Following the Peace Summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, more questions than answers have emerged in the public sphere, extending beyond just the issue of peace in Ukraine.
During the signing of the final communiqué, which contained neutral positions far removed from the comprehensive peace formula proposed by Volodymyr Zelensky to G7 leaders in October 2022, representatives from several countries refused to sign. These included India, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, and the UAE. Subsequently, Iraq, Jordan, and Rwanda also withdrew their signatures.
All these countries belong to the so-called Global South, a term that scholars often avoid because it attempts to group geographically distant nations together. However, what unites them is their non-alignment with the Western bloc.
Over the past thirty years, several of these nations have emerged as significant players on the world stage. Notably, they were among the first to oppose signing the final document on peace in Ukraine. A representative from New Delhi cited Russia’s absence at the Summit as a key factor in their decision. Similarly, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud, expressed comparable concerns. The South African representative mentioned that their involvement in the Summit and the signing of the final communiqué alongside Israel—against which South Africa filed an ICC lawsuit in late 2023, accusing it of genocide in Gaza—undermined the communiqué’s legitimacy.
This situation also recalls the frequent comparison made between Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the American war in Iraq, a topic often raised in discussions with representatives from these countries, especially during the first year of the full-scale Russian invasion.
The reluctance of these countries to support the communiqué, highlighting the lack of backing from the most powerful players of the Global South, aligns seamlessly with findings from a recent study conducted by the University of Oxford. According to this study, the majority of citizens in surveyed countries—including China, India, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa—see Europe and the USA as more attractive compared to China or Russia. However, this admiration does not translate into political cooperation or engagement. This sentiment also mirrors their perspective on Russia’s war against Ukraine. The survey reveals that citizens in these countries desire a swift end to the war in Ukraine, regardless of whether it means losing territory or achieving a just peace. Additionally, many people from non-Western nations perceive a double standard in how the West interprets the war in Ukraine and Israel’s war against Hamas. This alleged hypocrisy further complicates their stance on international cooperation and engagement with Western policies.
What does this mean for Ukraine? Should it shift focus from the Global South to strengthen its ties with the West? Many post-Summit comments criticised the organisers for overly relying on support from the Global South. This strategy is cited as the reason why only three, and the most neutral, points from the peace formula proposed in the autumn of 2022 made it into the summit communiqué. But was this really done just to appease these countries?
Consider statements from Ukraine’s Office of the President, which emphasised that Ukraine is doing everything possible to engage China in the Global Peace Summit. However, it was already clear that China had chosen its side, evidenced by Chinese components in Russian missiles and the increase in trade between the two nations. Furthermore, the countries mentioned earlier exhibit a cautious stance towards China. This caution is reflected in their reluctance to form anti-Chinese or anti-Russian blocs, opting instead to maintain a balanced approach. This nuanced situation suggests that Ukraine must carefully navigate its diplomatic efforts, balancing between seeking broader global support and deepening alliances with Western nations.
The authors of the Oxford study propose an intriguing analogy: citizens in Global South countries prefer a ‘menu’ approach in international relations, allowing them to cherry-pick mutually beneficial partnerships. The recent Summit outcomes highlight this nuanced preference. While the Global North increasingly perceives Russia’s war against Ukraine as a direct challenge to Western interests, influential Global South nations such as India, South Africa, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia show a reluctance towards aligning strictly with bloc politics.
For Moscow, this presents an opportunity to identify strategic entry points that could sway these nations in its favour. However, Ukraine must navigate its own path amidst this geopolitical landscape. It’s clear that expecting unequivocal support from these nations requires Ukraine to find its own strategic cards, potentially on the battlefield of the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war. Strengthening Kyiv’s agency and institutional capacity is paramount in this pursuit. These steps not only bolster Ukraine’s position in its engagements with the Global South but also underscore the complexity of international diplomacy in the 21st century.
With the Russian-Ukrainian war underway, Moscow and Beijing are actively consolidating efforts to forge their own axis of influence. Putin’s current visit to North Korea and Vietnam, following his recent trip to China, reveals bold efforts to build a coalition opposed to the pro-American Western bloc. In response, it becomes imperative for the West to demonstrate its resilience and the superiority of democratic values over autocratic regimes.
A clear indicator of this superiority would be Ukraine’s definitive victory over Russia. Influential thinkers such as Mark Plettnar, co-founder of the Journal of Democracy, consistently highlight this perspective. Plettnar argues that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has galvanised cooperation and a unified democratic front worldwide. Yet, for this consensus to endure, it is crucial for Western nations, including the United States, to fully appreciate the significance of Ukraine’s success. This recognition is essential to uphold and strengthen the global democratic order.
