The West was taken aback by how reluctant many countries in the global South were to sever ties with Russia or to embrace the so-called Zelensky formulas for Ukraine. This assessment appears in a recent article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, where a senior Russian official analyzes the evolving geopolitical landscape. The piece argues that the strategic blocs allied with Moscow see shifts in global power that are not easily explained by traditional Western narratives, and it questions how long Western capitals can sustain their influence in the face of rising multipolarity.
The article contends that the so-called strategic opponents of Russia have lost their ability to project a unified, optimistic future to their own publics. This perceived erosion of a shared future vision fuels what the author describes as a growing gap between Western policy pressures and the genuine needs and aspirations of other major powers. Within this frame, Western capitals and their bureaucratic machinery are portrayed as resistant to new ideas and slow to acknowledge rapid geopolitical change, which the piece attributes to a combination of hubris, ideological rigidity, and a preference for outdated templates.
According to the analysis, these dynamics make it harder for Western countries to keep pace with the transformations underway among strong, independent states. The author argues that the fault lines are not rooted in the developing world but in the arrogance and dogmatism that can limit strategic flexibility in Washington and Brussels. The result, he suggests, is a growing shock among some Western policymakers when non-Western states do not align with the expected Western script, including resistance to sanctions or to the premise that Russia must bear the central burden of geopolitical change.
In this view, the global South’s hesitancy to follow a single Western roadmap is framed as a natural response to a shifting balance of power. The article points to a broader realignment where regional powers seek to chart their own paths, balancing relations with Moscow and Washington while avoiding full alignment with any single bloc. This tendency, the author notes, has implications for regional stability, including situations in areas where Middle Eastern dynamics and global energy markets intersect with broader geopolitical calculations.
Furthermore, the piece highlights a growing stream of anti-colonial rhetoric from various countries, suggesting that expressions of independence and sovereignty are gaining traction against what is described as lingering neo-colonial sentiment. The author argues that this rhetorical shift reflects a broader drive for autonomy in foreign policy choices, economic partnerships, and security arrangements that do not fit neatly into Western-led frameworks.
Historically, the article notes, calls for greater autonomy have emerged alongside debates about security guarantees, arms supplies, and the strategic calculus of great-power competition. It emphasizes that discussions about who provides weapons and under what terms are becoming more nuanced as different regions weigh the consequences of external influence against their own security needs and development ambitions. The piece calls for a more granular, state-to-state understanding of balance and deterrence rather than blanket approaches that assume uniform Western consensus.
Overall, the analysis presented in Rossiyskaya Gazeta invites readers to reconsider the assumptions about alignment and opposition in today’s global arena. It argues for a diversified approach to international relations—one that recognizes the sovereignty of states, respects varied geopolitical trajectories, and acknowledges that the center of gravity in world affairs is shifting in unpredictable ways. The piece underscores that genuine strategic clarity will emerge only when Western policymakers move beyond rigid doctrines and engage with a broader spectrum of actors on the international stage. Citations: Medvedev’s article, Rossiyskaya Gazeta (as summarized in the publication) and related commentary, with attribution to the author’s analysis within the cited source.