Russia isn’t considered part of the “core” in world systems theory - when labeled as imperialist in this regard, it is often as a heterodox faction. That opposition to the orthodox is why their near-term interests align with other non-core nations (whose interests are generally anti-hegemonic). I believe Russia is generally considered a periphery state based on trade flows.
But the scope of the term is limiting; it doesn’t include all nations that use imperial actions. It’s good for critiquing existing hegemonies, but not necessarily for aspiring hegemonies, which is where I expect you would categorize Russia. Nonetheless anti-hegemonic powers may see advantages in giving critical support to aspiring hegemonies over real ones.
Global south is a category defined by a UN body based on shared characteristics. NZ and Australia are not included. It considers things like development, growth rate, level of income, and quality of life. This is useful because we expect to see countries like the UK and Australia to interact as near-peers, while a country like Guatemala might have a disadvantage at the bargaining table (and less finance-based revenue streams).
The two terms often get used together because the theory and science say, for example, that the imperial core is disproportionately extracting value from the global south.
Are you saying that some countries want to play the superpowers off each other for maximum gain?
I don’t know if they were, but I’d say as much. (With the caveat that sometimes they still end up being the puppets.) I believe they’ll act according to the math, and the math says their interests lie in exploiting while challenging whatever hegemony currently exists. It’s not like they have a chance at being accepted as peers, so I can’t imagine asking them to do otherwise.
Russia isn’t considered part of the “core” in world systems theory - when labeled as imperialist in this regard, it is often as a heterodox faction. That opposition to the orthodox is why their near-term interests align with other non-core nations (whose interests are generally anti-hegemonic). I believe Russia is generally considered a periphery state based on trade flows.
But the scope of the term is limiting; it doesn’t include all nations that use imperial actions. It’s good for critiquing existing hegemonies, but not necessarily for aspiring hegemonies, which is where I expect you would categorize Russia. Nonetheless anti-hegemonic powers may see advantages in giving critical support to aspiring hegemonies over real ones.
Global south is a category defined by a UN body based on shared characteristics. NZ and Australia are not included. It considers things like development, growth rate, level of income, and quality of life. This is useful because we expect to see countries like the UK and Australia to interact as near-peers, while a country like Guatemala might have a disadvantage at the bargaining table (and less finance-based revenue streams).
The two terms often get used together because the theory and science say, for example, that the imperial core is disproportionately extracting value from the global south.
I don’t know if they were, but I’d say as much. (With the caveat that sometimes they still end up being the puppets.) I believe they’ll act according to the math, and the math says their interests lie in exploiting while challenging whatever hegemony currently exists. It’s not like they have a chance at being accepted as peers, so I can’t imagine asking them to do otherwise.