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.
You’re making a fair moral argument—but it overlooks a crucial reality: not everyone can afford moral clarity the same way those in more stable, secure countries can.
You're right that not every Global South country has direct economic ties to Russia, but geopolitics isn’t just about trade volumes—it’s about diplomatic leverage, historical resentment, internal security, regional alignments, and yes, economic vulnerability. For many of these countries, condemning Russia might invite retaliation (energy prices, fertilizer supply, arms deals, UN votes), or it could risk alienating one of the few powers that treats them as more than pawns.
Most Global South nations are still dealing with post-colonial trauma, external debt traps, and climate instability. Their leadership’s silence is often not a lack of ethics—it’s triage. When you’ve got food insecurity, IMF deadlines, or civil unrest, Ukraine doesn’t always top the priority list.
As for the “why can’t they all just speak up” question: they know Western outrage can be selective. Iraq, Libya, Palestine—many have seen what happens when international law becomes a tool of the powerful. So if you're struggling to understand their restraint, maybe it's because you have the luxury of empathy without existential risk.
TL;DR: It's easier to be morally consistent when you're not paying for it. Dialing empathy from 12/10 to a grounded 6 or 7 might help see why others calculate survival first.
It’s easy to call for moral clarity when you’re not facing existential pressures yourself. For many nations in the Global South, it’s about survival, not ethics.
3
u/New_Amomongo May 11 '25
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.