Russia has been successful in using its deep history as an anti-colonial force and a balancing counter to Western dominance of the world, but is Ukraine able to make inroads in the fortress of Russian soft power in the Global South?
—
RUSSIAN ministers and officials have embarked on a series of diplomatic missions to Africa and Latin America since the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Their primary goal is bolstering Russia’s global influence and winning it sympathisers and allies.
In 2023, these emissaries paid visits to Angola, Burundi, Eritrea, Eswatini, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, South Africa and Sudan, while Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov concurrently embarked on a tour of select countries in Latin America, including Brazil, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.
The overarching objective of these visits was to strengthen diplomatic ties and garner support for Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. As the war in Ukraine persists, some observers have discerned Russia’s efforts to secure influential backing for its stance in the conflict.
Russia’s narrative, positioning itself as a counterforce against Western dominance and neo-colonialism, has seemingly garnered support from various quarters. In contrast, Ukraine’s attempts to rally allies in these regions by framing the conflict as a struggle against an imperial power have met with less resonance.
Certain geopolitical commentators posit that we are witnessing the resurgence of what is known as ‘Global Russia’, marked by the strategic use of economic and political influence and digital disinformation tactics to disseminate archetypal narratives.
Certain geopolitical commentators posit that we are witnessing the resurgence of what is known as ‘Global Russia’, marked by the strategic use of economic and political influence as well as digital disinformation tactics to disseminate archetypal narratives.
While Russia’s expansion in Africa during the 2010s was attributed to economic opportunism, the Ukraine conflict has prompted it to take a more structured, systematic and nuanced strategic approach that includes a prominent undercurrent of sentimental appeal.
Also read: The future of international law in light of the Russian-Ukraine conflict – The Leaflet
Leveraging the BRICS connections
There is mounting evidence that in some African nations, Russia’s influence continues to grow, with fellow BRICS member South Africa leading as the vanguard of change, prominently shifting its orientation away from the West and towards a closer alignment with China and Russia.
This shift may result in part from the belief that contesting the prevailing liberal order could empower the Global South, enhancing its negotiating power and enabling the pursuit of its policy objectives.
Hints of this were apparent at a recent BRICS conference where leaders from Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa refrained from fully condemning Russia for its actions in Ukraine. During the summit, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva asserted that the Ukraine conflict exposed the limitations of the UN Security Council and underscored the economic clout of the BRICS alliance as a symbol of global relevance.
The decision to integrate six new countries into the bloc is expected to amplify this relevance and potentially grant its members greater influence over the current global order. The conference also explicitly reinvigorated the agenda of ‘de-dollarisation’, a concern closely connected with the founding vision of the group.
BRICS is exploring the possibility of a BRICS currency for international trade at a time when the Chinese Yuan is voraciously eating away at the dollar’s influence around the world and South American nations are bypassing the greenback for their trade with China.
Personally, a fairly (and conveniently) observant Orthodox Christian, Putin has been just as selective and opportunistic with wielding the double-edged blade of the culturo-religious aspect of communism as its economic aspect. This ambidexterity of him has so far served him generally well, within and outside Russia.
In March 2022, when 181 nations voted in the UN General Assembly over whether to adopt a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, all BRICS members except Brazil abstained from voting. About half of the abstainers were African nations.
Pitching to the Global South
Two interrelated factors shed light on Russia’s appeal to the Global South and its reluctance to support Ukraine wholeheartedly. Firstly, Russia positions itself as an ‘anti-colonial’ agent, particularly in Africa, using a strategy rooted in historical diplomacy to leverage shared positive historical narratives.
Russia employs a multifaceted propaganda strategy, utilising official channels and covert disinformation campaigns reminiscent of systematic Soviet-era propaganda dissemination, narrative fabrication and truth-reengineering initiatives.
For instance, it emphasises its role in defeating fascism during World War II, its non-participation in colonial history of Africa, and its support for anti-colonial struggles during the Cold War. This is conveyed in diplomatic dialogue as well as in national and global public communications by the government.
These tactics are being deployed globally, with consistent narratives relentlessly blaming NATO expansion for the conflict, depicting Ukraine as an American puppet, emphasising Western shortcomings, and propagating conspiracy theories, including the claim that the US used Ukraine for bioweapon development.
Russian propaganda is not uniform but exploits existing divisions and tensions, drawing from decades of experience in influencing operations dating back to the Cold War.
This approach capitalises on pre-existing sentiments, making it particularly effective in regions such as Africa, where it blames Western sanctions instead of its own blockades for food price spikes; South and Central America, where it taps into anti-imperialist and anti-American sentiments; the Middle East, where it points to America’s failed and economic interest-motivated interventions as evidence of Western hypocrisy, and Europe, where it contrasts the reception of Ukrainian refugees with that of Syrian refugees.
Moreover, Putin’s own cult-of-personality and general aura of machismo— a dauntless lone wolf, a conventional hero in an unconventional era, a maverick restorer, and a self-determined gritty rebel against a conceited, directionless, and murky new world order, is a significant contributor to Russia’s soft power.
Further, apart from posts and tweets by Russian government accounts, the stance of the Russian government is echoed by bots, masquerade accounts and sympathetic individuals on Twitter across the world. To this end, Russia also frequently invokes Soviet-era imagery, including propaganda posters underscoring human equality, vouching for civil rights, and denouncing racial and gender discrimination then prevalent in the West.
Russia also cites the West’s long history of strategic military intervention in the Global South under the pretext of defending democracy which, more often than not, leaves such nations worse off.
The results of Moscow’s international cooperation
Another factor contributing to Russia’s appeal in the Global South is the legacy of Moscow’s solidarity with various countries in the past. In 1927, the Communist International, led by the Soviet Union, sponsored the League Against Imperialism, which aimed to end colonial rule worldwide. This league united prominent anti-colonial activists and figures like Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi, inspiring leaders in the Global South’s decolonisation efforts.
Personally, a fairly (and conveniently) observant Orthodox Christian, Putin has been just as selective and opportunistic with wielding the double-edged blade of the culturo-religious aspect of communism as its economic aspect. This ambidexterity has so far served him generally well, within and outside Russia.
Communism is akin to a distant aristocratic ancestor’s portrait to Putin’s regime— it serves no material purpose to him, nor does it serve as a lifestyle model relevant to emulate in modern circumstances, but it is convenient to point at to invoke nostalgia and solidarity, tapping into legacy and kinship during family gatherings.
The leveraging of this legacy is evident in South Africa’s stance toward the Ukraine conflict, which is influenced by nostalgia for Moscow’s support during its struggle against apartheid and scepticism regarding Western policies.
Critics in the Global South, exemplified by Brazil’s Lula, contend that the West upholds democracy domestically while hypocritically disregarding democratic principles abroad when it serves its interests.
Ukraine must go the whole hog
In response to Russia’s diplomatic efforts, Ukraine, too, has expanded its diplomatic presence in Africa and prioritised engagement with the Global South as part of its foreign policy strategy. However, the terrain of this front may prove treacherous, hindering Ukraine’s advances.
While Ukraine sees itself as a veritable David against the Russian Goliath, much of the Global South is likely to instead perceive Russia instead as the heroic Biblical underdog taking on the creeping belligerent giant NATO, the former’s offence seen as a pro-active or pre-emptive self-defence measure.
Given Russia’s adept use of digital channels to reinforce its geopolitical influence, any Ukrainian penetration must pass through the deep mire of Russian malalignment. Superficial efforts that do not involve any meaningful ideological repositioning, alliance restructuring, or paradigm shift in alignment may prove distracting and misleading during wartime.
Additionally, Russia is perceived by the Global South as a partial counterbalance to Western, particularly US, dominance. Ukraine’s close alliance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), its endorsement of capitalism, and the fact that it is supplied with armaments from the US, leads the Global South to view it as ideologically aligned with the First World imperial order.
Moreover, Putin’s own cult-of-personality and general aura of machismo— a dauntless lone wolf, a conventional hero in an unconventional era, a maverick restorer, and a self-determined gritty rebel against a conceited, directionless and murky new world order, is a significant contributor to Russia’s soft power.
Also read: Ukraine: a conflict soaked in contradictions and new patterns in war and media – The Leaflet
The historical analogy
World War II history has been the gunpowder to propaganda in the course of the Russia–Ukraine war. Both sides have invoked Nazi analogy and strung cherry-picked historical episodes into narratives to assail each other, often in ironic and paradoxical ways.
Both lands have had an ignoble history of prosecuting Jews as well as of making monumental sacrifices in their struggle against the Nazis. One of them is currently led by a Jewish man who happens to be the grandson of a Red Army Colonel (whose family was killed in the Holocaust), the other by a former KGB officer posted in Germany who has called Communist Party values ‘a road to a blind alley’.
In a history complicated by loose borders and vague archetyping of evolving dynamic geocultural and national identities, it is only fitting to witness such ironies.
Also read: Imperialism of our times: understanding the Russian war on Ukraine – The Leaflet
Ukraine’s fly in the ointment
While the West views Ukraine as a key strategic ally, or more practically, a crucial frontier bastion, Ukraine has failed to convey any distinctive value proposition to most of the Global South.
From the meridional point of view, Ukraine is a country supplied and supported by all former imperial powers cooperating to consolidate a unipolar world order beneficial to them— a nation striving to dissociate from its Slavic roots and aspiring to forge a more pan-European identity by desperately allying with the West.
Communism is akin to a distant aristocratic ancestor’s portrait to Putin’s regime— it serves no material purpose to him, nor does it serve as a lifestyle model relevant to emulate in modern circumstances, but it is convenient to point at to invoke nostalgia and solidarity, tapping into legacy and kinship during family gatherings.
Ukraine appears to be a nation losing its identity, trying too hard to belong to and blend in a faction that has little motivation to admit it beyond strategic and economic exploitation.
Russia is a well-known and recognisable entity in the Global South, imprinted in the collective conscious and subconscious memory of many nations both as a successor of the Soviet Union and in its own right. In contrast Ukraine, despite being the second-largest economy to emerge out of the Soviet Union, is a transient presence in public memory.
For much of the Third World, Ukrainian culture is indistinguishable from Russian culture. Ukraine does not stand out or strike most residents of the Global South as a distinctive and conspicuous presence the way Western and Central European nations do. The strong recognition and recall of Russian heritage fuels its soft power.
While a lot of it is historical, a significant portion of it emanates from the expansive international presence of Russian media outlets, both state-sponsored outlets as well as furtive social media accounts. This presence has been over a decade in the making.
Russia’s state-sponsored media also extensively translates and dubs its content for audiences across the world. Sputnik, a Russian state-owned broadcast service, streams in 30 languages. Russia Today, a Russian state-controlled TV network, has eight channels, including six regional ones and broadcasts content in six languages.
On the other hand, the general obliviousness towards Ukraine’s uniqueness as a prominent geocultural entity is a result of the generalisation of all that was historically Russian and Soviet to its largest and eponymous successor state as well as Ukraine’s lack of cultural transmission beyond Europe.
Thus, while Russia overflows with soft power emanating from the culture and politics of its past and present alike, Ukraine is yet to carve a niche for itself in general global memory.
Opportunity knocks!
Ukraine has a strategic opportunity to strengthen existing economic ties and highlight shared concerns arising from Russia’s actions, including trade crises and disruption of global supply chains.
Much of Africa is going through a spell of food shortages. Many of these were caused by droughts and compounded by Russian blockades. Any significant venture to provide relief would be taken with immense gratitude and serve to soundly affirm Ukraine’s moral authenticity.
World War II history has been the gunpowder to propaganda in the course of the Russia–Ukraine war. Both sides have invoked Nazi analogy and strung cherry-picked historical episodes into narratives to assail each other, often in ironic and paradoxical ways.
Kenya’s condemnation of Russia’s decision to withdraw from the grain deal as a ‘backstab’ for African countries underscores the calibre of these efforts. However, Ukraine has so far taken little initiative beyond promising words to claim any of the diplomatic foothold that Russia is losing in the Third World. It has failed to implement any substantial facultative supply infrastructural measures that could have won the support of African nations disillusioned with Russia.
Failing to establish new grain storage hubs and bypass supply chains in response to Russia’s grain shipment restrictions from Black Sea ports is a major lost opportunity for the world’s wheat basket. Redirecting its supply chains to less lucrative but more needy markets could have gained Ukraine the trust and firm diplomatic backing of these nations, at the expense of some immediate monetary loss.
Several African regimes were dependent on Russia because the Russian government-funded private armed mercenary organisation Wagner Group was helping them maintain their power by keeping rebels under check. However, since Wagner’s rebellion in June, this strategic lever has largely been negated for the Putin regime.
Also read: EU’s policy towards refugees from Ukraine exposes its double standards – The Leaflet
Ukraine’s loss of identity
Instead of seeking to build common narratives based on shared experiences of victimhood by drawing parallels between its struggle for identity and self-determination and the anti-colonial movements of the Global South, Ukraine has focused its public relations efforts on assailing Russia’s long standing bastions of historo-cultural and historo-political soft power, trying to compete on a turf where it has little experience, credence or historical advantage.
As a result, Ukraine is being viewed less as an underdog and more as a henchman, stooge, or crony of the looming West.
While Ukraine sees itself as a veritable David against the Russian Goliath, much of the Global South is likely to instead perceive Russia as the heroic Biblical underdog taking on the creeping belligerent giant NATO, the former’s offence seen as a pro-active or pre-emptive self-defence measure.
If Ukraine has fairly shared in Russia’s good, it has also shared in many of its ills, sometimes by authoritarian compulsion and at other times organically, of its own accord.
Ukraine’s emphasis on similarities with Western Europe to stylise itself as a natural NATO ally have made it appear servile to historically imperial powers and made it far less relatable for developing nations still recovering from the injuries inflicted by colonialism. Ukraine’s efforts to assert belongingness to the mainland European continuum in a bid to appease the West haveundermined its efforts to accentuate the uniqueness of its cultural identity and have alienated many nations in the Global South from its cause.
Ukrainians have often shared in the acts Russia cites to paint itself as a champion of the oppressed and a saviour from subjugation. However, since Ukraine has not been able to distinctly and persuasively establish its historical identity, let alone fashion a collective memory-based diplomatic narrative, its rightful credit to the Soviet legacy lies unclaimed.
Moreover, if Ukraine has fairly shared in Russia’s good, it has also shared in many of its ills, sometimes by authoritarian compulsion and at other times organically, of its own accord.
If it stakes claim to the former, it cannot legitimately shrug off all of the latter. For one, Ukraine has had a dark history of antisemitism, including multiple atrocious anti-Jewish pogroms, and despite having a thriving Jewish community and a Jew as a leader today, its spontaneous and indiscriminate usage of Nazi analogy to describe Putin’s regime has been viewed unfavourably by many.
Israel, otherwise a natural ally, has denounced such comparisons time and again, deeming them trivialising and belittling to the severity, scale and selectivity of the Holocaust. Jewish groups worldwide have voiced their concerns that such reckless parallelism dilutes the legacy of their historical suffering and downplays the longstanding and deep-entrenched antisemitic sentiment that led to it.
Many other groups who were victims of Nazism view such profuse analogies as inconsiderate of historical context and irresponsible and insensitive to their affliction.
Over the past decade, the alarming rise of far-right Neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine has not helped this cause. Such factions carry and further fiercely xenophobic sentiment, attacking immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities, including Jews. Their actions only lend credibility to Putin’s polemic denazification narrative justifying his invasion of Ukraine.
Many such neo-Nazi groups and ideologues are trying to distort and use the war narrative to validate their brand of militant hypernationalism. The Ukrainian government has largely failed to denounce such groups, leading to the perception of tacit support or at least negligent tolerance in the interest of their support in the war. By turning a blind eye to the bigotry and radicalism festering domestically, Ukrainian leadership is losing the credibility of calling out Russian demagoguery and zealotry internationally.
Conclusion
It is increasingly evident that any challenger to Russia’s image as an anti-imperialist crusader should brace themselves for a protracted struggle, a veritable tug-of-war of credence and authenticity, more so if the challenger fails to effectively draw upon their own shared legacies and historical narratives of positive global influence.
Israel, otherwise a natural ally, has denounced such comparisons time and again, deeming them trivialising and belittling to the severity, scale, and selectivity of the Holocaust. Jewish groups worldwide have voiced their concerns that such reckless parallelism dilutes the legacy of their historical suffering and downplays the longstanding and deep-entrenched antisemitic sentiment that led to it.
If Ukraine fails to tactfully use its past to legitimise its present and reaffirm faith in its future, it risks losing its very identity. For Russia, it is becoming apparent that international trust is not an entitlement but an unremitting responsibility and as all ostentatious and exalted heirlooms, its historically-forged relations with the Global South and its identity as the champion of the oppressed would fast corrode away in the absence of meaningful efforts to maintain them.
