Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

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||
google cta
Analysis | Europe
USS Defiant trump class
Top photo credit: Design image of future USS Defiant (Naval Sea Systems Command/US military)

Trump's big, bad battleship will fail

Military Industrial Complex

President Trump announced on December 22 that the Navy would build a new Trump-class of “battleships.” The new ships will dwarf existing surface combatant ships. The first of these planned ships, the expected USS Defiant, would be more than three times the size of an existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyer.

Predictably, a major selling point for the new ships is that they will be packed full of all the latest technology. These massive new battleships will be armed with the most sophisticated guns and missiles, to include hypersonics and eventually nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The ships will also be festooned with lasers and will incorporate the latest AI technology.

keep readingShow less
Does Israel really still need a 'qualitative military edge' ?
An Israeli Air Force F-35I Lightning II “Adir” approaches a U.S. Air Force 908th Expeditionary Refueling Squadron KC-10 Extender to refuel during “Enduring Lightning II” exercise over southern Israel Aug. 2, 2020. While forging a resolute partnership, the allies train to maintain a ready posture to deter against regional aggressors. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Patrick OReilly)

Does Israel really still need a 'qualitative military edge' ?

Middle East

On November 17, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that he would approve the sale to Saudi Arabia of the most advanced US manned strike fighter aircraft, the F-35. The news came one day before the visit to the White House of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has sought to purchase 48 such aircraft in a multibillion-dollar deal that has the potential to shift the military status quo in the Middle East. Currently, Israel is the only other state in the region to possess the F-35.

During the White House meeting, Trump suggested that Saudi Arabia’s F-35s should be equipped with the same technology as those procured by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly sought assurances from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who sought to walk back Trump’s comment and reiterated a “commitment that the United States will continue to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge in everything related to supplying weapons and military systems to countries in the Middle East.”

keep readingShow less
Think a $35B gas deal will thaw Egypt toward Israel? Not so fast.
Top image credit: Miss.Cabul via shutterstock.com

Think a $35B gas deal will thaw Egypt toward Israel? Not so fast.

Middle East

The Trump administration’s hopes of convening a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi either in Cairo or Washington as early as the end of this month or early next are unlikely to materialize.

The centerpiece of the proposed summit is the lucrative expansion of natural gas exports worth an estimated $35 billion. This mega-deal will pump an additional 4 billion cubic meters annually into Egypt through 2040.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.