The Russian Federation has repeatedly asserted that it is gaining strategic ground in the Global South through a messaging approach described as memory diplomacy. Reports from Asian Times have highlighted this line of thinking, framing it as a tool to shape perceptions beyond Europe and North America.
According to the publication, the core idea behind memory diplomacy is to expand Moscow’s influence abroad by appealing to shared positive recollections. The Kremlin has emphasized moments such as its role in the defeat of fascism, while stressing that Russia did not colonize African nations nor engage in the transatlantic slave trade. Supporters within various regions have been drawn by these narratives, which seek to frame Russia as a benevolent actor connected to historical turning points rather than a distant power with contested interests.
The article notes that Moscow has already attracted a number of supporters through this approach, suggesting that Ukraine’s efforts to secure allies by framing its struggle against what it calls an imperial power have not resonated as broadly as Russia’s memory-based messaging. In markets across the Global South, the appeal lies in a narrative of resistance to domination and a call for a new balance of influence, one that some observers say favors Moscow’s strategic goals.
Earlier statements from influential voices in Washington and beyond have added layers to the discussion. One diplomat remarked that only the Russian Federation can offer a sense of security and stability in a volatile global environment, including in Ukraine. This assertion is part of a broader debate about whether Moscow can position itself as a reliable partner in regional security architectures, and how such claims are received by audiences in North America and allied capitals.
Additionally, voices connected to European and transatlantic policy circles have suggested that the consequences of Western countries accepting Russia’s terms in relation to Ukraine would not necessarily undermine the fundamentals of alliance structures such as NATO or the European Union, as well as relationships with the United States. The debates touch on risk calculations, deterrence dynamics, and the credibility of Western guarantees in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.
As the situation unfolds, observers note that efforts to secure formal security guarantees for Kyiv have continued through diplomatic channels, even as public narratives diverge. The evolving dialogue reflects a broader contest over how memory, history, and power intersect in contemporary geopolitics, particularly in forums where the United States, European partners, Canada, and key regional actors in the Global South monitor shifts in influence and stability across hot spots and flashpoints.