Follow us on social

Global South again shows ambivalence on the Ukraine war

Global South again shows ambivalence on the Ukraine war

While the conflict's battle lines have shifted against Russia, UN member states have barely budged on how they view it.

Analysis | Europe

The UN General Assembly voted to condemn Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian territories on Wednesday. The vote was 143 in favor, five opposed, 35 abstentions and ten absent. Two supporting votes (Myanmar and Afghanistan) were cast by delegates who did not represent their de facto governments. So the actual vote was something on the order of 141 for and the rest checking out or opposing.

Given the egregiously illegal nature of the issue — outright annexation of a neighbor’s sovereign territory — the fact that essentially 52 states did not back its condemnation after what must have been considerable pressure is more than remarkable.

These 52 states were almost entirely from the Global South, with Africa and Asia being the continents whose governments were most inclined to vote against, abstain, or stay home. Southeast Asia was generally not in this camp,  though important states such as Vietnam and U.S. treaty ally Thailand abstained.  

But Eurasia’s vast expanse, comprising (other than Russia) China, India, Pakistan, Mongolia, and all five Central Asian states that constituted part of the former Soviet Union, and also Iran, were not with the United States on the resolution. Almost all these states also belong to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — a rising, if still early-stage — international organization representing one of the core geographies of the global order. As many as 24 African states also abstained, opposed, or did not vote for the resolution. With the exception of Cuba, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua — most of whom  Washington has poor or hostile relations with — Latin American and Caribbean governments voted to support the resolution.

The outcome mirrored almost exactly the General Assembly vote last March to condemn the Russian invasion. Since then, the Russians have been accused of war crimes, while at the same time losing ground on the battlefield in recent weeks. Putin is domestically weaker and a target of nationalist critics. In the last few days, the world watched as Russian rockets pounded civilian targets in several Ukrainian cities. Yet the global dividing lines have barely budged. By population, a majority of the Global South and governments representing nations with close to half of the world’s population did not agree with Washington’s position when put to a public vote.

Un-vote-filled-map-1024x754

Pie-chart-population-percentage-1024x779

The fact is that, after nearly eight months of war, a global consensus on the conflict remains elusive. Many key states do not wish to take sides even symbolically since a UNGA resolution by itself cannot be enforced. When it comes to materially backing the U.S. stance with sanctions against Russia, almost no state outside the NATO bloc (minus Turkey) and Japan has enlisted.

President Biden paints the Ukraine war as an existential threat to the global system. His administration’s just-released National Security Strategy said “over the past decade, the Russian government has chosen to pursue an imperialist foreign policy with the goal of overturning key elements of the international order.” Many countries do not like the Russian invasion, but they appear to see the conflict as gray, not black and white, while having important interests to protect. And almost none outside core U.S. allies appear willing to undergo the costs they may bear by punishing Moscow with sanctions. Nearly eight months into this horrific war, and with Russia on the backfoot, this remains the reality.


Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||
Analysis | Europe
Iran Oman
Top image credit: Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is welcomed by an unidentified Omani official upon his arrival in Muscat, Oman, May 11, 2025. Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

Iran talks: At least they're still negotiating

Middle East

The fourth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States concluded Sunday in Muscat, Oman after a one-week delay. Many observers saw the postponement as a result of the Trump administration’s contradictory approach and lack of a clear endgame.

Just two days before the talks, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff gave an interview to Breitbart, seeming to suggest “zero enrichment” as the administration’s red line and calling for the dismantlement of Iran’s core nuclear facilities. This maximalist stance stood in contrast with more measured comments by President Trump, who recently said the United States had "not yet decided" whether Iran could retain a civilian nuclear program. Vice President J.D. Vance struck a similarly ambiguous tone at a recent conference in Europe.

keep readingShow less
West Bank
Top image credit: Israeli forces arrest a Palestinian activist during a demonstration near Bethlehem, West Bank, November 14, 2012. Editorial credit: Ryan Rodrick Beiler / Shutterstock.com

'Terrorism'? Israel has weaponized the charge for decades

Middle East

What do human rights activists in Jerusalem, humanitarian aid workers in Gaza, and college students in New York all have in common according to Israel and its influence network? They all purportedly have links to terrorism. Although such accusations are often baseless, they are frequently used to besmirch and undercut those who are unwilling to do Israel’s bidding.

Although this is a tactic very much on display today, it is one I first came across while serving with the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC) in the West Bank, when a similar pattern of accusations and complaints from Israel, as documented in a report that has not been previously disclosed, threatened to wreck what was, back then in 2008, already a tenuous peace process in the West Bank.

keep readingShow less
Donald Trump
Top image credti: White House

The hidden costs of Trump's 'madman' approach to tariffs

Global Crises

Is the trade war launched by Donald Trump the act of a madman or a mad genius?

To the extent Trump’s tariffs are a “negotiating strategy,” as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed, are critics missing that they are simply part of the “art of the deal” that will enable America to gain coercive leverage over other states? According to the madman theory of international politics, it is possible Trump’s gambit has a strategic logic. However, there is a crucial flaw with this strategy that will likely cause it to fail.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.