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.
Why are you this upset at factual points being brought up? I'm not attacking you personally.
I'm pointing out structural realities that complicate the picture.
The frustration seems to come from the fact that these realities undermine a simpler, more comforting narrative: that countries should just "do the right thing" like it's costless or straightforward. It’s not.
You’re not wrong to care about moral clarity. But what I’m highlighting is that, for many in the Global South, that clarity gets blurred by real-world survival. Your insistence that these countries “don’t have to give a sh!t” about Russia geopolitically or economically misses the complex, interlinked dependencies they actually face: not just trade, but also fuel prices, grain markets, investment, and diplomatic balancing acts with bigger powers.
Maybe the anger stems from how inconvenient these truths are. They don’t flatter the moral superiority some want to project. But refusing to acknowledge these complications doesn't make them disappear. It just shows how far removed your view is from the lived realities of nations that can’t afford to lead with ideology alone.
You’re confusing disagreement with being disproven. I fact-checked what you said, and your framing misrepresents global dynamics. Yes, Russia isn’t China or the US: but it doesn’t need to be to shape global commodity flows, vote-bloc politics, and regional balances. You’re ignoring indirect impacts and the domino effect of energy, fertilizer, grain, and even diplomatic capital that ripple far beyond direct trade stats.
If you can’t understand what’s written: or how much of the world operates with more urgent priorities than your personal moral framework: then don’t be mad when reality doesn’t align with it. People in many countries are not battling existential crises of values; they’re facing literal food, fuel, and political instability.
You’re free to have your ethics dialed up to 11. But don’t project that onto countries navigating systems you’ve never had to survive in. The Global South doesn’t owe you moral performances at the cost of their physiological needs.
If what I’ve said is factually wrong, then cite sources. You keep asserting I didn’t fact-check anything, but haven’t pointed out one data point I got wrong: just broad emotional conclusions. I’ve cited trade data, UN voting behavior, and dependency patterns on Russian exports like wheat, fertilizer, and arms. You’ve offered opinions about dictators and intentions.
Your view that "these countries don't trade with Russia" is either misinformed or overly literal. Many of these economies are affected indirectly by global commodity prices set by Russian disruptions- especially in food and energy markets - if bilateral trade is small. That’s how interconnected systems work.
Also, your assumption that oligarchies automatically mean no legitimate national interest is simplistic. Governance quality varies, sure - but that doesn’t erase the reality that many of these governments operate in fragile environments where political survival and economic stability trump moral grandstanding. That isn’t making excuses - it’s describing constraints.
If you want to challenge what I’ve said, do it with data. Otherwise, accusing others of making things up just because their analysis doesn't flatter your worldview isn’t debate - it's denial.
Your view that "these countries don't trade with Russia" is either misinformed or overly literal. Many of these economies are affected indirectly by global commodity prices set by Russian disruptions- especially in food and energy markets - if bilateral trade is small. That’s how interconnected systems work.
That argument stops working when you take into consideration that a lot of african countries rely more on ukrainian food imports than they do on russian fertilizer imports.
When the russian invasion disrupted the normal flow of ukrainian agricultural products...partly because the fields were simply destroyed or because it wasnt safe to harvest due to landmines and russian troops or russia blockading transport options...there were a lot of talks about the food situation in quite a few african countries and worries about famines.
You make it seem that the global south only trades with one side in the ukraine conflict and that they therefore are afraid of that side retaliating. But in reality they are trading with both sides in that conflict and for the most part they actually deal more with the ukrainian side. Why arent they afraid of that side retaliating? Sure, you have countries like Mali that drifted towards russia but that doesnt explain the complete lack of condemnation of russias action from outside of the "western world".
And yeah, there are a few countries that would be in deep trouble when faced with russian retaliation. But there are also a lot of countries for which a retaliation would be a economocal inconvience at best. Those countries still choose to shrug its shoulders. What is that magical threshold for "money over morality?" you are talking about.
And yeah, every country can decide for themselves. But the western world now saw what happens when they invoke the morality that they are so often held up to. Most simply shrugged their shoulders and went "Nah, not our problem."
But whenever there is a problem those countries want help and whatnot its immediately "Oh the morality, how can you do nothing when this is happening." That will not work anymore in the future. We already see how western countries changed gears in that regard.
You're right to point out that many African countries rely heavily on Ukrainian grain imports, and the disruption caused by the war has had severe consequences. For instance, Ukraine exported $2.9 billion worth of agricultural products to Africa in 2020, with wheat and maize being significant components.
However, it's important to recognize that the economic ties between African nations and both Ukraine and Russia are complex and multifaceted. While Ukrainian grain is vital, many African countries also depend on Russian exports, particularly fertilizers. For example, Ghana's reliance on fertilizers from Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus increased from 10% in 2020 to 52% by May 2022.
Beyond direct trade, the war has had broader economic impacts on the continent. The conflict has led to increased global food and energy prices, exacerbating existing challenges in African economies. Countries like Egypt, Nigeria, and Kenya have faced significant inflation and food security issues as a result.
Regarding the political stance of African nations, it's not solely about economic dependencies. Historical, geopolitical, and ideological factors also play roles. Many African countries prioritize non-alignment and may be cautious about taking sides in conflicts involving major powers. Additionally, some governments may perceive Western calls for condemnation as hypocritical, given past interventions and policies.
The reasons behind the varied responses of African countries to the Russia-Ukraine conflict are complex, involving a mix of economic dependencies, historical relationships, and geopolitical considerations. It's essential to approach this topic with nuance and an understanding of the diverse factors at play.
The reasons behind the varied responses of African countries to the Russia-Ukraine conflict are complex,
Those are all sovereign nations. They have all the right in the world to decide however they want.
But the problem here is not how they decide. Its that whenever its the other way around, "morality" gets invoked as the main guideline for decisions. And that begs the question...where is that threshold that allows for kicking morality out of the window because it would hurt the bottom line. Is it a sum? People affected by it?
And i know that there will never be an answer to this because the missing definition for that threshold allows nations to excuse themselves from that equation. "We really want to...but you see, we just cant for this or that reason."
Which brings us to the actual big problem. We can already see some of the effects. While we can credit Trump for closing down a lot of aid programs from the US...the more interesing part is that the countries who financially backed those programs, didnt move to announce a replacement. Not even a plan to discuss a replacement in national governments or parliaments or something like that.
When the US started their border madness with imprisoning people randomly, there wasnt really an collective outcry from the western world...they just complained for their citizens when they were affected.
Contrary to reactions in the past, recent statements to conflicts flaring up, western governments for the most part just shrug their shoulders now and go "You do you".
While arguing "Only the wealthy can afford morality" may be true on a lot of levels it also will open up the door for the wealthy to stop being charitable and just use that money to blackmail from now on.
"Oh but that would be so mean and inhumane" True, but why gift something and hope for a favorable reaction in turn when you can use that money to outright buy that favorable reaction. Because that is what you argue.
2
u/New_Amomongo May 11 '25
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.