The attitude of the countries of the “Global South” towards Russia (based on the UN vote) in the context of the transformation of the world order

The assessment of global support for Russia amid the transformation of the international order has acquired relevance due to the changing configuration of political and economic ties, as well as the emergence of an alternative agenda promoted by the countries of the “Global South”. This study is aimed at identifying the dynamics of support for Russia during the period from 2014 to 2021, and further, after the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, up to 2024. The empirical basis is formed by the voting data of “Global South” countries in the UN General Assembly on resolutions initiated by Russia or related to its position.

The methodological foundation of the research is a specially developed Support Index, which makes it possible to quantitatively measure the degree of solidarity of states with Russian initiatives. This approach allowed the authors to distinguish four groups of countries: “low support”, “below-average support”, “above-average support”, and “high support”.
The analysis covered 112 states of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. The results demonstrated heterogeneity of positions. While Syria, Eritrea, Mali, and Bolivia consistently vote in support of Russia, most of the Gulf states, India, China, and Brazil prefer a moderately neutral stance, combining restraint in voting with practical development of bilateral cooperation. African states are generally characterized by a combination of formal caution at the UN with deepening cooperation in energy, infrastructure, education, and extractive industries.
A comparative analysis of the two time periods (2014–2021 and 20222024) revealed an overall decline in formal indicators of support for Russia at the UN General Assembly after the start of the military operation in Ukraine. At the same time, actual relations often demonstrate the opposite trend, reflected in growing interest in multilateral formats (BRICS, SCO, regional associations) and efforts to reduce dependence on Western institutions. Thus, the study confirms that formal voting outcomes at the UN General Assembly do not fully reflect the real foreign policy priorities of the “Global South” countries, while their pragmatic interest in a multipolar world and alternative models of global development remains the key factor.

1. Baranovskii, V.G. (2017), “Transformation of global world order: dynamics of systemic changes”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 3, pp. 71–91.

2. Campos, R.G., Estefania-Flores, J., Furceri, D. and Timini, J. (2023), “Geopolitical fragmentation and trade”, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 51, iss. 4, pp. 1289–1315.

3. Dynkin, A.A. (2024), “Transformation of the world order: economy, ideology, technologies”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 5, pp. 8–23.

4. Fenenko, A.V. (2023), “International order as a category of international studies: theoretical foundations”, International Trends, vol. 21, no. 1 (72), pp. 6–42.

5. Kim, Z.H., Nguyen, T.T.M., Ten, K.I. and Pham, T.M.H. (2024), “Vietnam’s ‘bamboo’ diplomacy in ensuring security in the Asia-Pacific region”, Etnosotsium i mezhnatsional’naya kul’tura, vol. 191, no. 5, pp. 49–57.

6. Lagutina, M.L. (2022), “Regional dimensions of BRICS cooperation”, Mezhdunarodnaya analitika, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 66–82.

7. Maslova, E.A. and Ivanov, G.N. (2024), “The behavior of middle powers in multilateral institutions: the case of Italy’s policy in the UN”, International Trends, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63–79.

8. Nikitin, A.I. (2018), “Modern world order, its crisis and prospects”, Polis. Political Studies, no. 6, pp. 32–46.

9. Rastoltsev, S.V. (2018), “Global South‒: the origin and evolution of the term”, in “Global’nyi Yug” v politsentrichnom miroporyadke [“Global South” in the polycentric world], IMEMO RAS, Moscow, Russia, pp. 5–10. (Mirovoe razvitie; iss. 19)

10. Ryurikov, D.B. (2013), “The world order crisis and the threats for Russia and the world”, MGIMO Review of International Relations, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 70–75.

11. Safranchuk, I.A., Nesmashnyi, A.D. and Chernov, D.N. (2023), “Africa and the Ukraine crisis: Exploring attitude”, Russia in Global Affairs, vol. 21, no. 3 (83), pp. 159–180.

12. Shakleina, T.A. (2022), “Turning point in global development. Will the West keep its predominant influence on world order in the 21st century?”, International Trends, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 6–22.

13. Solyanova, M.V. (2016), “The problem of the world order in Western studies”, MGIMO Review of International Relations, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 34–47.