On that same day, the Occupied Territories of Ukraine spurred talk of a referendum to legitimize annexation by Russia. Moscow then moved to mobilize 300,000 reservists the next day, signaling a sharp escalation, while Emmanuel Macron addressed the United Nations General Assembly. “Those who stay silent today are serving a cause that erodes world order,” the French president warned, channeling not just moral anger at Russian aggression but a blow to Western complacency. He challenged the room: “Is there anyone here who can argue that the invasion of Ukraine was justified? sanctions?” The rhetorical intensity reflected the emotional charge of the moment.
Throughout that week, many leaders publicly sharpened their moral critique in their speeches. Europe, the United States, and other wealthy allies still far from universal consensus—some sought to punish Moscow with sanctions and military aid to Ukraine, others urged restraint or negotiation. As Senegal’s grumpy yet influential voice in Africa and the African Union urged dialogue, the message was clear: Africa has already endured much from history and does not want to become a pawn in a renewed cold war.
That reality underscored a waning Western influence in shaping events and a rise in multipolar dynamics. More than 140 countries backed the March resolution condemning the Kremlin’s illegal occupation, yet only a handful of Washington and Brussels allies pressed sanctions for breaches of international norms. “Many Global South countries see this as a regional conflict distant from their interests,” notes Rajan Menon, a New York University political scientist and author who has written extensively on post-Soviet space.
rules of international order
There is also a rising cynicism about the norms that govern the international system. The West, some argue, makes notable exceptions for friendly states and sometimes breaches its own standards when it suits strategic aims. The invasion of Iraq, the post-9/11 abuses, and the intervention in Libya are cited as examples where Security Council mandates to protect civilians were leveraged to remove regimes. The memory of these acts remains potent across much of the world, shaping how people interpret new crises and the credibility of global institutions. Joe Biden’s UN address echoed this sentiment, warning that imperial ambitions and unilateral actions threaten the very purpose of the United Nations, while reminding audiences of the consequences of past interventions deemed illegal or excessive.
denial of sanctions
In response, countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia have refrained from harsh condemnations of Russia or from aggressively pursuing punitive sanctions. Others, such as Turkey and Israel, have sought intermediary roles in the effort to shape outcomes. Saudi Arabia’s stance reflected a broader pattern of balancing acts, particularly as it relates to energy markets. It took months for the United States to boost oil production in line with aims to temper Russian energy influence and put downward pressure on prices. The geopolitical realignment suggests a multipolar world with several power centers pursuing overlapping interests, according to Sven Biscop, a professor at the Egmont Institute and Ghent University. In this view, Washington, Beijing, Brussels, and Moscow form four core poles with competing but sometimes aligned agendas.
Ukraine did not precipitate a stark division into rigid blocs as in the Cold War, in part because Moscow’s energy leverage and a lack of a clear ideological banner reduce the sense of a single, expansive bloc. “Many expected China to align more closely with Russia, but Beijing has positioned itself in a more nuanced middle ground,” Biscop observes. “China’s stance avoids forcing Moscow into a decisive estrangement from Europe and the United States.” India has pursued a similar strategy—leveraging the moment to diversify energy sources and maintain bridges with both sides, while cautiously managing its own hydrocarbon needs and strategic relationships.
Although Brussels and Washington portray a world order anchored in democracy versus autocracy, critiques of Western policy continue to erode confidence in that narrative. European leaders, including von der Leyen, stress unity, yet internal inconsistencies and divergent energy purchases by Algeria or Saudi Arabia complicate the message. Biscop urges a shift toward a more balanced, globally considerate approach rather than clinging to an oversimplified dichotomy. The debate matters because it shapes how emerging powers respond to crises and whether norms of international conduct can endure without becoming mere rhetorical currency.