Year Five of War: Ukraine's Other Battlefield in the Global South

Beyond the Euro-Atlantic Consensus

As Russia's full-scale invasion enters its fifth year, Ukraine has shown extraordinary resilience. On the battlefield, Ukrainian forces have denied Moscow a decisive victory. At home, society continues to function despite daily attacks. Diplomatically, despite uncertainties coming from Washington, Kyiv has secured strong political, military, and financial backing from most of Europe and North America.

Yet, beyond the Euro-Atlantic space, the picture is more complex. In much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, Ukraine has often encountered cautious engagement rather than clear political alignment. Many governments have condemned violations of sovereignty in principle, but have avoided deeper engagement.

When War Becomes Routine

As the war enters its fifth year, another structural challenge emerges: normalization. In the first months of Russia's full-scale invasion, images of destroyed cities and displaced civilians dominated global headlines. Today, particularly in regions geographically distant from Europe, the war increasingly risks becoming part of the background of international politics. It risks being absorbed into a crowded global agenda marked by conflicts in the Middle East, tensions surrounding Iran, and intensifying US–China rivalry.

This normalization does not necessarily signal support for Moscow. It reflects distance, pressing domestic priorities, and a crowded global agenda shaped by economic instability, climate pressures, great power tension, and regional conflicts. Nevertheless, the political effect is significant. When a war becomes routine, neutrality carries fewer reputational costs. For Ukraine, this means that engagement with the Global South cannot rely solely on moral clarity or legal principle; it requires persistent diplomacy that continually explains why the consequences of territorial conquest in Europe extend far beyond the region.

Recognizing this gap during wartime requires strategic clarity. Long wars test not only military strength but also diplomatic stamina. Countries of the Global South may not provide military or financial assistance on the scale of Ukraine's European partners, yet their importance should not be underestimated. Their demographic weight, regional leadership, and voting power in multilateral institutions give them significant influence over how the war is discussed and understood globally. Engaging consistently with countries such as Indonesia, Brazil, and India matters because they shape regional agendas and broader coalitions across the developing world. Sustained diplomatic outreach to these states strengthens Ukraine's global position over the long term.

Different Political Grammars

One reason for the cautious stance in parts of the Global South lies in the language of diplomacy. Ukraine's international messaging has understandably focused on defending the rules-based order, democratic solidarity, and European security. These arguments resonate powerfully in Brussels, Paris, Berlin, and probably Washington. They are morally and legally sound.

However, in many societies shaped by decolonization, non-alignment, and development struggles, political discourse follows a different grammar. Historical memory in these regions is marked by colonial domination, Cold War intervention, and uneven global hierarchies. Foreign policy is often guided less by institutional alignment and more by sovereignty, autonomy, and economic stability. In some cases, cautious positioning reflects deliberate strategic hedging for autonomy, rather than simple misperception.

A Lesson from Jakarta

Indonesia offers a telling example. It is the largest country in Southeast Asia, a G20 member, and a leading voice in the Global South. Yet Ukraine's diplomatic presence there has lacked continuity. The Ukrainian embassy in Jakarta has been without a resident ambassador since February 2025. At a time when sustained engagement is essential, prolonged gaps in high-level representation send an unintended signal about priorities.

Diplomacy is not only about UN votes or official statements. It is about presence, relationships, and consistent engagement. In Indonesia, as in other parts of the Global South, political influence is built over time through universities, youth organizations, media networks, and civil society platforms. Without stable leadership and institutional depth, mostly coming from the Ukrainian representatives there, outreach remains episodic and perceived as a "one-off event".

Presence Over Statements

At the same time, Russia has invested in long-term narratives. Moscow regularly invokes historical ties dating back to Soviet-era cooperation with post-colonial states. In Indonesia, Russia emphasizes shared memories of Cold War solidarity, defense cooperation, and educational exchanges. Russian cultural outreach, media content, and scholarship programs target younger generations, shaping perceptions gradually rather than through headline diplomacy alone. This approach reflects a long-standing Russian understanding that influence in post-colonial societies is built through memory, education, and narrative continuity rather than short-term political or economic incentives.

This contrast is telling. Ukraine and many of its Western partners tend to concentrate on official positions, encouraging governments to take clearer public stances and to uphold international norms consistently. Russia, by comparison, invests patiently at the societal level. It reinforces narratives of historical closeness, expands cultural and educational programs, and targets younger generations through long-term outreach. Influence in these contexts is built less through statements and more through sustained presence and familiarity over time.

Recalibrating Ukraine's Global Message

Fortunately, there is still space for recalibration.

First, Ukraine can more deliberately connect its struggle to anti-imperial traditions that resonate across much of the Global South. Russia's aggression is a clear case of territorial conquest aimed at undermining borders, identity, and political agency. In many African and Asian states, sovereignty was achieved through difficult struggles against empire. Presenting Ukraine's resistance in that context speaks directly to historical experiences that remain politically powerful today. At the same time, messaging that frames the war primarily as a defense of "European civilization" may resonate strongly within Europe but can unintentionally create distance elsewhere, where audiences do not see themselves reflected in that narrative. A broader framing centered on sovereignty and resistance to domination travels more effectively across regions.

Second, diplomatic messaging should consistently address material consequences. For many governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, food security, fertilizer supply, energy volatility, and debt vulnerability are immediate political concerns. The disruption of Ukrainian grain exports affected markets far beyond Europe. Demonstrating how Ukraine's survival contributes to global food stability and economic predictability makes the war relevant to domestic priorities.

Third, durable relationships require long-term institutional presence. High-level visits and symbolic summits matter, but they cannot replace steady, on-the-ground engagement. Strong embassies with stable leadership, expanded academic exchanges, partnerships with local media, youth initiatives, and Track II dialogues in key regional hubs help build familiarity and trust over time. This is also an area where Ukraine's allies can play a constructive role. Partners such as the United Kingdom, the European Union, and EU member states like Poland often have deeper institutional networks and long-standing ties in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Coordinated outreach can help Ukraine access platforms, strengthen connections, and engage potential partners more effectively. Consistent presence, supported by coalition diplomacy, signals long-term commitment.

Fourth, outreach should recognize regional diversity. The Global South is not a single political bloc. In parts of Africa, sovereignty is often discussed in terms of protection from external intervention. In much of Asia, stability and economic growth dominate strategic thinking. In Latin America, resistance to great-power coercion carries particular weight. Tailored narratives demonstrate attentiveness without compromising principle.

Conclusion: Narrative as Strategic Terrain

None of this means distancing Ukraine from Europe or weakening the moral clarity of its cause. Ukraine's strongest asset remains the legitimacy of its struggle against unprovoked aggression. The objective is not to alter that substance, but to communicate it in ways that resonate across different political and historical contexts.

Recent experience in Indonesia illustrates how easily diplomatic engagement can be reframed in competitive information environments. A formal communication from the Ukrainian Embassy, intended to convey Ukraine's position, was publicly portrayed by the Russian ambassador as interference in Indonesian domestic affairs. Regardless of intent, such episodes create openings for counter-narratives and shift attention away from the central issue of Russian aggression. In countries where sovereignty is a deeply guarded principle, even well-intentioned pressure can be recast as external intrusion.

While Ukrainian victory in this war will continue to depend on military strength, economic resilience, and political unity, it will also depend on whether Ukraine can sustain trust and credibility far beyond its immediate partners. In many parts of the Global South, perceptions are shaped gradually, through long-term presence and careful engagement. Protecting Ukraine's narrative from distortion and ensuring that its struggle is understood on its own terms is no longer peripheral diplomacy. It is part of the war itself.

Radityo Dharmaputra, a lecturer in International Relations at Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia, a senior researcher at the university's Centre for European and Eurasian Studies