news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

[text/observer network columnist xue kaihuan]

the conflict between russia and ukraine is still ongoing, but cracks are appearing in the west's "united front" in support of russia. poland, slovakia, hungary and other countries have frequently criticized ukraine, and the us republican party's ambiguous attitude towards continuing to aid ukraine has added new uncertainties to the west's "united front" against russia.

cracks in the “united front”: intensified divisions within the west

western countries have long stood firmly on ukraine's side to fight against russia. however, as ukraine continues to ask for assistance, western countries have gradually felt the heavy burden. under this pressure, some countries have begun to voice different opinions, questioning some of ukraine's decisions and actions. these doubts have gradually gathered into a force, posing a challenge to the west's "united front."

the outbreak of trade disputes has exacerbated this trend. ukraine complained to the world trade organization about hungary, poland, slovakia and other countries' ban on importing its agricultural products, accusing them of "trade protectionism". in the face of ukraine's accusations, these countries did not show any weakness and responded strongly. polish prime minister morawiecki even bluntly stated that poland would no longer transfer any weapons to ukraine because poland is now busy equipping itself with the most advanced weapons.

although lithuanian president ginaseda is a strong supporter of ukraine's fight against russia, he also accused ukraine of not "offending its allies" on the x platform, calling on ukraine to take immediate action to resolve the current differences and saying that lithuania is ready to mediate between poland and ukraine. as for slovakia, the populist left-wing party led by prime minister fico bluntly stated its pro-russian stance and announced that it would "reverse slovakia's military and political support for ukraine."

not only eastern europe, but western europe is also hesitant on the issue of aid to ukraine. french president macron once said in an interview that the west "must not humiliate russia so that we can establish a peaceful channel through diplomatic means the day the fighting stops." this statement actually implies that france supports a political solution to the ukrainian issue. this is contrary to the west's position so far: the west hopes that the final result of the russian-ukrainian conflict is ukraine's military victory, all russian troops unconditionally withdraw from ukrainian territory, and restore ukraine's territorial borders before 2014.

macron's remarks triggered a fierce reaction from ukraine. the then ukrainian foreign minister kuleba responded to macron by saying: "avoiding calls to humiliate russia will only humiliate france and all other countries that call for this. because it was russia that humiliated us, we'd better focus on how to replace russia." zelensky also publicly claimed that macron's statement actually hoped that ukraine would cede its sovereignty so that russia could "save face" when it decided to stop military operations.

eu countries bordering russia, such as latvia, lithuania and estonia, also reacted strongly to macron's remarks, indicating that the views within the eu are increasingly divided. latvian deputy prime minister pabriks once said in response to macron's statement: "it seems that there are many so-called western leaders who have a clear need to humiliate themselves and are completely out of touch with political reality." the chairman of the estonian parliament's foreign affairs committee, mikkelsen, even used the word "brain dead" to describe macron. you know, this word was once used by macron to describe nato.

at present, the ukrainian authorities are eager for the west to provide them with more advanced weapons, especially long-range missiles, so that ukraine can wait for an opportunity to launch a "counterattack" or have more bargaining power before considering the possibility of a political solution. the unpopular "kursk raid offensive" broke out in this context. therefore, zelensky and the ukrainian authorities cannot accept the voices in the west, especially the eu, that are beginning to oppose the firm stance of aiding ukraine.

since the outbreak of the conflict, the west has used severe economic sanctions and cultural, political and commercial boycotts of russia, as well as active military assistance to ukraine, hoping to weaken russia and force it to abandon its military operations in ukraine and isolate russia from the rest of the world. but as the war continues and divisions within the west intensify, more and more countries are beginning to question this endless war.

core eu countries such as germany and france have suffered the most. they are suffering from rising fuel prices, economic stagnation and soaring living costs, but the terrible prospect of continuing a long war of attrition makes them nervous. this contradictory mentality just verifies the correctness of russia's strategy - when it comes to tolerating long-term attrition, russia's endurance is obviously higher than that of the west and ukraine.

against this background, a new voice has gradually emerged within the western camp that the limitations of military solutions are becoming increasingly prominent: strategically defeating russia completely has been seen as an unrealistic goal, because not only will it fail to end the war quickly, but it may further prolong the conflict, bring greater suffering to europe, and fail to truly solve the problem.

currently, on the issue of ukraine, the western camp is clearly divided into two groups with different positions. on one side is the "anti-russian camp" with the democratic party of the united states, the united kingdom and the three baltic countries as the core, which are firmly committed to ensuring that ukraine "wins the war" in order to further weaken and isolate russia. on the other side is the "cautious group on ukraine" represented by the republican party of the united states, eu countries such as france and germany, as well as hungary and slovakia. poland's position is between the two groups.

the "cautious group on ukraine" advocates maintaining necessary communication channels and business ties with russia, and is increasingly indifferent to the practice of total isolation, severe sanctions on russia, and unlimited aid to ukraine. it is worth noting that this group is not monolithic, and can be divided into two small groups: the republican party of the united states, france, germany, and poland are relatively tougher, insisting on the position of demanding that russia "give up the occupation of all ukrainian territory"; while the rest of the members have different attitudes, but they all believe that simply isolating russia cannot bring a stable and reliable security architecture to europe or even the world, because "old europe" has a long history of exchanges with russia and has deep ties.

although the "anti-russian" voices supporting ukraine and advocating confrontation still dominate the western society, as many eu countries gradually feel the economic pressure brought by the long-term war consumption, the "cautious faction on ukraine" calling for resolving the dispute through diplomatic means is attracting more countries to join and forming a force that cannot be ignored.

at the same time, the voices of the "ukrainian skeptics" in the west and those calling for a negotiated solution to the ukrainian issue are rising, which makes ukraine anxious. in just ten days, zelensky made three important statements - a phone call with canadian prime minister trudeau, a speech at the "ukraine aid conference" and a visit to italy, showing ukraine's active actions to curb the influence of the "ukrainian skeptics". in view of the special relationship between canada and the united states and italy's important position in the european union, ukraine chose these two countries as the communication targets, obviously intending to send information to the united states and core eu countries (such as france and germany) through them, in order to change the positions and attitudes of the "ukrainian skeptics" in these countries and strive for a more favorable international support environment for ukraine.

difficulty in gaining support from the “global south”: ukraine’s diplomatic dilemma in the new era

while making its position clear to the west, ukraine has also frequently appealed to the countries of the “global south”, pleading with them “not to abandon ukraine”. this highlights the second diplomatic difficulty ukraine is currently facing: it seems powerless in gaining support from the “global south”.

after the outbreak of the russian-ukrainian conflict, the influence of the global south on the international stage has significantly increased, becoming the object of competition between russia and the west. both russia and ukraine are committed to attracting the attention and assistance of the asian, african and latin american countries, and the position of the "global south" has profoundly influenced the direction of the russian-ukrainian conflict. at present, the position of the "global south" is not optimistic for ukraine.

russia sees the "global south" as an important window to break through western sanctions. against the backdrop of western sanctions and the near-break of economic ties between russia and the west, russia has achieved remarkable results in its activities in africa, especially the sahel region, in promoting the expansion of brics countries, and in trade cooperation with china, india and other countries. these measures have effectively eased the political and economic pressure on russia due to western sanctions.

take the confiscation of russian assets as an example. instead of siding with the west and ukraine, the countries of the global south have taken a different stance. resolution es/11-5, adopted by the united nations general assembly on november 14, 2022, aims to "provide legal remedies and compensation for the losses suffered by ukraine as a result of the aggression", but it was supported by only 94 countries, of which only 44 were from the global south. so far, no country in the global south has taken action to confiscate russia's core assets in its own country.

earlier this year, the european union and the group of seven (g7) jointly announced a policy aimed at "using russian assets to safeguard ukrainian interests." soon after, the west announced plans to confiscate profits from russian assets in western countries and consider providing aid to ukraine in the form of direct transfers or "compensation loans." however, china, india and other countries subsequently issued statements that they would not follow the west's position. according to sources, "global south" countries such as indonesia and saudi arabia have also privately called on allies and friendly countries to resist external pressure and avoid confiscating russian assets.

a series of subsequent details showed that the countries of the "global south" not only made appeals, but also exerted pressure on the eu in various ways. bloomberg specifically published an article pointing out that saudi arabia had privately warned eu representatives that if the g7 decided to confiscate the assets of the central bank of the russian federation, saudi arabia would consider selling its european debt bonds. these bonds cover the national bonds of eu member states and other european assets of about us$445 billion held by the saudi central bank. once saudi arabia chooses to sell all or most of these assets, it is very likely to cause a sharp drop in the prices of related bonds, push up european debt interest rates, and even trigger a european debt crisis.

in addition, ukraine’s actions against the wagner group in africa have become a key factor in damaging its image among the countries of the “global south”.

since the outbreak of the russian-ukrainian conflict in 2022, most african countries have chosen a neutral position to avoid being drawn into the confrontation between the west and russia. ukraine's active involvement in african affairs has made african countries deeply worried that they may be forced to become victims of the game between the west and russia, further exacerbating the already complex ethnic and religious conflicts, inequality, poverty and instability.

the strong reaction of african countries to ukraine's support for separatist forces in the sahel region further highlights the lack of sympathy and support for ukraine in the "global south" countries. this reality was directly reflected in the "swiss peace summit", which was held in june this year and brought together 92 countries. however, the participation of african countries was significantly low, with only 12 countries attending. mali, niger and burkina faso were absent from the meeting, and only 11 african countries signed the summit statement. this phenomenon deeply reflects the firm position of african countries that generally hope to remain neutral and avoid being involved in external conflicts.

it is worth noting that several non-western countries, including saudi arabia, india, south africa, thailand, indonesia, mexico, brazil and the united arab emirates, also refused to support the final communiqué at the summit, further highlighting the independence of the "global south" countries in diplomatic decision-making involving russia and ukraine.

conclusion

as tensions between russia and western countries continue to escalate, the situation between russia and ukraine is tilting more and more in favor of russia, and the west's influence on the situation between russia and ukraine has inevitably declined. as different voices emerge within the west and it is difficult to reach a consensus on the issue of aid to ukraine, the "global south" region has become a key stage for the diplomatic game between the two sides.

ukraine regards the expansion of russia's influence in the "global south" as a major threat and actively seeks to attract these countries to its side. however, ukraine has repeatedly suffered setbacks in its efforts to gain external support, and the attitude of the "global south" countries has become a major problem facing ukraine's diplomacy. in contrast, russia has shown a clear advantage in winning support from the "global south".

therefore, maintaining the western position and winning the sympathy and support of the "global south" countries are the two most important issues of ukraine's diplomacy in the new era. the resignation of former foreign minister kuleba and president zelensky's request for italy to convey information to "global south" countries such as china and india are concrete manifestations of this strategic intention. ukraine is working hard through various channels and methods to improve its image in the "global south" countries and gain more understanding and support. this reflects the current changes in the international situation. as an important support for the "global south", non-western medium powers have become an indispensable force in the international system. but at present, the results are not obvious.

this article is an exclusive article of guancha.com. the content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's opinion. it cannot be reproduced without authorization, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. follow guancha.com wechat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.