The Soviet Legacy and the Global South’s Reactions to Russian Invasion of Ukraine in the UN General Assembly

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted multiple resolutions condemning the aggression and calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces. While some Global South countries supported these measures, many refrained from taking a critical stance toward Moscow, despite clear violations of international law. What accounts for this divided response? Departing from existing explanations that focus on contemporary geopolitical or economic interests, this paper traces Global South countries’ positions to the Soviet Union’s extensive Cold War–era interventions in the developing world. We argue that states that received greater volumes of Soviet aid are significantly more likely to align with Russia today, driven by both material dependencies and ideational legacies. Empirically, we demonstrate that the observed association withstands extensive robustness tests and is substantiated by evidence for both material and ideational mechanisms. These findings underscore the importance of a historical-institutional approach to understanding international alignment in the Global South and call for moving beyond the Liberal International Order framework when analyzing global responses to contemporary conflicts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Conflict Resolution
Published
2026-01-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027261417920
Primary Topic
International Relations and Foreign Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Soviet Legacy and the Global South’s Reactions to Russian Invasion of Ukraine in the UN General Assembly

Qingjie Zeng
Journal of Conflict Resolution
International Relations and Foreign Policy
article

The Soviet Legacy and the Global South’s Reactions to Russian Invasion of Ukraine in the UN General Assembly

Qingjie Zeng
article en

Abstract

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted multiple resolutions condemning the aggression and calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces. While some Global South countries supported these measures, many refrained from taking a critical stance toward Moscow, despite clear violations of international law. What accounts for this divided response? Departing from existing explanations that focus on contemporary geopolitical or economic interests, this paper traces Global South countries’ positions to the Soviet Union’s extensive Cold War–era interventions in the developing world. We argue that states that received greater volumes of Soviet aid are significantly more likely to align with Russia today, driven by both material dependencies and ideational legacies. Empirically, we demonstrate that the observed association withstands extensive robustness tests and is substantiated by evidence for both material and ideational mechanisms. These findings underscore the importance of a historical-institutional approach to understanding international alignment in the Global South and call for moving beyond the Liberal International Order framework when analyzing global responses to contemporary conflicts.

Journal of Conflict Resolution
Fudan University (CN)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
International Relations and Foreign Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Soviet Legacy and the Global South’s Reactions to Russian Invasion of Ukraine in the UN General Assembly — Qingjie Zeng · Journal of Conflict Resolution (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS