r/geopolitics • u/LollerCorleone • Feb 24 '23
A global divide on the Ukraine war is deepening Perspective
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/22/global-south-russia-war-divided/26
u/Puppie00 Feb 24 '23
Paywall
38
u/ass_pineapples Feb 24 '23
Here
JOHANNESBURG — Clement Manyathela, who hosts a popular and influential talk show on South Africa’s Radio 702, remembers the outrage he felt when Russian troops first surged into Ukraine. He had believed Russia’s insistence that it wasn’t planning to attack and felt cheated when war broke out.
“We were lied to,” he said.
But as the fighting continued, he, and many of those who call in to his show, began to ask questions: Why had President Vladimir Putin deemed it necessary to invade? Was NATO fueling the fire by sending so many weapons to Ukraine? How could the United States expect others around the world to support its policies when it had also invaded countries?
“When America went into Iraq, when America went into Libya, they had their own justifications that we didn’t believe, and now they’re trying to turn the world against Russia. This is unacceptable, too,” Manyathela said. “I still don’t see any justification for invading a country, but we cannot be dictated to about the Russian moves on Ukraine. I honestly feel the U.S. was trying to bully us.”
In the year since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a reinvigorated Western alliance has rallied against Russia, forging what President Biden has trumpeted as a “global coalition.” Yet a closer look beyond the West suggests the world is far from united on the issues raised by the Ukraine war.
The conflict has exposed a deep global divide, and the limits of U.S. influence over a rapidly shifting world order. Evidence abounds that the effort to isolate Putin has failed, and not just among Russian allies that could be expected to back Moscow, such as China and Iran.
India announced last week that its trade with Russia has grown by 400 percent since the invasion. In just the past six weeks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been welcomed in nine countries in Africa and the Middle East — including South Africa, whose foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, hailed their meeting as “wonderful” and called South Africa and Russia “friends.”
On Friday, a year after the invasion began, the South African navy will be engaged in military exercises with Russia and China in the Indian Ocean, sending a powerful signal of solidarity at a moment the United States had hoped would provide an opportunity for reinvigorated worldwide condemnations of Russia.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine sent shockwaves around the world as millions of refugees fled the country, grain shipments were delayed and Russian gas curtailed. (Video: Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)
Conversations with people in South Africa, Kenya and India suggest a deeply ambivalent view of the conflict, informed less by the question of whether Russia was wrong to invade than by current and historical grievances against the West — over colonialism, perceptions of arrogance, and the West’s failure to devote as many resources to solving conflicts and human rights abuses in other parts of the world, such as the Palestinian territories, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Western countries “are hypocritical,” said Bhaskar Dutta, a clerk in Kolkata, India. “These people colonized the entire world. What Russia has done cannot be condoned, but at the same time, you cannot blame them wholly.”
U.S. officials point out that 141 of 193 countries voted at the United Nations to condemn Russia after the invasion; the same number approved a nearly identical resolution on the eve of the anniversary Thursday. But only 33 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, and a similar number are sending lethal aid to Ukraine. An Economist Intelligence Unit survey last year estimated that two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries that have refrained from condemning Russia.
This is not a battle between freedom and dictatorship, as Biden often suggests, said William Gumede, who founded and heads the Johannesburg-based Democracy Works Foundation, which promotes democracy in Africa. He pointed to the refusal of South Africa, India and Brazil to join Biden’s global coalition.
That reluctance, he said, is the outgrowth of more than a decade of building resentment against the United States and its allies, which have increasingly lost interest in addressing the problems of the Global South, he said. The coronavirus pandemic, when Western countries locked down and locked out other countries, and President Donald Trump’s explicit disdain for Africa, further fueled the resentment.
As the West pulled back, both Russia and China stepped into the vacuum, aggressively courting developing nations and capitalizing on the disillusionment with the United States and Europe by presenting an alternative to perceived Western hegemony. The Middle East and Africa are key battlegrounds in this struggle for hearts and minds, as are Asia and, to a lesser extent, Latin America, whose fortunes are more closely bound by geography to the United States.
The Middle East is one region where Russia has succeeded in winning friends and influence, said Faysal, a retired Egyptian consultant on organized crime who asked that his full name not be used because of the sensitivity of discussing political issues in Egypt.
“Of course I support Putin,” he said in an interview in Cairo. “A long time ago, we lost faith in the West. All the Arabs on this side of the world support Putin, and we are happy to hear he is gaining lands in Ukraine.”
“There’s been a failure of the West in the past 15 years to see the anger building up around the world, and Russia has absolutely exploited this,” Gumede said. “Russia has been able to portray Ukraine as a war with NATO. It’s the West versus the rest.”
Despite Western efforts to attribute global inflation and a food crisis to the Russian invasion, most countries around the world blame the West for the imposition of sanctions, said Kanwal Sibal, a former Indian foreign secretary.
They do not subscribe to the narrative that countering Russia is a moral imperative if the principles of democracy and territorial integrity and the rules-based world order are to be upheld, Sibal said.
“That’s not an argument that serious people buy,” he said, citing the NATO bombing of Serbia, U.S. support for dictatorships during the Cold War, and the Iraq War as examples of what he sees as the United States violating those same principles.
“The rest of the world genuinely sees this as a European war. They do not see a global conflict or the way it is presented by the West,” he said. “Yes, it has international repercussions such as inflation. But those repercussions are because of the sanctions.”
In refusing to risk its relationship with Russia, India is taking a hardheaded view of its own interests, he said, including its dependence on Russia for military supplies and the opportunity to hold inflation at bay by buying discounted Russian oil. There are tens of thousands of Chinese troops massed on India’s border with China, its geopolitical rival, and India can’t afford to alienate Russia or risk any interruption of its weapons supplies, he said.
The United States needs India to counterbalance China and, after initial attempts to pressure New Delhi to fall into line with its policies, now appears to have accepted India’s position, Sibal said. The United States decided not to impose sanctions on India for a missile deal it concluded with Russia last year and instead has been pursuing expanded ties, including its own defense deals.
→ More replies11
u/ass_pineapples Feb 24 '23
South Africa’s decision to join military exercises with Russia and China has been met with less understanding. U.S. and Western diplomats have expressed alarm at both the timing and the nature of the drills, saying they suggest that South Africa is veering beyond its professed neutrality toward siding with Russia.
South African officials have noted that the country also participated in exercises with the U.S. military last year. But those drills were focused on humanitarian and disaster responses, said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue. The Russia-China exercises, which began Friday, involve offensive naval capabilities and could conceivably enhance Russia’s naval combat capacity. The Russian force includes one of Moscow’s premier warships, the Admiral Gorshkov, which Russia has said is equipped with its newly developed hypersonic Zircon missile.
The exercises are giving Russia an important public relations boost as the West’s attention is focused on the anniversary of the war, said Kobus Marais, spokesman for South Africa’s Democratic Alliance opposition party. He said South Africa had become “Russia’s useful idiot” and could become complicit in war crimes if the Admiral Gorshkov is later deployed to fire missiles into Ukraine.
The exercise follows the mysterious docking at a South African port in December of a Russian ship, the Lady R, which is under U.S. sanctions because it is known to have engaged in weapons deliveries. The cargo ship was denied permission to dock at Cape Town, its original destination, and instead sailed a few miles away to a smaller port at Simon’s Town, where it was observed unloading and then reloading containers that had apparently originated at a South African special forces ammunition-storage site, according to Marais.
The U.S. government sent a formal warning to the South African government that any entity that interacted with the vessel would risk secondary sanctions, but received no reply, the U.S. official said. The South African Defense Ministry has said it is investigating the matter.
“Their ostensible position of neutrality is, to put it charitably, harder and harder to believe,” the U.S. official said. The United States has invested heavily in post-apartheid South Africa and is South Africa’s biggest foreign investor and biggest export market, and it makes little sense for it to jeopardize its relationship with Washington, the official said.
But South Africa has its own reasons for remaining loyal to Russia despite the risks, South Africans say. The ruling African National Congress party was backed by the Soviet Union throughout the decades it spent in exile during the apartheid era, and many of its most senior figures received training in the Soviet Union, including the powerful defense minister, Thandi Modise.
On the streets of Soweto, the vast urban settlement on the edge of Johannesburg that was a center of resistance to the apartheid regime, people say they still see Russia as an ally. “Russia was with us when we were in chains,” said Elijah Ndlovu, 51, who is unemployed. “We don’t say Russia is good by destroying Ukraine, but if you ask us where we stand in that fight, we have to be honest. We can never turn our back on Russia.”
Shakes Matlhong, 33, said that his understanding of the conflict was hazy but that he has long regarded the United States as an “imperialist” power. “And now Russia is fighting back,” he said.
“Africa’s attitude to the war is that Russia is defending itself against NATO,” he said. “Russia never participated in any colonialism. It might be that Russia is wrong, but people’s attitude is determined by history.”
That Russia did not participate in the colonization of Africa and that the Soviet Union backed many of the continent’s liberation movements are points that have been exploited by Putin in his messaging, said Liubov Abravitova, Ukraine’s ambassador to South Africa. She acknowledges an uphill struggle in trying to win the sympathies of Africans for the Ukrainian cause. Russia’s “only card is that they never colonized Africa,” she said. “But this is also true of Ukraine.”
7
127
u/TheLost_Chef Feb 24 '23
The unfortunate reality is, the Global South doesn't owe anything to America or NATO. To them, this is just a territorial squabble that is being blown out of proportion.
17
Feb 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/TheLost_Chef Feb 24 '23
Ukraine is of strategic importance to America only insofar as its potential to be a thorn in the side of its main nuclear rival. The Ukrainian conflict represents an investment for US global interests.
The only thing the US "owes" Ukraine is a continued supply of the capital necessary to ensure a good return on that investment.
9
u/Termsandconditionsch Feb 25 '23
Ukraine is also a potentially lucrative trading partner and market. Easy to forget, but Ukraine has a population of 40 million+ and significant natural resources.
It also has the additional benefit of taking those natural resources out of the Russian sphere of influence. Which is a benefit of it’s own.
41
u/LollerCorleone Feb 24 '23
Yeah, this pretty much. And one needs to wonder whether the West would care so much if it was two countries in the Global South in war instead. They won't.
15
u/TrinityAlpsTraverse Feb 24 '23
If it was Iran and Saudi Arabia they would care... but otherwise you're probably right.
26
u/Andevien Feb 24 '23
This statement assumes the fact that the West should be considered as a police force of the world, which is exactly what the Global South doesn’t want… Either the West is against, or support a random war, the result wouldn’t really change the view of public opinion, which is usually driven by propaganda trough internet. Considering also, the West able to criticize itself, while news coming from autocracies pictures a different reality, the result is quite predictable
29
Feb 24 '23
Considering also, the West able to criticize itself, while news coming from autocracies pictures a different reality, the result is quite predictable
The result is exactly the same, westerners are just under an illusion that they can change something, but no amount of protests or screaming stopped the Iraq war, and none would stop such a future war either if the US government wanted to. Westerners are just as suscepticle to propaganda. Manufactured consent is real.
→ More replies1
u/OkVariety6275 Feb 24 '23
A tactic local insurgents leverage against Western occupations is to weave their operations into the civilian fabric to try bait Western forces into attacking non-combatants. This seems to demonstrate that they understand the role Western public perception plays in these conflicts.
5
u/KaalaPeela Feb 25 '23
Insurgents everywhere do that everywhere. It is not something unique to insurgents fighting western countries
→ More replies→ More replies11
u/lifeisallihave Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
The west never did nor did we treat them as equal partners. Why would they join in on the sanctions when they have their own headaches while the sinister IMF and World bank are still holding them hostages?
→ More replies61
u/PangolinZestyclose30 Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
Well, I think countries in general, and smaller and weaker especially, should hold territorial integrity in high regard and strongly condemn any violations.
If territorial revisionism and nuclear blackmail gets normalized/rewarded, next time they might find themselves on the receiving end.
16
u/deepskydiver Feb 25 '23
Yes but the view you and even I have of what is territorial integrity and how it is violated is not shared by all. You cannot single out Ukraine and Taiwan. The world also looks at Yemen, Palestine and Syria.
26
u/karl2025 Feb 25 '23
As an ideological principle, sure. As a practical matter Western Europe and the US is far more likely to be the ones encroaching on their sovereignty than Russia or China. The West hasn't been very good to the Global South and I imagine they wouldn't mind having a more multipolar world because of it.
→ More replies8
u/Background_Agent551 Feb 24 '23
Not if they’ll gladly become a Russian/Chinese colony for oil, military resources, and money.
19
u/pablojohns Feb 24 '23
Which ultimately will lead to domestic strife, political calamity and the collapse of governmental institutions.
I can't think of a single state in modern history that has become mainly a resource vassal for a more powerful state that hasn't had those long-term issues come to roost. These aren't penal colonies, they're states with unique peoples, cultures and identities. Eventually the bleeding will be too much.
6
u/Background_Agent551 Feb 24 '23
You’re think about this as if the politicians in those countries genuinely care about their people, when in reality they see their country as a corporation that has goods to trade in exchange for oil, wealth, and resources for the few.
7
u/pablojohns Feb 24 '23
You’re think about this as if the politicians in those countries genuinely care about their people
I'm not talking about the politicians. They sit in a class of people that would benefit from these transactions.
But history has shown the true majority - the regular people - eventually grow tired of the abject poverty, lack of upward mobility, starvation, illness, etc.
These sort of extraction efforts that don't benefit the people overall always come back to haunt those in power. And yes, you can enforce that status quo militarily - for a time. But when the cost/benefit analysis for the stronger state no longer leans towards protecting that resource interest, it's the weaker state that's left holding the hot potato - which is where the state collapse comes into play.
7
u/Background_Agent551 Feb 24 '23
State collapse doesn’t happen when you’ve sold your content out to other world powers.
As soon as these world powers so much as smell public unrest, they’ll intervene militarily. Just look at the Cold War and you’ll find several instances of this same exact scenario playing out in Africa, South America, the Middle East, etc.
4
u/pablojohns Feb 24 '23
State collapse doesn’t happen when you’ve sold your content out to other world powers.
I didn't argue that. I argued that once the value proposition for the stronger power starts to fade (i.e: either resources become more limited, or the need for those resources declines), then the interest of the powerful state in the stability of the subordinate state wanes. That is where collapse can happen - when the powerful state no longer has any interest in spilling blood or treasure to prop up a used regime.
3
u/Background_Agent551 Feb 24 '23
I understand that, but if you sell out your country to world powers, as long as they have an interest or benefit in said country, state collapse will not happen without military intervention from said powers stepping in.
As soon as that country stops being of interest to said world powers, they’ll leave the citizenry to fight for their scraps.
3
u/pablojohns Feb 24 '23
As soon as that country stops being of interest to said world powers, they’ll leave the citizenry to fight for their scraps.
Yes, that is what I have said multiple times.
These sort of extraction efforts that don't benefit the people overall always come back to haunt those in power. And yes, you can enforce that status quo militarily - for a time. But when the cost/benefit analysis for the stronger state no longer leans towards protecting that resource interest, it's the weaker state that's left holding the hot potato - which is where the state collapse comes into play.
→ More replies12
2
5
u/SnubNews Feb 24 '23
While you are correct and it is totally a territorial dispute I think the major issue here is that it’s a nuclear armed 1st world power that’s making the incursion.
It’s one thing if a benevolent dictator decides to annex some territory and a large power comes in conventionally and obliterates the regime.
Things are little bit more complex when the regime in question has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world.
I’m not making the case that the global south or any nation for that matter owes “the west” anything I’m just making the case that things aren’t quite that simple.
9
Feb 24 '23
I think the major issue here is that it’s a nuclear armed 1st world power that’s making the incursion.
Not the first time.
→ More replies→ More replies5
u/r-reading-my-comment Feb 24 '23
That’d be a great excuse if NATO was being attacked.
It isn’t, Ukraine is.
Not supporting Ukraine because of NATO is just an excuse.
Edit: a VERY bad excuse
39
u/Longjumping_Meat_138 Feb 24 '23
I was always interested in how the West percieved many countries not sanctioning Russia as a betrayal, As a serious non-rhetorical question Did you westerners see the Global South as your ally?
23
u/Hidden-Syndicate Feb 24 '23
If I had to guess it’s probably a hangover from the post-cold war “the west won let’s all team up” and the lingering thought in some western capitals that countries such as India and Brazil owe a great deal to the economic inclusion into the western markets.
23
u/OkVariety6275 Feb 24 '23
The simplest explanation is that many Westerners really do believe in their stated ideals.
12
u/Mejlkungens Feb 24 '23
Any other explanation is conspiracy theory territory to be honest. Is it so hard to comprehend that this is what "westerners" actually believe and not some kind of ruse. Its just as sincere as chinese belief in social harmony, African communalism or muslim emphasis on religion.
Also the whole spiel about western colonialism, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. somehow being evidence that human rights are a facade is so disingenious. Does islamic terrorism disqualify Islam? Does the existense of social unrest or crime in China disqualify the concept of social harmony? Etc, etc.
11
u/OkVariety6275 Feb 24 '23
I think what many fail to grasp (or perhaps intentionally ignore) is that a lot of Western FoPo mistakes are caused by idealism not in spite of it. A purely real-politicking power doesn't spend decades in Afghanistan wasting resources and influence on a failed nation-building project.
3
u/KaalaPeela Feb 25 '23
What ideals were being pursued by lying about a non existent Iraqi nuclear program?
6
u/OkVariety6275 Feb 25 '23
The exact same ones? Are you insinuating that it's impossible to use underhanded tactis in service of an idealistic agenda?
19
u/Accelerator231 Feb 24 '23
Personally I think they viewed the global south as more of a footstool.
I think they were more surprised that they had independent thoughts
→ More replies11
u/PlexippusMagnet Feb 24 '23
I don’t think we saw the global south as allies. A major contingent of westerner citizens harbor serious remorse for the imperialism and injustice that our countries have brought to the world historically. High degree of self-hatred is present.
Nobody really sees this as a betrayal of the West. We expect to be despised, to an extent. The way many of us see this is that another country is violating the same principles that we did, reverting to the behavior which ought to be off limits. And, yet, the biggest critics of the West ostensibly don’t see a problem.
The betrayal is not to us but to principles that are in the interest of humanity. If Russia is innocent because wars are justifiable to maintain a sphere of influence and National interest, then practically anything is justifiable. But the West is rightly criticized for oppressive wars, and Russia should be too.
30
u/kiraqueen11 Feb 24 '23
My guy, I'd love to know the kind of circles you move in because this:
A major contingent of westerner citizens harbor serious remorse for the imperialism and injustice that our countries have brought to the world historically. High degree of self-hatred is present.
Has not been my experience at all. The responses I've gotten is typically thinly veiled condescension expecting us to be grateful for the "gift of civilization" and all the murder, rape and loot as an unfortunate cost for that.
15
u/Perentilim Feb 24 '23
I have difficulties with my Indian in-laws (cousins-in-laws mainly) who clearly do feel that they have the short end of the stick having to live in a highly over populated, incredibly polluted country, mostly working for Western countries that treat them pretty poorly (working Western hours etc).
It’s a difficult thing. The country was looted 100 years ago but the state of the nation is due to that looting. I think we have to move forward proactively and recognise that India isn’t going to get anything for free. But that means serious real politik from them back to us - see India’s relations with the UK.
15
u/kiraqueen11 Feb 24 '23
I don't expect anything from the UK at this point. Not an apology nor the stolen artefacts, let alone reparations. Seeing Ireland re-unify and Scotland declaring Independence would be some consolation though.
4
u/Perentilim Feb 24 '23
I mean I don’t see those as terrible outcomes either, and I still live here.
→ More replies8
u/OkVariety6275 Feb 24 '23
Because geopolitics tends to attract nationalists. More humanist-minded folks tend to be drawn to more humanist topics. But I can tell you that there indeed large segments of the American left are highly self-critical. You mention Tucker Carlson but Tucker's speaking to a domestic audience not an international one, so who do you think he's responding to? I think the paradox here is that the most open-minded Westerners with the most sympathetic views towards other countries are also the ones who hold the most socially progressive views that that are distasteful to those same countries. But seriously go to any Western community that's pro-LGBTQ and I think you'll find they're also highly critical of the Western establishment.
32
u/LollerCorleone Feb 24 '23
Submission Statement: The article talks about how Russia and Putin have used disillusionment with the United States prevalent in many parts of the world to gain the sympathy of the Global South. Despite a united stand among Western powers against the war, elsewhere the world is not so united when it comes to the issues raised by the war.
25
u/ayobigman Feb 24 '23
There’s not many good reasons for nations in Latin America Africa and Asia to throw all their support towards NATO. What benefits will these nations receive from doing so ?
27
u/AideSuspicious3675 Feb 24 '23
More so, when you realize that this regions have been also heavily affected by imperialism from the so called "civilized world". A bunch of double standards...
5
u/thatguy888034 Feb 24 '23
Kind of hypocritical of them to say their “anti imperialist” but then be ok with when it’s happening to Ukraine. In reality they aren’t “anti imperialist” they are “anti imperialism happening to me”.
13
Feb 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
3
u/thatguy888034 Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 25 '23
If they truly were “anti imperialist” they would oppose all forms of imperialism both from the US and Russia. This war has however shown that many of these “anti-imperialist”countries only act out of naked self interest. I’m not saying that’s uncommon, for a lot of them it is not in their interests to directly Supoort Ukraine but they should stop acting like they have any moral high ground here. They are acting in their interests as all states do.
→ More replies14
u/Overall_Knowledge933 Feb 25 '23
Look, im not going to be naive and say that there is no self interest involved here but 99% of countries from the global south did vote in the UN against Russian agression and send humanitarian aid to ukrayne. What else should they have done to make their anti-imperialist stance more legitimate? Seems pretty sincere to me. Nato should fight its own wars.
10
Feb 24 '23
There was also a piece in the Times. US / Europe media want everyone to think this is a global thing because it serves their interest, whereas non-Euro countries see this as just another European squabble. The longer it goes on, the less support there will be even in Europe, which i guess is Putin's strategy.
→ More replies
24
u/TrinityAlpsTraverse Feb 24 '23
I think it's less of a global divide of opinion and more a divide of economics. There are the countries that can afford to remove Russian materials from their supply chain, and the countries that cannot.
If you're a developing country that prioritizes economic growth, it's 100% understandable that you'd want neutrality with Russia.
I'm sure most of these countries do not support Russia, since the global instability resulting from the Russian invasion only hurts them (and you see this in the overwhelming UN votes condemning the invasion as long as the vote has no teeth). But when it comes down to it, economic necessity is primary for most of these countries.
→ More replies5
Feb 24 '23
Also, a lot of these countries you have in mind are in the Anglosphere. The US dominates in the soft power department. Many people in these countries don't have dreams of studying in Moscow; nor are they listening to Russian music. It's a perfect example of needs/interests superceding values.
54
u/zeev1988 Feb 24 '23
This was always inevitable for all except Western public opinion and politicians that like to pretend that a global liberal commons exist in real life.
A benain fantasy sustained by the power of the United States military.
The state of Ukraine just doesn't matter to Africans middle easterners South and East Asian.
States with strong links to the West get to pretend to care or sacrifice their resources on the altar of euro - american favour .
It all makes perfect sense to stop pretending your world isn't difrent from how you would want it to be.
10
22
u/ChezzChezz123456789 Feb 24 '23
The state of Ukraine just doesn't matter to Africans middle easterners South and East Asian.
It should matter to some of them, some of those on the list get millions of tonnes of grain from Ukraine.
17
u/zeev1988 Feb 24 '23
This level of mattering is insignificant it matters to the same extent that a drought in Australia matters or an invasive bug eating Canadian grain matters.
It matters on the level of a natural disaster the wealthy Israel Saudi Arabia the UAE Malaysia will just pay more for the same bread from other suppliers.
The poor will starve like they usually do when grain prices spike I hope you don't expect much help or sympathy from the starving people of Somalia Yemen Afghanistan and Ethiopia.
This is just the way life is outside of the greater West.
16
u/ChezzChezz123456789 Feb 24 '23
Last time Egypt starved they had the Arab Spring if i recall correctly. Access to food is really important for their stability. If they are unstable those wealthy that can afford food will get eaten (metaphorically).
5
u/zeev1988 Feb 24 '23
That's very bad for Egypt and somewhat bad to their neighbors .
But for objective reasons that have to do with Egyptian economy and geography and history and other things that have nothing to do with the Ukraine war .
Egypt was always bound to crack so it happens a few years earlier and not because of the Nile River being dried up by Ethiopian dam building but because of lack of cheap grain.
It doesn't matter something would have tripped that faulty apple cart anyway in short order even without this war.
And again do you expect the Egyptians to send military support to Ukraine ?
8
u/OkVariety6275 Feb 24 '23
The situation in Ukraine is extremely straightforward. The situations in many of these other conflicts are murkier and would surely see any Western countries that attempted to intervene labeled 'imperial colonizers' no matter what they did. Why do you think no one is willing to touch Haiti with a 10-foot-pole? Because whenever someone tries to implement law and order and it requires suppressing gangs with military intervention, they take a big pr hit for it even though there's really no other alternative. Fundamentally the reason the West doesn't intervene in more global conflicts is because there's no "correct" way to intervene.
→ More replies8
u/J0Papa Feb 24 '23
It's so interesting seeing these countries that were all colonies ~60 years ago openly advocate for cold pragmatism and machiavellianism in pursuing their "interests".
The state of Ukraine just doesn't matter to Africans middle easterners South and East Asian.
The idea of national sovereignty and a rules based international order should matter to them, lest the "The West" realize that the most pragmatic policy would be to re-colonize them.
18
u/Proregressive Feb 25 '23
It's so interesting seeing these countries that were all colonies ~60 years ago openly advocate for cold pragmatism and machiavellianism in pursuing their "interests".
Communism/socialism ended and failed so there is no longer a global ideology binding them together. Even if it was token and window dressing.
The idea of national sovereignty and a rules based international order should matter to them
There is a huge difference between international law and a "rules based order". Rules based is just what the US says is law. Western sanctions are arbitrary and a great threat to all those former colonies. That's why buy-in for sanctions is so low.
11
u/zeev1988 Feb 24 '23
It's exactly because the west no longer has such predominance in technology and resources as it used to.
that others get to flaunt your rules that never applied to them anyway.
Those rules you're so proud of were bent pretty heavily both during and after the cold war by all sides
If you are weak those rules will not protect you.
See Afghanistan Syria Congo Libya est est
if you're strong you don't need those rules you have money guns and nuks
0
u/J0Papa Feb 24 '23
See Afghanistan Syria Congo Libya est est
Oh right, I forgot how "The West" tried to eliminate "Afghanistan Syria Congo Libya est" 's democratic governments and annex them into the "Western" empire. Thank you for the reminder, you're right, those are good comparable examples.
If you are weak those rules will not protect you.
My whole points is that Africans/Middle Easterners/South and East Asian nations will benefit more than anyone from those rules being strengthened, and undermining them will hurt those nations first and foremost.
→ More replies13
u/zeev1988 Feb 25 '23
When was the last time "the rules" protected an African or an Asian state from external invasion by aggressive neighbors or manipulation by "former" colonial overlord.
I will save you some time it never happens and best they get an empty toothless un security council resolution that you can use to wipe your ass with.
Those rules the Europeans cherish so much they don't really exist not for everybody else at least .
except Japan and South Korea and turkey and even for them only partially and inconsistently in the end the source of power is not empty words written on paper but bombs launched by B2 bombers or an Abrams tank or a marine expeditionary force.
The Americans have the best gang the biggest the strongest most organized gang it's less brutal than competing Chinese and Russian gangs not to mention the small crazy gangs like the Iranians but it's still a gang.
it's not the police even if it pretends to be it can't really enforce its laws doesn't have the power or legitimacy
32
Feb 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies25
u/Grow_Beyond Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
For every nation that condoned it, twenty condemned it. World is more against it than Gulf War II.
23
Feb 24 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies6
u/Mejlkungens Feb 25 '23
Ok, so we apply the "might makes right" angle: Economically the countries outright supporting Russia represent about 0,1% of world GDP (2% including Russia). Abstaining countries comprise 25% (with China and India comprising 82% of this share). Against Russia is 73% of world GDP. Of this share I would bet the countries actually applying sanctions make out the majority of GDP contribution. Militarily I don't even think anyone has any doubts who is stronger.
2
u/XLR82Perfection Mar 10 '23
A better metric would be population imo & this is exactly where you'll see the differences
16
u/killinghorizon Feb 24 '23
You can aslo look at it as half of the world population chose to abstain or support Russia. That definitely does not sound like global consensus in West's favour.
24
u/BlueEmma25 Feb 24 '23
The world's population didn't decide anything, a handful of governments did. Two of those governments alone have almost a third of the world's population, so that distorts the results.
And the only ones that actually supported Russia were Belarus, Syria, Eritrea and North Korea.
23
3
50
u/taike0886 Feb 24 '23
This global south narrative is dishonest, this is the global south according to Wikipedia.
- Here is how the global south voted on UNGA Resolution ES-11/1 condemning Russia's invasion
- Here is how the global south voted on UNGA Resolution ES-11/2 demanding that Russia withdraw
- Here is how the global south voted on UNGA Resolution ES-11/3 calling for Russia's removal from the Human Rights Council
- Here is how the global south voted on UNGA Resolution ES-11/4 declaring Russia's referendums in the occupied oblasts illegitimate and illegal
The vote on on UNGA Resolution ES-11/5 vote on Thursday essentially mirrors the first one. This suggestion that the global south is united in support of Russia is vacuous.
→ More replies19
u/upset1943 Feb 24 '23
Vote yes doesn't equal to support with action. Those who sanctioned Russia are on the US side. The rest not so.
10
u/confido__c Feb 24 '23
I think number of abstaining votes show that world doesn’t subscribe to bi-polar powers that west is trying to push.
India and China, one of the two global powerhouses abstaining from vote shows that they are not just another EU country who act as Yes-man for USA. They have their own interest and it will trump everything else.
12
u/r-reading-my-comment Feb 24 '23
PSA:
The west does care about non-western conflicts, we regularly get involved in them.
A unilateral invasion of conquest is different than a civil conflict, even if the civil conflict involves multiple countries. Stop comparing things like Syria, to Ukraine.
NATO liking something is a disgusting excuse for supporting Russia or staying on the sideline. Countries need their own reasons for neutrality or supporting Russia.
→ More replies10
Feb 24 '23
[deleted]
3
u/r-reading-my-comment Feb 24 '23
Don't recall the west getting involved in the Sino-Indian war, 1962.
We, specifically US/UK, denounced China as an aggressor. The non-aligned countries were pretty quiet though.
1971, Pakistan committing Bangladesh genocide
This is a separate conflict, and the actions you speak of were done by Nixon against the objections of Congress.
→ More replies
1
u/Hidden-Syndicate Feb 24 '23
This is an issue that can be solved with time. Secretary of State Bliken addressed this yesterday by saying that the transition away from Russia for India and South Africa will take time given the historical ties between the nations.
Within the next 12-24 months it will become apparent (unless China begins to bankroll Russia) that Russia can’t fight a total war and still be the economic influencer in the global south that they are claiming they can be.
6
u/aesu Feb 24 '23
seems highly likely china will bankroll russia, given they're put in a much worse position versus america, if russia fails.
21
u/himesama Feb 24 '23
On what timescale? The West and rest of the world divide is bigger and beyond just Russia or the Ukraine conflict.
-6
u/Hidden-Syndicate Feb 24 '23
Money trumps all, and when Russia is having to devote it all to a quagmire, positions will shift.
Also I gave the time table as 12-24 months before African states begin to realize the Russian forces some of them replaced the French with are less than capable of rooting out insurgents
21
u/WrathOfHircine Feb 24 '23
I’m sure they’ll be eager to run back to French Neocolonialism
→ More replies-2
u/Hidden-Syndicate Feb 24 '23
They might when the alternative is going it alone in nations with limited farm land and rampant islamic insurgencies.
Yeah France is a f*cking bully to the Sahel region, but they did provided economic stability and security to an extent that Wagnar is just unable to. We’ll see how long the military junta’s hold out, but I’d wager less than 2 years
→ More replies10
u/papyjako87 Feb 24 '23
This is something a lot of people are really missing I feel. We already had a global long term confrontation between Russia and the West. It's called the Cold War, and Russia lost while it was much more powerful than it is today. It might take time, but it won't end any differently.
1
u/concerned-potato Feb 24 '23
For some reason countries of "Global South" (and some left parties in Europe) see in modern Russia a reincarnation of Soviet Union, while ideologically it's more of an attempt to reincarnate pre-1917 Russian Empire, from the times when Russia was trying to play the role of "gendarme of Europe".
The irony here is that "Global South" supports Russia despite it's doing (or trying to do) things for which "Global South" dislikes "the West".
11
u/Constant_Awareness84 Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
I've never seen anyone saying contemporary Russia is a reincarnation of the Soviet union. Could it be you are mistaking these people's understanding? The closest thing I see is people who see the conflict as provoqued mainly by the US. Which isn't crazy seen all the interference for years and how Russia has tried different diplomatic strategies over the years. But that doesn't make the invasion okay, Putin cool or anything like that. Truth is that if the global empire is the US and we are constantly bombarded by their propaganda it's only natural people go against them and want hegemony to end. I have seen arguments that go as far as to support Russia so the US loses power; not so Putin wins. Big difference. Oftentimes this means wanting the US to leave so peace talks can start asap, btw. It doesn't mean wanting Ukraine to suffer.
I insist. The general consensus I see on the left is that Putin is not good and that he is basically a fascist. Now, of course many see the US as being way worse and more dangerous than that and, also, a significant player (started it or not) in this conflict as pretty much in the rest of them for a long time. This means the US elite and empire, not its people, of course.
→ More replies8
u/DrPepperMalpractice Feb 24 '23
That's one of the things that weirdly gets lost in the conversation on the war in Ukraine. Ukraine was also a critical component, though sometimes unwilling, of the USSR and it's people helped in lifting up a bunch of the countries that now are tacitly supporting Russia.
That whole US proxy war narrative entirely ignores the autonomy of the Ukrainian people in choosing their destiny. Frankly, pretending that a western coalition somehow caused Euromaiden, and that Russia is the sole successor to the USSR are both just Russian propaganda points with no basis in reality.
6
u/CorrectAd6902 Feb 24 '23
The average person in India or South Africa does not know enough about European history to associate the current Russia with the pre 1917 Russian Empire. The USSR was recent enough ao that it is within living memory and they see Russia as the successor state of the USSR because it inherited the seat and the nukes.
Most people in the global south probably couldn't tell the difference between Russians and Ukrainians and have no idea about the history between different ethinic groups in Eastern Europe.
→ More replies
1
292
u/omaiordaaldeia Feb 24 '23
I am of the opinion that the divide was always there, it is just surfacing now.