At the outset of the full-scale invasion
When Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, it seemed at first that the whole world stood with Ukraine. They played the Ukrainian national anthem at every manner of function, said “prayers for Ukraine” at every denomination of church (except for the Russian Orthodox ones, of course), and there were blue and yellow Ukrainian flags at every turn. It was clear to so many who the “bad guy” was in this case (the aggressor Russians) and who the “good guy” was (the beleaguered, heroic Ukrainians), the latter of whom people could unabashedly support. However, as time went on, it became clear that the international response to Russia’s aggression was more nuanced and significantly less unanimous among the 190+ recognized countries in the world, as the breakdown below indicates.
On February 28, 2022, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to condemn the invasion. One hundred forty-one UN members supported this motion, while seven (Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Nicaragua, Mali, and Eretria) opposed it. Interestingly, though, there were 32 abstentions as well, including heavyweights such as China, India, and Pakistan – clearly, not all the world was seeing this invasion the same way.
Every country according to its own interests
Eastern Europe
Unsurprisingly, the former Eastern bloc countries, such as Poland, and former constituent Soviet “republics”, such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, have been at the forefront of support for Ukraine (despite some issues over time), as they had only recently freed themselves from the Russian/Soviet imperialistic yoke. The rest of Europe was mostly supportive of Ukraine, although some countries warmed up to the ideas of concrete support and concomitant disassociation with Russia at different rates than others (some others, particularly Hungary and Slovakia, have now turned tail on support for Ukraine almost completely).
Those who relied on Russian natural gas, for instance, or had a closer working relationship with Russia, such as Serbia and Hungary (and, of course, Russia’s vassal state of Belarus), were either cool or entirely dismissive of severing relations with Russia. Regardless, all of Europe had a stake, if not a ringside seat, in what was happening in Ukraine, and each country positioned itself according to what it saw as its own interests.
"Territorial dispute?"
Countries elsewhere in the world, such as Pakistan and India, saw the invasion as either Russia exercising its “right” within its perceived sphere of influence (sometimes naively and foolishly echoing the Russian talking point that Ukrainians and Russians are “the same people”), or did not care because they had other critical issues on which to focus. To them, it was a local “territorial dispute”, a term echoed by other countries who either did not want to damage relations with Russia (for any number of reasons) or who were entirely ignorant (wilfully or otherwise) of Eastern European history and Russia’s brutal imperialist past. One of the candidates vying for the Republican nomination in the US presidential race, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis even echoed this “territorial dispute” position and, whether he (and its other proponents) realized it or not, played right into the Russian narrative on the matter.
Response of the "Left"
NATO not an offensive alliance
What has been interesting is much of the response of the “left” toward Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Coming from a position of distrust of the Americans and their role in the world (often undeniably justified), the “left” spends far too much time ascribing the US a role in the way Ukraine, both pre-invasion and post-invasion, has evolved. They speak of NATO “expansion” as if the countries asking to belong to NATO had no agency in such a desire. If Russia were not a known geopolitical threat in Europe, NATO would most certainly not be “expanding” toward Russia’s borders and the US would certainly not see Russia as the adversary that it is.
Misguided anti-Americanism
Further to this misguided line of anti-Americanism, the US was not involved when the Ukrainian Cossack state signed its ill-fated treaty with the Muscovites (precursor to the Russians) at Pereiaslav in 1654, nor was it involved in 1709 when Russia defeated the Sweden/Cossack alliance at the Battle of Poltava and began in earnest to subjugate Ukrainian lands and people. Eventually, Russia in the 19th century even restricted the Ukrainian language (“a separate Little Russian language never existed, does not exist, and shall not exist”) and then eventually banned it outright. This progression is the long-standing reality of Russia’s relations with Ukrainians and the Ukrainian language, yet some facilely and ignorantly trumpet the whole situation as nothing other than some US subterfuge.
As former US Army Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Vindman stated in a recent seminar, it is precisely because the US was not involved in Ukraine many years earlier that the West missed an opportunity for a shorter war.
Wilful misunderstanding of history
This wilful misunderstanding of the history of Ukrainian-Russian relations denies Ukraine its own reasons for fighting this existential battle and plays right into the hands of the Russians and their “we are one people” propaganda. It is important to remember that the US did not truly come onside with Ukraine until it was clear that Ukraine was going to put up a fight. This is not a left-right issue, nor is it primarily an American hegemony issue; it is an issue of Russian aggression toward Ukraine and Russia’s long-standing refusal to recognize Ukraine and Ukrainians as independent and sovereign in their own right. As it ever was, it is about Russia wanting to erase any outward manifestation of Ukrainian statehood and Ukrainian national identity and anything that draws attention away from this is nothing less than a Moscow-friendly red herring.
The "Global South"
Russia a colonizer par excellence
What is also interesting is how the so-called “Global South” has tended to buy into Russia’s view of this invasion, seeing it as somehow fighting an “anti-colonial” battle vs. the US, Great Britain, and France. No one is denying the colonial past of any of those three countries (among others), but it is bewildering how easily so much of the “Global South” has bought into the Russian narrative, namely that Russia is on the side of the poor beleaguered countries that continue to try shaking off the vestiges of a colonized past (the Russian hypocrisy on this has gone beyond the pale in terms of the Israel-Hamas war).
Russia is among the most pervasive colonizers in the world but because the lands it colonized have most often tended to be adjacent to it, others simply (and incorrectly) accept this as Russia exercising influence within its own “sphere”. Vladimir Putin does not hesitate to trumpet his “anti-colonial” stance and he does this with a clear conscience because he considers Ukraine not as colonized lands, but as part of Russia (“Ukraine is not a real country,” he has said many times), and a whole host of countries who should know better buy into this revisionist nonsense utterly and completely.
Russia's weaponization of food
This is to say nothing of Russia’s weaponization of food (and energy), wherein Russia denies the delivery of Ukrainian grain to ports south, yet those same countries who should be receiving this grain, hungry though their people may be, still somehow see Russia as a benevolent actor in all this. The “Global South” should be at the forefront of calling Russia out for what it truly is, yet so many of them still cling to some outdated notion that Russia will angelically stand at their side “against the American imperialists”.
Conclusion
Russia is more of a pariah throughout much of the world than it has ever been and, thanks to the exceptional skills that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has, Ukraine and its situation are better known than they ever have been. Yet much work still remains to convince recalcitrant countries that Russia is not to be trusted and that Ukraine deserves the support to become the independent nation it wants to be. So many of the countries who have hesitated fought wars of independence of their own, yet those struggles seem not to resonate as parallel to that of the Ukrainians. This is a grave error in terms of both seeking truth and justice for Ukraine itself and maintaining a stable world order beyond the borders of Ukraine.
Next column: What should be done?