Yep, and it will continue to be since it's China's and Russia's territory. Most of the underdeveloped African nations are these days. The west gave up a while ago and often weren't wanted anyway.
Is it though? To me it seems they just took the post/neo colonial playbook and started applying it too. I've never seen a straight comparison of terms for similar investments. In either case, the country ends up loaded with debt it can't repay, and they have to privatise something (or in the case of China, they get the asset?).
I think there are two things I would point to. One is that neither the IMF nor the World Bank are nation states, which makes their predatory lending a little different. The other is that China brought Sri Lanka's economy to the brink of collapse through predatory lending and I don't know that the IMF or the World Bank has gone that far with a nation's economy, but feel free to correct me on that.
I'm not going to claim there's a causal effect, as I don't think the case of Sri Lanka can be attributed solely to debt to China either (Sri Lanka was run by kleptocrats, and had to import a lot of goods and energy, making it vulnerable to external market conditions).
Weren't wanted is an understatement. France and the UK were robbing whole Africa dry. Africa would have been extremely developed by now if their population saw some of the money the west was stealing from them.
Were robbing? France still controls the currency of like 7 or 8 African nations. America gets most of the blame for foreign meddling but the French never stopped colonialism. Fucking assholes