>It’s almost as if you’re being intentionally obtuse. The established term (that I used) is “modern” colonialism - it doesn’t necessarily involve physical colonization, rather systematic external control.

I'll ignore the part where you started off by attacking me and point out: I obviously wasn't saying any of the countries you outlined were LITERALLY colonies, so don't imply I did. Thanks.

>Russia has been tussling with the West for a prolonged period now. Regardless, they are the second largest exporter of oil to the USA. (1)

Right... their entire economy is based on "extractive economies".

>Canada is an American, Western country. Not sure why they would fall under my reasoning, which was specifically about non-Western countries. The USA is the one usually leading this oil-hungry warring - it’s even a meme at this point.

Again, their economy is based on "extractive economies" - Canada is entirely beholden to exporting natural resources to western nations, and they are one of the so-called "western" countries you claim this doesn't happen to.

>Brazil has various issues, most stemming from external influences corrupting the local political powers. Oil is just one of them, they are also coerced to deforest their country for European exports. (2)

So.... a western nation subjected to systematic extraction?