Why democratic countries around the world are not prepared to support Ukraine – and some are shifting closer to Russia
- Written by Jose Caballero, Senior Economist, IMD World Competitiveness Center, International Institute for Management Development (IMD)
After over a year of the Ukraine war, efforts at building a global consensus against Russia seem to have stalled, with many countries opting for neutrality.
The number of countries condemning Russia[1] has declined, according to some sources. Botswana has edged towards Russia from its original pro-Ukraine stance, South Africa is moving from neutral to Russia-leaning[2] and Colombia from condemning Russia to a neutral stance. At the same time, a large number of countries have been reluctant to support Ukraine[3].
In Africa, for example, despite the African Union’s call on Moscow for an “immediate ceasefire” most countries remain neutral[4]. Some observers argue that this is the result of a tradition of left-leaning regimes[5] that goes back to the cold war period. Others, indicate that the current unwillingness of African countries originates in the history of western intervention[6], sometimes covert and others overt, in their internal affairs.
The reluctance to condemn Russia, however, goes beyond Africa. In February 2023[7], most Latin American countries supported a UN resolution to call for an immediate and unconditional Russian withdrawal. And yet, despite Brazil’s[8] support for several UN resolutions in Ukraine’s favour, it has not condemned Russia outright. Within the UN, the stance of Bolivia, Cuba, El Salvador and Venezuela has allowed Russia to evade western sanctions. Furthermore, Brazil, Argentina and Chile, rejected calls to send military material[9] to Ukraine, and Mexico questioned Germany’s decision to provide tanks to Ukraine.
The same divisions are evident in Asia. While Japan and South Korea[10] have openly denounced Russia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has not collectively done so. China approaches the conflict through a balancing act through its strategic partnership with Russia and its increasing influence[11] in the UN. During its time as a member of the UN Security Council, India[12] abstained on votes related to the conflict.
The politics of neutrality
Such a cautious and neutral position has been influenced by the cold war’s non-alignment movement[13] which was perceived as a way for developing countries to fight the conflict “on their terms”[14] and thus acquire a degree of foreign policy autonomy, outside the Soviet Union and the west’s sphere of influence. Studies of EU sanctions have argued that an unwillingness of other countries to back the EU position can relate to both a desire for foreign policy independence and an unwillingness to antagonise a neighbour[15].
Non-alignment allows countries to avoid becoming entangled in the rising geopolitical tensions between the west and Russia. It is perhaps for this reason that many democratic countries maintain a stance of neutrality, preferring, as South African president Cyril Ramaphosa put it, to “talk to both sides[16]”.
There are, however, particular economic and political incentives that are influential when countries decide against condemning Russia.
Brazil
Since the earlier stages of the Ukraine conflict, Brazil has maintained a pragmatic but ambivalent stance[17]. This position connects to Brazil’s agricultural and energy needs. As one of the world’s top agricultural producers and exporter[18], Brazil requires a high rate of fertiliser usage. In 2021, the value of imports from Russia was of US$5.58 billion (£4.48 billion) of which 64%[19] was from fertilisers. Imports of fertilisers from Russia are 23%[20] of the total 40 million tonnes imported.
