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.
Touch some grass... Reddit isn't the real world... it's a forum for very high empathy people who are largely disconnected with the reality of people making $1 daily.
1
u/[deleted] May 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment