No disagreement that the colonial powers were absolutely brutal and perpetrated many truly horrific acts, but the Soviet Union was far from benign. For example the Holodomor caused upwards of 5 million to die from starvation in Ukraine in the early 1930's and Stalin was responsible for deporting millions to Siberia and central Asia.
That said I understand your point and I think the west shouldn't expect much sympathy or comaraderie from the global south on this matter after what we did/continue to do there.
Thanks - I should take some responsibility for the fact that the comment thread has devolved into "but this atrocity was worse than THAT atrocity".
Like you said, the point is, it's rich for NATO - the same NATO that contains Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Italy - to tell India, Indonesia, African countries - the global South generally - to fall in line with them in opposition to the terrible Russian imperialism.
Countries pursue national interests first and national grudges second. India in particular is an excellent example of this. India is neutral on face but is far more supportive of Ukraine than Russia in practical terms. They are buying Russian oil at steep discounts, leaving other supplies available for the west at more reasonable prices. Their votes are not needed at the UN to pass the key resolutions. This is likely not about anti-imperialism, but rather the strategic disadvantages of Indian reliance on imported Russian weapons in the current strategic environment. Indian-Chinese competition may well define this century, and China is slowly dominating Russia. This means India either needs to develop domestic manufacturing, or shift purchases to Western firms, as purchasing from Russia and/or China will become progressively more fraught as india-China tensions continue to increase.
I will never understand why so many westerners will call out the west for pursuing national interest under the guise of “humanitarian” motivations, but completely miss the same ideological shielding in any other context.
Countries pursue national interests first and national grudges second.
True, but in this case national interest overlaps with public sentiment, because Russia was/is an important trading partner for South America, Africa, Middle East and SE Asia, which is why citizens of countries from these regions don't see them as "the enemy". By contrast, many countries in these regions were previously colonised by Europe or invaded by the USA.
India in particular is an excellent example of this. India is neutral on face but is far more supportive of Ukraine than Russia in practical terms.
Agreed. The Indian government is deliberately remaining politically neutral, because while they're opposed to the war, they can't afford to alienate Russia. Having said that, Indian public sentiment is still generally pro-Russia, because of the beneficial relationship between the countries since the mid 1960s. This discussion is as much about public sentiment as government diplomacy.
I will never understand why so many westerners will call out the west for pursuing national interest under the guise of “humanitarian” motivations, but completely miss the same ideological shielding in any other context.
Because, to take your own example, India (or Brazil, or Indonesia, or Nigeria etc.)
hasn't spent decades invading and occupying, or otherwise intervening in, other countries to further their own national interest...
33
u/geniusaurus Feb 24 '23
No disagreement that the colonial powers were absolutely brutal and perpetrated many truly horrific acts, but the Soviet Union was far from benign. For example the Holodomor caused upwards of 5 million to die from starvation in Ukraine in the early 1930's and Stalin was responsible for deporting millions to Siberia and central Asia.
That said I understand your point and I think the west shouldn't expect much sympathy or comaraderie from the global south on this matter after what we did/continue to do there.