[Political Interest]

Most of the communist parties in Europe were against colonialism. During the period when European powers gave up their colonies it was the communist parties that often championed this process. In both France and the UK the communist parties support decolonisation.

Why in the USSR was there not this move for non-Russian parts of the Russian Empire? For example, why were Islamic Central Asia and the Caucasus not granted independence?

How did communists rationalise this difference. Was it born out of ideological sincerity or more strategic considerations?

[Crantag]

Seems like more strategic consideration to me. Much of the anti-colonial considerations also had to do with strategic considerations, from my perspective. Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' thesis emphasizes this, which was first elaborated in 'Results and Prospects' after the October Revolution in 1905. Basically the idea that in order for week countries to overthrow the yoke of the West, a global 'permanent revolution' was needed. Further, rather than revolutions being normally tenable in Western countries, where the reactionary forces were too powerful, it was more possible in relatively politically backward countries.

That doesn't really get to the question directly, from an ideological standpoint perhaps the holding on to the territories was justified as necessary. I tend to think it was also justified ideologically as being of a different brand from Western imperialism.

I also always found Russia's falling out with China interesting. Here are two huge and powerful countries which share a very long boarder. They were initially close, but fell out and China's development suffered as a result. By some accounts, this falling out had very significant implications for the Great Leap Forward.

It seems like it was China's resistance of Russian influence which also was to a fair extent responsible for the falling out. The other countries of the former USSR didn't have the sort of power to resist. China's resistance wasn't without consequence, obviously.

It's just good old power and politics, really, in my opinion. It's strategic considerations. After all, the Russians wouldn't want the Western imperialists in the affairs of their neighbors. That's still how it is now. Look at South Ossetia. Look at Ukraine.

[SolarCross]

Most of the communist parties in Europe were against colonialism. During the period when European powers gave up their colonies it was the communist parties that often championed this process. In both France and the UK the communist parties support decolonisation.

Why in the USSR was there not this move for non-Russian parts of the Russian Empire? For example, why were Islamic Central Asia and the Caucasus not granted independence?

How did communists rationalise this difference. Was it born out of ideological sincerity or more strategic considerations?

It is not hard to understand at all, because every fervent imperialist is as equally a fervent anti-imperialist when it comes to rival and enemy empires. The communists of europe are true patriots of the USSR and enemies of everyone else so like any patriotic imperialist they are in favour of their own empire's expansion and in favour of their enemies decline and retreat. It is tempting to call this treachery but it is not; they just chose different, albeit foreign, lords to serve. They should all have been sent back to their true homeland of course, there is no sense in letting your enemies run around inside the gates.