This is a very good article for a Western reader. As for the residents of post-Soviet and post-pro-Soviet countries, they are well aware of all this since Soviet times (although today there are many young people here who are fascinated by pro-American and pro-English propaganda about "fair competition" and "spreading democracy").
In Soviet political discourse, the modern form of colonialism was called "neocolonialism." This concept was worked out in some detail and was obvious to all people in the USSR, starting almost from kindergarten age. At the same time, instead of the old concept of "colonies", the concepts of "semi-colonies" and also "dependent countries" were used.
Apologets of capitalism as an effective economic system often forget that the prosperity of the developed capitalist countries is largely based on the plunder of colonies and the use of slave labor. These things arose before capitalism, continue under capitalism and continue to be generated by capitalism, although they are not purely capitalist. At the same time, "purely capitalist" countries (which, moreover, are often de facto semi-colonies) are usually poor and undeveloped.
"It is this status — as subjugated producers of raw materials forced into an unequal relationship — that we associate with colonialism and empire."
This is what it was in post-Soviet Russia in the first 10 years. Now a strong dependence remains, but it is only partial.
By the way, it is interesting that the manifestations of American neo-colonialism are not always obvious, since dependent countries can sometimes have a thriving economy (and even pursue a neo-colonial policy towards third countries themselves), such as Japan, South Korea and the EU countries. For example, Germany and Japan are in fact still under American occupation: a large number of American military forces are located on their territory, despite the fact that they (at least Germany) are not threatened today.
"For instance, I don’t think the invasion of Afghanistan really had much to do with colonialism."
"But there was just nothing there of value to gain"
The invasion of Afghanistan was important for controlling the production and sale of drugs. This is a colossal market. Since 2001, when the United States and NATO came to Afghanistan, drug production has grown from 200 to 9,000 tons per year, that is, 45 times.
"The war in Iraq turned into such a disaster that any gains were lost an tremendously expensive military occupation."
This fact may indicate not only the ineffectiveness of decision-making by the US leadership, but also that the American state itself today is in the hands of transnational corporations playing their game.
