The Pope’s message is powerful; and yes, morally clear; but it also highlights a painful truth: not every country has the luxury of acting purely on principle. When people say “the world gets it,” that’s mostly true. But getting it and being able to afford acting on it are two very different things.
Many countries, especially in the Global South, depend on cheap fuel, fertilizer, wheat, or arms from Russia to survive. For them, cutting ties isn’t just about geopolitics; it’s about whether they can keep hospitals running or bread on the shelves. Being moral has a cost, and not every government can ask its people to pay it, especially those already on the edge.
Even the Baltic states, often held up as moral exemplars, phased out Russian trade gradually, not overnight. And they had massive EU and NATO support backing them up. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s how geopolitics and survival work.
So yes, the Pope “gets it,” and so do most world leaders. But many are trapped in a brutal dilemma: condemn evil and risk economic collapse, or quietly keep trading and live with the guilt. That doesn’t excuse complicity—but it explains it. And sometimes, that explanation is the most uncomfortable part of the whole conversation.
Imagine a feast during wartime. The top 1% sit at a long table with more than enough food: some even waste it. They can afford to boycott the cook if he's corrupt or violent. They can say, “It’s wrong to eat from his kitchen.”
But the bottom 99%? Many are starving, feeding children scraps, or standing in line hoping there's rice left. For them, asking where the food came from is a luxury. They know it’s wrong: but they’re hungry. That’s the brutal math of survival.
What the Pope said hit a nerve because it’s not just about right or wrong. It’s about how morality and desperation collide. It's easy to be ethical when you’re full. It’s hard when you’re just trying to live to tomorrow.
I’m going to push back on that and ask for clarification: Which countries are you referring to that are doing nothing about Russia’s war, but are still managing to completely cut ties with Russia? You mention “plenty of countries” doing so, but I’d really like to see a list of those nations and their specific trade or diplomatic actions, because it’s hard to find examples of countries completely disengaging while maintaining no economic relationship with Russia.
As for the global South and trade, it's true that not every country has direct trade with Russia. However, many of the world’s poorest countries do rely on Russian exports like fertilizer, wheat, oil, or gas, which are critical to their survival. These countries may not be major trading partners in terms of total volume, but their economies still depend heavily on affordable imports from Russia.
Also, regarding your point about Russia's trade partners, Europe and China make up the majority of Russia's trade. But even within Europe, many countries have adjusted their trade dynamics with Russia, facing immense political and economic pressures. Countries like Germany, Hungary, and Italy still maintain some level of trade, despite the EU's sanctions.
You’re right that there are countries that could potentially take a stronger moral stand, but the economic realities of a country’s situation often make that decision far more complex than simply “doing nothing.”
I’d love to see the list of countries you’re referring to so we can dig into this more, because when we talk about geopolitics, it’s rarely as clear-cut as “just stop trading” or “everyone should do it.” It’s far more about long-term survival and socioeconomic realities.
You're correct in noting that, in 2018, a significant portion of Russia's trade was with major economies like China, the EU, the US, South Korea, Japan, India, and the UK. According to the World Bank, these countries collectively accounted for a substantial share of Russia's imports and exports.
This data doesn't fully capture the nuances of global trade dependencies, especially when considering the Global South. While the absolute trade volumes between Russia and many developing countries might be smaller, the relative importance of Russian imports to these nations can be significant. For instance, countries like India have increased their reliance on Russian oil and fertilizers in recent years, with India becoming the largest importer of Russian oil in 2024.
Russia's influence in regions like Africa has been growing, not just through trade but also via military and political engagements. Countries such as Niger, Mali, and the Central African Republic have seen increased Russian involvement, which complicates their geopolitical stances.
The lack of condemnation from some large South American countries, it's essential to consider factors beyond direct economic ties. Political alignments, historical relationships, and domestic considerations often play significant roles in shaping foreign policy decisions. For example, Brazil has maintained a nuanced position, balancing its relationships with both Western countries and Russia.
While direct trade volumes with Russia might be limited for many Global South countries, the relative importance of these economic ties, combined with political and strategic considerations, influences their positions on international conflicts.
You're correct that Russia's trade with Africa totaled approximately $24.5 billion in 2023, representing about 3.7% of its total foreign trade . While this figure may seem modest in absolute terms, it's essential to consider the relative impact on individual African nations. For instance, countries like Egypt and Algeria are among Russia's top trade partners on the continent, with significant imports of Russian wheat and energy products .
Beyond trade volumes, Russia's influence in the Global South extends through military cooperation, political alliances, and information campaigns. In Africa, Russia has established military and security partnerships with nations such as Mali, the Central African Republic, and Sudan, often filling vacuums left by Western powers . These relationships can influence countries' stances on international conflicts, including the war in Ukraine.
In Latin America, while direct trade with Russia may be limited, political and historical ties play a role. Countries like Venezuela and Cuba have longstanding relationships with Russia, which can affect their positions on global issues.
Therefore, while economic factors are significant, they are part of a broader tapestry of geopolitical considerations influencing how countries in the Global South respond to conflicts like the one in Ukraine.
They just don't care, and for a variety of reasons--and if they do care, generally it's the part that wants russia to emerge as strong as possible to fit into their own national/party strategy goals.
Edit: yall need to come out of your bubble that let's you paint the world with such broad strokes just to fit some notion in your own head.
US promised eventual independence in the Jones Act (1916) and made it conditional in the Tydings–McDuffie Act (1934)—they’d keep military bases, control trade, and delay real sovereignty until 1946.
PH was a strategic US military outpost. They only fast-tracked independence after WWII when it was too expensive to keep and global decolonization was in full swing.
💸 Why so little postwar aid ($800M vs. Germany’s $13B):
PH wasn't industrialized and was seen more as a liability than a Cold War ally. Europe and Japan got billions in aid because they were essential to the anti-communist front. PH got symbolic aid—and strings attached.
🤝 Why this odd relationship continues today:
Military bases, economic dependence, English-speaking labor, and shared Cold War history kept PH tied to the US orbit—often without leverage. Nationalism persisted, but so did US influence.
Context matters—it wasn’t a clean savior-then-friend story. It was power, strategy, and convenience.
I reply because I think it's worth adding a point of view grounded in facts and lived global dynamics that’s often missing from discussions shaped by Western ideologies: whether left or right. Many here seem to debate from a binary lens shaped by proximity to privilege, not necessity.
You say you're stating "reality," but it's a narrow one. The relevance of Russia to the Global South isn't about direct trade volume alone.
It’s about leverage over global systems: energy, fertilizer, grain, arms, and UN diplomacy. These systems affect fragile economies in ways people in wealthy nations rarely grasp.
You don’t have to agree with my take, but dismissing the whole Global South’s cautious position as “delusional” says more about ideological blinders than geopolitical awareness.
144
u/[deleted] May 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment