Recently, the West convened the so-called “Ukraine Peace Summit” in Switzerland. The event intended to address internal and external issues, but failed on both fronts due to its reliance on an escalation strategy. Internally, the summit aimed to function as a form of “collective catharsis,” placing blame on Moscow for the problems faced by Western countries. This was an attempt to justify socio-economic difficulties to their citizens, such as rising inflation and economic recession in the G7 economies, resulting from the sanctions imposed on Russia and the billions of dollars in financial and military aid provided to Ukraine. Externally, the summit sought to demonstrate support for Kiev and emphasise Russia’s “isolation”. However, it failed to meet these goals: key countries from the Global South did not participate in the summit or refused to sign the final communiqué. On the other hand, Western leaders who are currently condemning Russia are losing popularity and legitimacy both internally and externally, as demonstrated in the recent European Parliament elections. Concurrently, the so-called “global majority” (Karaganov, 2022)
has been assuming an increasingly prominent role in crucial issues of international security. These developments have prompted a reflection on why the pursuit of support from the Global South has become central to the maintenance of the conflict in Ukraine and, moreover, why these countries do not support Western efforts to destabilise Russia and China through a proxy war in Ukraine.
Perhaps blinded by its own Weltanschauung, the West seems unable to comprehend why some countries remain independent of the categories established during the “unipolar moment” (Krauthammer, 1990).
Reflecting this sentiment, Zelensky remarked in an interview with the Brazilian press that he does not understand “why Brazil and China prioritise the Russians over us”. Furthermore, during a press conference following the event in Switzerland, the Ukrainian leader declared that he would only “listen to Brazil and China when these countries adopt the principles of ‘civilised nations’”. This statement came after Brazil, India, South Africa and other BRICS+ countries refused to sign the summit’s final communiqué.
The reluctance of a significant portion of the Global South to support Ukraine may be rooted in the very terms articulated by Zelensky. The concept of “civilisation”, historically employed to justify colonialism, which was subsequently replaced by the singular perspective of the so-called “rules-based order”, is imbued with a Eurocentric/colonial bias. This bias constructs hierarchies of values and ideologies that do not acknowledge the diverse historical, cultural, and political trajectories of countries beyond the Western sphere.
In this regard, the so-called “rules-based order” established during the post-World War II era was conceived by the West and unilaterally imposed on the rest of the world. The countries of the Global South do not oppose, per se, an international framework that upholds a set of values and consensus to ensure global security and stability. However, traditional global governance arrangements no longer reflect current realities. Moreover, there are a number of contradictions arising from the one-dimensional and hypocritical application of these rules, which are deemed valid only for a specific group of countries.
In the post-Cold War era, a series of NATO moves has highlighted the “double standards” in unilateral interventions, revealing contradictions between the rhetoric and actions of Europeans and Americans within the framework of the “rules-based order”. This situation is exacerbated by the perception among the “global majority” that the West does not accord equal importance to security issues and humanitarian crises when they occur in the Global South. NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s serves as a prominent example of these practices. This action not only contravened the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter but also demonstrated a disregard for decisions made by the UN Security Council, arbitrarily substituting it with a “Global NATO” and imposing non-consensual rules on the rest of the world. This event marked a trend where Western interests and justifications began to outweigh the formal procedures of the “international order”, paving the way for global instability and uncertainty.
Since then, a series of moves made by the United States and its allies have further undermined the credibility of the order they proclaimed to be “rule-based.” Military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and other nations, alongside sanctions imposed without the endorsement of multilateral institutions, have challenged the legitimacy of this order. More recently, the financial, military, and diplomatic support for Israel against Palestine has further exposed this double standard. These issues underscore a selective approach by Western countries, intensifying distrust and a sense of injustice among non-Western states.
From this viewpoint, the “civilisational” justifications of this (dis)order not only justified actions against the interests of Global South nations but also served as a rationale for waging wars on these nations, ultimately aimed at preserving Western hegemony. The rhetoric of promoting democracy and human rights has frequently obscured interventions that have resulted in destabilisation and humanitarian suffering, solidifying the perception that this “rules-based order” was selectively and opportunistically applied.
The practical and explicit consequence of the refusal by Latin American, African, and most Asian countries to support Ukraine is evidenced by the increasingly frequent appeals from the West for these nations to participate in sanctions and assist in the war effort against Russia by supplying arms to Kiev. The reasons for the reluctance of the “global majority” to heed Western appeals underscore, first and foremost, a mounting belief that sanctions have traditionally functioned as a coercive instrument against nations that do not conform to the “civilisational” norms of the G7.
Moreover, the shortage of adequate Western armaments to support the Ukrainian government goes beyond simply indicating an underestimation of Russia; it highlights that this shortage stems from a military doctrine focused on irregular and hybrid warfare, in limited amounts. These strategies were designed to finance destabilisation efforts in the Global South, including “colour revolutions”, the Arab Spring, coups d’état, and regime changes, primarily aimed at undermining independent and sovereign initiatives. In this context, Western military capability has long been geared towards handling low-intensity conflicts where there was limited demand for large quantities of conventional weaponry. As a result, the artillery production infrastructure is ill-equipped to support a prolonged, high-intensity conflict like the one unfolding in Ukraine. This viewpoint clarifies why conventional artillery and ammunition stocks in the West are depleting, forcing them to rely on Global South countries for supplies and support. A different strategy would have been to suggest holding genuine peace talks with the Russian government. However, Western elites opted instead to “double down” and use Ukrainians as subjects in a troubling experiment of “slow death”, aiming to destabilise Moscow and potentially target Beijing in the long run.
As the conflict increasingly evolves into a Western strategy of containment, initially focused on Russia and potentially extending to China over time, the tactics used by NATO to win over the leaders of the Global South have remained consistent. There is a noticeable increase in a moralistic and parochial discourse that seeks to divide the world into the “civilised nations” and the “others”. This polarising rhetoric not only fails to acknowledge the intricate and diverse nature of global political and economic realities but also exacerbates the alienation of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose interests and perspectives are marginalised. Consequently, nations representing the “global majority” find themselves in a neutral position or increasingly aligned with alternative initiatives that diverge from those imposed by the West. This trend is leading them to gravitate towards BRICS+ efforts, thereby fostering greater cohesion within this bloc through a growing rejection of the former liberal order.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
