Call for ‘no blame’ over Ukraine war resonates with a Global South wary of West

“Let us not put blame on any side, there are always two versions to any conflict,” he said, stressing that a cessation of hostilities was essential.

The blowback was immediate and ferocious.

Ukraine’s defence minister Oleksii Reznikov dismissed the idea as sounding “like a Russian plan, not Indonesia’s plan”, while stressing that there were no “disputed” territories in which to hold a referendum.

“We don’t need this mediator coming to us [with] this strange plan,” Reznikov said, while EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called on the international community to bring “just peace” to Ukraine, and “not a peace of surrender”.

Prabowo’s plan was criticised at home, with Meutya Hafid, chair of parliament’s defence and foreign affairs commission, saying the defence minister should be careful in expressing his opinion. Indonesian President Joko Widodo also said he would summon Prabowo for an explanation.

Prabowo, one of the aspiring candidates in next year’s presidential election, was likely playing to an audience wary of Western imperialism and tired of the impact of the war on food and oil prices. Observers, however, seized on Prabowo’s speech as yet another sign that the Global South – made up of developing countries – did not buy into the Western narrative framing Russia as the all-out bad guy in the war.

The choice of platform – the Shangri-La Dialogue, a conclave of defence chiefs, experts and analysts on global security – made Prabowo’s audacity all the more stunning in delivering this hard truth.

Prabowo’s speech had “the value of challenging the claim of only one morally correct viewpoint of the Ukraine war, that of Washington and its close allies”, said Sarang Shidore, director of studies and senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a US think tank.

In an article published on the think tank’s website, Shidore said that beyond the generally accepted view that the invasion was a violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity, “there is no consensus on how to trade off peace and justice in ending this war”.

“Much of the Global South believes that the pursuit of perfect justice, when increasingly impractical and extremely costly, may ultimately yield neither peace nor justice,” Shidore wrote.

Middle-power countries such as Indonesia, Brazil and India were making it clear that the Global South had a stake in the world order and “will not shy from asserting their voice to participate in and shape the conversation”, he added.

Indonesia, the current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, has traditionally maintained good relations with both Russia and Ukraine. It has not applied economic sanctions against Moscow despite voting in favour of a UN resolution condemning the invasion.

Widodo even visited Ukraine and Russia last year and offered to mediate between the warring countries.

Dedi Dinarto, lead Indonesia analyst at strategic advisory firm Global Counsel, said Prabowo’s key message was that the conflict was posing economic uncertainties for Global South countries, such as disruptions to food and fuel exports.

Indonesia, which relies heavily on foreign investment to generate economic growth, is becoming increasingly worried the sanctions on Moscow could lead to the suspension of an oil refinery joint venture project with Russia in Indonesia, Dinarto said.

“Therefore, Indonesia hopes that a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine could restore the pre-war situation, eliminating heavy sanctions on [Moscow],” Dinarto said.

Indonesia also wanted to keep “its options open” in procuring weapons from Russia, said Yohanes Sulaiman, an associate professor of international relations at Jenderal Achmad Yani University.

National considerations similarly drive other Global South countries, with most of them adopting a neutral stance in a conflict viewed as a “proxy war between Russia and the West, with Ukraine the latter’s surrogate”, according to Brahma Chellaney, professor emeritus of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi.

Chellaney cited the example of India, whose posture of “strategic ambivalence” meant it continued to maintain ties with both Russia and the West, resisting the US push to directly oppose Moscow – its largest arms supplier and one of its largest oil providers. India had also sought to be the bridge-builder between the two warring parties.

“The longer the war has raged, the more the non-Western world has refused to take sides,” Chellaney said, adding that few bought into the Western narrative that the war was a battle between democracies and autocracies.

Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky was “anything but a democrat”, having previously pressured critics into silence, attempted to control the media and tried to arrest former president and opposition politician Petro O. Poroshenko on treason charges.

Muhammad Ali Baig, a research fellow with the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, said developing countries did not have the luxury of taking sides as doing so could “readily shrink” their scope for further action, hence the choice of neutrality.

Pakistan was one such “rational actor”, he said, pointing to the country’s reluctance to criticise Russia’s actions, having purchased petroleum products from Moscow. Islamabad had also denied reports claiming it was selling arms to Kyiv, and previously said it supported Ukraine’s sovereignty.

“Pakistan’s economy is dwindling and its reliance on its long-standing partner, the United States, is fading,” he said, adding that this was due to Washington’s inability to help Pakistan fix its economic woes.

Earlier this year, Pakistan’s finance minister Ishaq Dar urged Washington to use its diplomatic influence to convince the International Monetary Fund to relax its tough conditions – such as amending its artificial exchange rates – on Islamabad in order to revive aid.

Bangladesh initially abstained from voting on a UN resolution calling on Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine, citing Russia’s support – as the Soviet Union – during Bangladesh’s fight for independence in 1971.

But in April, Dhaka shifted position by declaring that the Ukraine war had violated international law and the UN charter.

Anu Anwar, a fellow at Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, said that given Bangladesh’s geostrategic location at the crossroads of three nuclear-armed states in the region – India, Pakistan and China – Dhaka could have taken a bolder stand on the issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Noting that Bangladesh’s initial response aligned with that of most South Asian countries, Anwar said Dhaka’s change of heart was likely aimed at appeasing the West as antagonising it was “the last thing” the country needed.

Anwar pointed to recent comments by US National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications John Kirby urging Bangladesh to hold “free and fair elections”, scheduled for January next year.

“The West has already ramped up pressure … [so] Bangladesh’s position towards the Ukraine war up until the national election will primarily be shaped by domestic politics,” he said.

While sovereignty and territorial integrity are key considerations for developing countries in Asia, Anwar noted that the Ukraine war was “too distant” for them.

“They also do not see much of their interest in backing up Russia overtly against the West” and had turned to “omnibalancing” both the West and Russia in ways that suited their national interests, he added.

Sri Lanka, struggling under the weight of its worst economic crisis in recent years, is another Asian nation that has refrained from condemning Russia.

Neil DeVotta, politics and international affairs professor at Wake Forest University in North Carolina, said the South Asian island nation stood to gain from Russia’s support in international forums, especially when it came to allegations of war crimes against Tamils in a country that had previously been torn apart by decades of civil war.

Russia had backed Sri Lanka at last year’s UN Human Rights Council, saying that Colombo was justified in cracking down on protesters who had called for the resignations of the island’s leaders.

“It is also easier for smaller countries like Sri Lanka to take a neutral position when larger powers like India refuse to condemn Russia,” he added.

DeVotta said most Global South countries had adopted a neutral position based on self-interest as war did not affect them “from a security standpoint”. More significantly, they had a growing recognition of a “burgeoning multilateral system that’s reordering the distribution of power” that was likely to lead to deglobalisation.

“The initial framing of the war as a contest between democratic and autocratic forces may have also contributed to this neutral positioning,” DeVotta said, since most Global South states were non-democratic or illiberal democracies.

Thailand, which initially embraced neutrality, later supported the UN resolution calling for an end to the war and demanding Russia’s immediate withdrawal.

In the UN vote last year, Thailand abstained from condemning the Russian annexation of four Ukrainian regions, saying that the “increased politicisation of international principles” had become “counterproductive”.

Ken Mathis Lohatepanont, a PhD student in political science at the University of Michigan, said this reflected a foreign policy that had attempted to steer the middle path and Bangkok hoped to maintain friendly ties with all major powers.

“Thailand has long followed a strategy best termed as the ‘bamboo bending in the wind’,” refusing to side too firmly with one great power or another, Lohatepanont said.

The Thai government had thus far been ambivalent about supporting either Russia or the Western-led coalition, he added.

In recent months, most notably at the G7 summit held in Japan, the US and its allies have called on Global South countries to support Ukraine.

But the muted support from many Asian countries comes as Islamic nations including Indonesia have “stronger memories” of a Western coalition’s actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, said Paul Rogers, emeritus professor at Bradford University in England.

According to estimates from Brown University’s Costs of War Project, at least 897,000 people around the world, including many Muslims, died in the violence that can be classified as part of the war on terror.

Experts have also said a clear-cut defeat of either side in the war is unlikely, with protracted fighting leaving both parties exhausted being a more distinct possibility.

Philip Breedlove, distinguished professor at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs in Georgia Tech, said the war “will end the way that the West wants it to end”.

“The fact of the matter is when the West supplies Ukraine what it needs, it wins,” said Breedlove, formerly a commander of the US European Command.

But with Global South countries divided on the war, Rogers said the ending could well involve other countries, most notably China.

In recent weeks, China has sent its special envoy Li Hui, who said after a 12-day tour of Europe that it was “rather difficult” to get all parties to sit down at the negotiating table, but offered reassurances that a peaceful solution to the Ukraine conflict was still possible.

While the Global South might not play a decisive role in the outcome of the war, which looks likely to drag on, Western powers can expect more peace plans from middle-power countries to continue emerging.

“One could see the Global South dropping its neutral stance if Russia uses a nuclear weapon, [but] that aside, these countries are bound to maintain their current posture,” said Wake Forest University’s DeVotta.