The Battle For the Global South

For decades, Russia has been investing money and effort in expanding its partnership with countries in the so-called Global South. The World Bank defines this list as predominantly low- or middle-income countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

In this region, Ukraine has gradually expanded its food capabilities, but it has never had a separate geopolitical focus.

The full-scale war started by Russia in February 2022 changed everything. Countries with broad representation at the UN and a population of billions have become full participants in the global security dialogue. And unlike the Western world, the position of the countries of the global south on Russia's war in Ukraine has turned out to be deeply neutral or even pro-Russian.

The thesis that this region could become a huge development area for the process of supporting Ukraine has come to the surface. So did the question: how to engage potential allies? And how to counter intense Russian propaganda and economic expansion in the Global South?

Peace is better than war

Achieving a just peace in Ukraine is crucial not only for its citizens or immediate neighbors. It is also about ensuring the stability of the global economic and political systems established after World War II. This status quo once helped many countries in the world to get out of total poverty, and its violation can lead to unpredictable consequences.

The first step in avoiding this undesirable scenario is to ensure that Russia withdraws its troops from the territory of Ukraine.

These are the basic theses voiced by Western countries to the leaders of the Global South. The same arguments were made by G7 and European Union officials to their counterparts from India, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia when they met in Copenhagen last week to discuss Volodymyr Zelensky's peace formula and the Ukrainian president's plans to hold a global summit on these issues.

However, the dialog is apparently not yielding quick results.

Such geopolitical heavyweights as India, China, Brazil, and South Africa have not yet condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine and continue to outline their positions on Russian aggression with general statements about the "inadmissibility of war." These countries have not yet joined the West's sanctions against the Kremlin. Some experts recognize this "neutrality" to be economically beneficial for those who adhere to it. For example, while the EU, Britain, and the United States were working to limit the Russian gas market, India began buying gas in record volumes and at significant discounts. The New York Times cites data showing that contracts with India and China have allowed Russia not only to compensate for losses from the closure of European energy markets, but also to increase profits.

Currently, through agreements with these countries, Russia sells more oil than before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And, despite the price caps, Moscow continues to earn money regularly to finance its bloody war of aggression.

Overcoming negative stereotypes

African countries, the Middle East and Latin America have been affected by the war unleashed by Russia. Reduced food and fertilizer supplies were a clear marker demonstrating the interconnection.

However, this did not convince them to condemn the invasion, but rather the opposite. How can this be explained?

Many countries in the Global South were once colonies of former Western empires. Africa was colonized by the French, Germans, and British, Latin America by the Portuguese and Spanish, and South Asia by the Dutch. Residents of former colonies naturally have a negative attitude toward their enslavers and exploiters.

In the last century, the USSR successfully exploited these sentiments, providing, for example, assistance to African countries for the "anti-colonial struggle against the West." This formed numerous close ties with Moscow. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia successfully picked up the initiative and continued to deliberately support anti-Western rhetoric in the countries of the Global South, in particular through a widespread system of controlled media.

Ukraine, on the other hand, was until recently a new and little-known territory for citizens of the Global South, which was also supported by the West.

The lack of objective information about Ukraine, replaced by toxic Russian narratives, is one of the major factors that influence the position of the Global South on the Russian war in Ukraine.

Therefore, providing more reliable information, direct contacts, and open interest in dialogue can help Ukraine win over the Global South.

Identifying opportunities and using clear arguments 

"The global South is quietly changing its rhetoric in favor of Ukraine," this is the conclusion reached by analysts at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, during a recent discussion. And there are a number of factors supporting this.

"As the UN vote showed, none of the African countries supported Russia's seizure of Ukrainian territories, meaning that historical experience makes issues of sovereignty and state borders important to Africans. Therefore, this can be used as a clear argument in the dialogue," said Rama Yade, Director of the Atlantic Council's Africa Center.

"India also demonstrates rejection of the Russian war, although it does not directly condemn Russian aggression. However, this can be explained by the national tradition of political culture, where it is not customary to make strong statements," says Kapil Sharma, who heads the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, "which means that there is room for dialogue.

The situation with the position of Latin American countries is more complicated. For them, Russia's war in Ukraine is seen as distant, and the assistance provided by world governments to Ukraine is perceived as an insult.

According to Jason Marczak, who heads the Latin American Center at the Atlantic Council, countries in the region often feel neglected by the United States, citing low funding.

On the other hand, during UN votes, most countries in the region either supported resolutions in favor of Ukraine or abstained. Even Cuba, Bolivia, or El Salvador, which are considered staunch allies of the Kremlin, did not vote in favor of Russia.

Accordingly, countries have not made up their minds, which means they can be persuaded. A clear position of the United States could be a powerful argument, which would show that: "...it is not that poor Ukraine has been robbed by the vile Russia, although this is partly true, but that the revisionist Kremlin, a nuclear superpower, albeit with a weak economy, is seeking to impose systemic change through direct aggression. And this is a critical challenge that the United States is concerned about," said John E. Herbst, Senior Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

"If you define the problem in this way, then the $55 billion in economic and military assistance we provide to Ukraine annually is not such an extraordinary amount of foreign aid," the expert added. "In this case, it is not a gift, but a vital contribution to the security of the United States and, by extension, the entire region.

Eventually, "...in 1947, 70% of the world lived in absolute poverty," Herbst recalls, "Today, that number is less than 9%, a direct result of the system of security and economic prosperity that we created after World War II and reinforced after the Cold War. And that system is now endangered."

Even the countries of the Global South can hardly disagree with this thesis. The international system built after the World War II has allowed people around the world to live a record number of years without global wars and significantly reduce violence on the planet as well as spend resources on developing and improving the general welfare, instead of financing the war.

So perhaps joining forces to achieve a just peace in Ukraine and stop the aggressor is not such a bad investment in the future of all countries all over the world, regardless of differences in geography or national traumas.