It works the same was in the US. Your taxes pay for the CIA, the CIA overthrows governments for United Fruit, and you buy products from United Fruit. You're paying for bananas twice and they are receiving "security" (wink, wink) for free[1]. Later, CIA high-ups get high-paid sinecures at the United Fruit company, making them the only ones getting compensated for the deployment of the government's resources. Russian citizens are not going to get parcels of land from occupied Ukraine. The soldiers who survive the war aren't going to get mineral rights. Instead of asking, "what are the downsides," a more pertinent question is, "who's getting the upsides?" (It is never you or me.) In practice, at least since the British Empire, wars of imperial expansion have served as another method of transferring resources from the public to a few influential business owners - corruption in so many words, not any different from stealing the funds for a highway.
In the middle ages and earlier, soldiers would be rewarded in the form of titles of nobility, or in the Roman Empire, with land and prisoners of war to use as slaves. If that was a practice anywhere in the world today, perhaps I'd comprehend the argument for war from the pursuit of economic interests. Then, at least, it would be a moral issue - otherwise, as it is today, it's another pretext for the few to steal from the many. That means you.
I don't think that Russians are obliged to act imperialistically, especially to their loss. It's just I don't view the creation of Russian Empire in a bad light - quite contrary, most other historical options would likely been worse, up and until 1917 at least. And as a Russian I believe that Russian Empire is a part of essential legacy of the humankind. Same with USSR despite its tragic and cruel history.
So when I see "Russian imperialism" being thrown around as a casual insult I stop being constructive in response. This is not the right way to discuss histories, and especially you shouldn't try to frame any ethnic and religious group for their history in serious faith.
I see a lot of political zealots doing that kind of slander, not really understanding what they are doing and why.
The British empire cira 1721 was, at least according to the venerable Adam Smith, operating on the modern principle of drafting non-owners into funding and fighting for the security of colonial enterprises they had no stake in. In all likelihood the Russian Empire was the same (it did have North American colonies after all), but I can agree that being the same means treating the adjective Russian as anything but the location is wrong - it's reasonable to speak about Imperialist practices carried out in Russia, not "Imperialism with uniquely Russian characteristics."
That's true, we are more of Russian Empire survivors than heirs. Most of my ancestors are unsurprisingly peasants with serfdom (and then, kolkhoz) background.
Still, if there are any possibilities to "cash out" the paltry benefits of history they went through, Russians will not hesitate to. After all, as you have rightfully noticed, common folk of both Russian and British empires have already paid for it in their sweat and blood.
That's why there should be a better proposition than "badmouth your backwards Russian history and embrace our Pax Americana", especially as we were never cast for any decent roles in the latter. I can see it is good enough for Czechs but we'd pass.
Of course I realize there's a sufficient number of Russians, especially abroad, who have radically different views. Not that it matters much, because as another such Russian's protagonist said, "in this world there's too few people whose desires have any meaning whatsoever"
Its a difficult subject, but it would be worth thinking about what happens to "we," when an aristocrat has made use of their serfs and no longer has need of pikemen.
We're not alone in this - globalized world does not need pikemen and I can see folks complaining about it under any home prices piece on HN. And in Russia where people have few illusions about their government.
Russians also been through the 90's where we were told pikemen should cater to the highest bidder. Since the beginning of the hot war, however, the state has suddenly found itself in need of their population which it has disregarded before.
I imagine the same may happen in EU where these underemployed young males are suddenly treated with good wages if they decide to join the armed forces.
On the other hand, fleeing Russian opposition takes pride in reiterating how they are going to sack all of these pikemen the second they are made a puppet government. That's why their influence is basically nonexistent. Navalny was smarter than that, but the team he gathered is just like that.
It works the same was in the US. Your taxes pay for the CIA, the CIA overthrows governments for United Fruit, and you buy products from United Fruit. You're paying for bananas twice and they are receiving "security" (wink, wink) for free[1]. Later, CIA high-ups get high-paid sinecures at the United Fruit company, making them the only ones getting compensated for the deployment of the government's resources. Russian citizens are not going to get parcels of land from occupied Ukraine. The soldiers who survive the war aren't going to get mineral rights. Instead of asking, "what are the downsides," a more pertinent question is, "who's getting the upsides?" (It is never you or me.) In practice, at least since the British Empire, wars of imperial expansion have served as another method of transferring resources from the public to a few influential business owners - corruption in so many words, not any different from stealing the funds for a highway.
In the middle ages and earlier, soldiers would be rewarded in the form of titles of nobility, or in the Roman Empire, with land and prisoners of war to use as slaves. If that was a practice anywhere in the world today, perhaps I'd comprehend the argument for war from the pursuit of economic interests. Then, at least, it would be a moral issue - otherwise, as it is today, it's another pretext for the few to steal from the many. That means you.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...