The Global Response to Ukraine

What has been done and what does it mean: An honest depiction of geopolitical interests

Ethan Lee | 9 May 2022

The recent and ongoing invasion of Ukraine marked an unprecedented turn in geopolitics, with the invasion marking an egregious and unprecedented breach of international law. Beyond the horrors of the war however, the differing reactions and actions undertaken by various states is interesting to note, particularly given the more “surprising” responses by certain nations. This author’s previous article covered the Russian economy and how it would withstand the war, and now seeks to zoom out and examine how other countries have responded.

As the war unfolds, the brutal reality of the invasion and the significance of responses by various states are coming to light, making it more pertinent to truly understand what the global response has been and what that entails for Ukraine. Today I’ll be diving into some of the key responses to the Ukraine invasion, covering ASEAN member states, major global powers, as well as some unexpected responses, at least to an individual unfamiliar with international relations.

Firstly, let's start off with a big player — the United States of America (US). They were quick to respond, immediately criticising the invasion and pledging support for Ukraine, and have provided military aid and intelligence to the Ukrainian military. In recent news, they have even agreed to provide more than USD$150 Million in weapons and other offensive military aid to Ukraine to turn the tide of the war. This is no surprise considering the US’ long standing bitter rivalry with Russia (going back to the Cold War) and good relations with Ukraine. However, what is important to note is the fine line drawn by the US in responding to the conflict. The United States response has been driven by both rhetoric and indirect military aid and support, with it having been made clear that they were not going to pursue military intervention in Ukraine. While sceptics may claim this to be American isolationism or weakness, it is important to see the balance the US is attempting to strike between defending international law as well as sovereign rights of countries and escalating the conflict to a global war. The US is cognizant of any potentially direct military interference potentially being used to incite and escalate the conflict and as such has been clear (at least politically) about direct military interference as a line they will not cross.

Similarly to the US, the European Union (EU) states and the United Kingdom have undertaken a similar approach, albeit at a smaller scale that is ramping up in recent weeks. While obviously the response varied from country to country within the EU. There has been a general trend in providing military aid to Ukraine and extending political support. However, the lack of extensive punitive actions against Russia during the onset of the conflict, notably in terms of sanctions, is likely attributed to the interconnectedness between Russia and the EU economies’, in avenues such as oil and gas. In the recent weeks, we have seen a huge spike in EU action against Russia, notably a move to shift away from reliance on Russian oil and gas and increasing sanctions placed. Whilst this marks a concerted political effort to exclude Russia and enact consequences on its actions against Ukraine, this is an uphill battle, considering countries such as Hungary’s reluctance to support such punitive measures that spell negative consequences for the EU as well.

It is important to note NATO’s response as while not a state, it represents a collective security and defence effort by the Western bloc against Russia. NATO has sharply increased its military forces in Eastern Europe, particularly in countries such as Poland that border Ukraine. They have also planned to establish four multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in addition to the existing battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, to surround the Eastern Flank with troops in preparation for any potential conflict.

Now turning to look at another major power, China. China’s response to the Ukraine crisis has been extremely conservative, likely owing to close ties with Russia both economically and politically. It is important to note that China has not imposed sanctions on Russia like most Western nations and also criticises these sanctions. This comes amidst western pressure on China to isolate Russia economically. However, with the conflict ramping up, China has increasingly called for a peaceful settlement of the conflict despite not criticising Russia’s decision to invade. This suggests that China recognises the potential weakening of its close ally owing to this conflict, and also an increasing difficulty to remain neutral (not denouncing) about the invasion. A potential consequence of this stance that one might see however, is an increasing reduction of trust countries (particularly smaller states and Eastern European countries) have in China, which might see spillovers to foreign investment, economic ties etc.

Before we cover the ASEAN states, I thought it would be interesting to examine India. As a vibrant democracy, touted as the biggest democracy in the world and the father of democracy, one might expect India to be strongly against a flagrant violation of international law against a democratic republic, particularly in light of India’s very own colonial history. However, what we are seeing is a balancing act, one similar to what we observed in the Cold War, where India is deliberately not taking sides. India has refused to denounce Russia’s actions, is reportedly in talks to purchase Russian oil, but at the same time has spoken on the importance of territorial sovereignty and is part of the “Quad” an informal alliance consisting of countries like the US and Japan that have denounced the war. This clearly shows the brutal reality of international relations, where ultimately ideals fall short to interest. It is in India’s interest to maintain relations with Russia, especially as its main geopolitical “enemies/rivals” are China and Pakistan, where there is a constant risk of armed conflict. This also ties back to India’s military supplies and equipment largely being Russian/Soviet supplied weapons and vehicles that stem back decades. As such, India is reliant on Russia both militarily and economically to a degree, making it only detrimental to denounce Russia and take the side of the Western powers.

Lastly, ASEAN. ASEAN states have taken varied responses, with two notable things to point out. Firstly, the collective ASEAN stance is one of a measured and cautious response. While it calls for an immediate ceasefire and describes the situation as a “grave concern” it does not name Russia as the aggressor, nor imposes any punitive measures on Russia both politically or economically. This highlights a clear division amongst the views and degree of action of the various ASEAN states despite a recognition of the ramifications of the invasion, and suggests that close economic/political ties amongst some countries and Russia have hampered ASEAN’s position. Secondly, the only country that has imposed sanctions on Russia is Singapore with other ASEAN states taking a more reserved stance, this is significant due to Singapore’s rare imposition of sanctions on countries and also is a strong symbol of Singapore’s position on the issue, where Singapore does not stand for the violation of sovereign country’s territory and rights, calling for international law to be upheld and enforced. This while may have seemed shocking initially, it is important to note that this is in Singapore’s interest due to its nature as a small island state and inherent disadvantage in a “might is right” geopolitical environment, making upholding the sanctity of international law an important foreign policy fundamental.

Bibliography

Anderson, Colin. 2022. “ASEAN Members’ Responses to the Invasion of Ukraine.” Policy Forum. April 6, 2022. https://www.policyforum.net/asean-members-responses-to-the-invasion-of-ukraine/.

Associated Press. 2022. “Biden Says U.S. Sending Ukraine Another $150 Million in Aid.” PBS NewsHour. Associated Press. May 7, 2022. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-says-u-s-sending-ukraine-another-150-million-in-aid.

Barigazzi, Jacopo, and Leonie Kijewski. 2022. “EU’s Russian Oil Ban Stalls as Hungary Holds up Sanctions.” POLITICO. POLITICO. May 8, 2022. https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-russian-oil-ban-stalls-as-hungary-holds-up-sanctions/.

Kirby, Jen. 2022. “Why India Isn’t Denouncing Russia’s Ukraine War.” Vox. March 18, 2022. https://www.vox.com/22982698/india-russia-ukraine-war-putin-modi.

NATO. 2022. “NATO’s Response to Russia’s Attack on Ukraine.” NATO. March 2, 2022. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm.

Wong, Kandy. 2022. “Asia-Pacific Trade Ties Mean China Can ‘Get Away’ with Not Condemning Russia.” South China Morning Post. April 5, 2022. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3173008/chinas-stance-russias-war-ukraine-unlikely-have-major-effect?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article&campaign=3173008.