imperialist exploitation and that had a particular draw in Africa... For example, Patrice Lumumba was the first PM of Congo who was assassinated with the connivance of the Belgians and CIA was lionised in the USSR
As for electoral interference, that is something else and all major powers do it --> see the abovementioned Mr Lumumba
Your take on Lumumba is a bit skewed. 1960 - middle of the cold war and like most independence movements - one tribe went to the west and one to the east. And more importantly, the Katanga had Belgian support.
You come at these things from an educated perspective that I appreciate but if we're going to consistently roll out actions from 50+ years ago as justification for what is done today, you're taking the politicians excuse route rather than the peoples view. Which, unless I'm sorely mistaken, is the complete antithesis of communism. If you want to go down that path, shall we put the Holodomor on the table? Just that alone should be a good enough reason for the Ukrainians to tell Russia to fck off if your yardstick is to be used.
The ukrainian people wanted better connections to Europe. They voted in a leader who promised that and he went the opposite route. That started Maidan. And from there, Russia has militarily decided to inflict pain on the Ukraine people. No matter how you cut this, the Ukraine people made a choice. Russia didn't like that choice and started to kill Ukrainians. And if this was the choice of the Russian people, fair play, but Putin is President forever. Hard to take a totalitarian regime seriously in terms of doing good for its own people. Its not like we're talking Brunei for example.
And to use your own words, Russia has trillions in natural resources. The west does not. So why is Russia interfering with African politics? Obviously not for resources. To stop the wests access to those resources. And the big difference is if the west accesses those resources, there is chance the quality of life for the average Niger improves. And before you respond, I agree, its only a chance. Much more of a chance than if the Russians access those resources. Why? They don't need them. Its all about creating new oligarchs loyal to Putin and screwing with the West.
And what makes this particularly disgraceful is the Sahel is likely to be one of the most impacted parts of the world with climate change. Desertification is already causing chaos. Stability is required. Niger was one of the most stable countries in the Sahel and had the greatest chance of getting through the next 20-30 years with some semblance of a country. Not now - thanks to money pocketing and geo politicking. And it will be the average Niger that will suffer. Again - how does this play into the principles of communism?
