What Kyiv must do to win over Global South

Ukraine must meet the Global South not as a western outpost but as a grievously wronged sovereign member of the international community

Representatives of 40 countries and international organisations met in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, recently to discuss Russia’s war on Ukraine. The transactions of that meeting were not peace talks for two reasons. First, you cannot talk peace when the belligerent party — in this case, Russia — is absent. This was a Ukrainian initiative and Russia wasn’t invited. And second, the war doesn’t seem to be at a stage conducive to peace talks. Its offensive plan for military and political subjugation of Ukraine having failed ingloriously, Russia has switched to defending the large chunk of Ukrainian territory that it has illegally annexed since the war began. And since defence on the whole is less difficult than offence, Russia is currently doing well in the war. With the Ukrainian offensive yet to produce a breakthrough, and Kyiv’s western supporters readying for a long conflict as illustrated by their ramping up production of military hardware, a stalemate that could continue for months, perhaps years, seems quite likely.

In its outreach to the Global South, Ukraine must avoid casting the war in terms of good versus evil and democracy versus authoritarianism.(via REUTERS)

Mediation and peacemaking efforts began very early in this war, with Belarus and then Turkey providing avenues for the warring parties. France’s Emmanuel Macron sought to mediate a resolution of the crisis in the run-up to Russia’s invasion. His own efforts having failed, he later encouraged China to play a major role. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan assumed these roles from the beginning; he was successful in negotiating the Black Sea grain deal until Russia called it off last month. China produced its own 12-point plan for peace in February this year. Leaders of several African countries visited Ukraine and Russia in June this year with a 10-point peace plan. As well as supporting Chinese efforts, Brazil’s Lula da Silva called for mediation by neutral countries. And, New Delhi too has advocated a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Not all wars conclude with a peace settlement (think of World War II) but because wars are brutal, exhausting, destabilising and a drain on resources, it is morally right, tactically wise and politically sensible for warring parties to be open to one. That Russia will in all likelihood not lose, and the West cannot afford Ukraine losing, the war gives international mediation a strong standing. But the problem is that Moscow views itself as a great power, and it is hard to imagine a self-respecting great power agreeing to mediation in a war it waged because it claimed that its very survival was at stake.

And yet, in reaching out to the so-called Global South in Jeddah, Ukraine has made a wise political move. At its core, the war has now become about territorial control. And here, Ukraine’s position is strong because Russia has flagrantly violated the former’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Of all the principles of international order, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity resonates most strongly and universally amongst the non-western countries. Since no official communique was released after the deliberations at Jeddah concluded, we cannot be sure of what line the Ukrainians took. But reports indicate there was appreciation amongst participants of the principle that sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country are sacrosanct.

Ukraine’s position is strong on this principle because its territorial boundaries as they stood before Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 were agreed upon and guaranteed by Moscow as well as other great powers in Budapest in 1994. One could make an argument that Russia’s naval security interests linked to Crimea (before the 2014 annexation) as well as its concern for the Russian-speaking population within Ukraine were unresolved issues of the post-Soviet-era settlement that could have been discussed and addressed politically by the two sides as well as the great powers that were stakeholders of the post-Soviet transition in eastern Europe. But these did not merit the military aggression and territorial conquest that began in 2014.

Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity have featured in the Ukrainian, Chinese and African proposals, and they have all-round support in the international community. It is possible that a meeting ground was found, resulting in remarks about future meetings and a possible summit of world leaders — which would be remarkable were it to happen — by the end of the year. All the same, it is strongly possible that Kyiv has made inroads into a vast zone of international opinion that has been reluctant to see its point of view.

In its outreach to the Global South, Ukraine must avoid casting the war in terms of good versus evil and democracy versus authoritarianism. And it must definitely not seek to persuade its non-western colleagues about how its relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) before Russia’s invasion last year posed no threat to Moscow. In other words, it must meet the Global South not as a western outpost but as a grievously wronged sovereign member of the international community. Its efforts are unlikely to pressure Moscow to withdraw and make peace. But they could go towards securing the perception amongst the majority of the world’s humanity that Ukraine is a truly independent country. And hasn’t that been a core Ukrainian quest as it has struggled to emerge from the Russian shadow?

Atul Mishra teaches international relations at Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence. The views expressed are personal