Summary in Seconds: the Russia-Ukraine war has created a complex landscape of winners and losers. In my previous article (Part Five) I discussed the winners and losers among direct participants in the conflict, Russia, and Ukraine. In this article, I will explain the impact the of this war on countries that supported one of the parties or remained neutral, and the winners and losers among each one of them.
First: Countries and Organizations That Supported One Side or Another
The side supporting Russia (Iran and North Korea)
Countries that supported Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, especially Iran and North Korea, have experienced both gains and losses as a result of their alliance with Moscow. Their support of Russia has shaped their international relations, economies, and military dynamics. In this section, we analyze the gains and losses experienced by these countries:
Iran
Gains
1. Economic and trade benefits:
Russia and Iran strengthened their economic relations through mutual support. For example, Russia helped Iran export oil to its markets and provided Iran with advanced weapons technology.
2. Military cooperation:
Iran received military assistance from Russia, including advanced air defense systems like the S-300, as well as various other weapons. This strengthened Iran’s defense capabilities, especially in countering regional threats, particularly from the U.S. and Israel.
3. Geopolitical influence:
Iran boosted its position in the Middle East through its support of Russia. Both countries share opposition to Western influence and have mutual strategic interests in Syria, where they support the Assad regime (before its fall on December 8, 2024).
This cooperation has given Iran a stronger voice in regional diplomacy, especially against U.S.-led initiatives in the region.
4. Alignment against the United States and Western countries:
Both nations challenge the global dominance of the U.S., making their alliance beneficial in resisting the influence of Western powers.
Losses
1. Increased sanctions:
Iran faces heavy sanctions, and its support for Russia has increased pressure from Western powers. The European Union and the U.S. have imposed sanctions on Iranian institutions and officials involved in supporting Russia, further isolating Iran economically and politically.
2. International isolation:
Since Russia faces growing isolation, Iran’s support for Russia has led to an increase in its own diplomatic isolation, especially from European countries and many global organizations.
3. Risk of becoming a pariah:
By supporting Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, Iran risks being viewed as an accomplice to the violation of internationally recognized borders, which could damage its diplomatic standing and reduce its appeal to neutral or non-aligned countries.
4. Risk of military retaliation:
Supporting Russia, especially in its war against Ukraine, exposes Iran to potential military responses or covert operations from adversarial countries, particularly the U.S. and Israel.
North Korea
Gains
1. Economic and military cooperation:
North Korea benefited from military and economic support from Russia, including access to resources like energy supplies. In return, Russia received artillery shells and ammunition from North Korea to support its war efforts in Ukraine. The arms trade boosts North Korea’s economy, especially in the context of its international sanctions and lack of trading partners.
2. Strengthening military capabilities:
Supporting Russia helped North Korea maintain close relations with a powerful nuclear state, which could provide strategic benefits. Military cooperation, including weapons and technology exchanges, strengthens North Korea’s defense capabilities, particularly in missile technology.
3. Strategic alignment against the West:
Russia and North Korea share a desire to oppose Western influence, especially from the United States. Therefore, supporting Russia strengthens North Korea’s position as a state resisting international pressure and sanctions.
4. Diplomatic leverage:
North Korea sees supporting Russia as a way to gain leverage in future negotiations with the West, especially concerning its nuclear program.
Losses
1. Increasing international sanctions:
North Korea’s involvement in supporting Russia’s war has led to more international sanctions, including sanctions from the U.S. and the United Nations, primarily targeting its arms trade. These sanctions limit North Korea’s access to global markets.
2. Economic isolation:
The arms trade and military support may further isolate North Korea economically. As global condemnation of Russia’s actions grows, some countries may sever trade relations with North Korea due to its support for Russia, worsening its economic difficulties.
3. Risk of being seen as a proxy state:
There is a risk that North Korea will be seen as merely a proxy for Russia’s interests in the conflict, which could undermine its status on the international stage and limit its geopolitical independence.
4. Damaging reputation:
While North Korea may not have much to lose in terms of its global reputation (since it is already heavily isolated), its support for an aggressive war in Ukraine further damages its image as a responsible member of the international community. This could reduce its ability to influence global affairs or gain allies.
Conclusion
For both Iran and North Korea, their alliance with Russia has provided some strategic and economic gains, especially in military cooperation and opposing Western powers. However, these gains come at a significant cost, including increased sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the risk of being drawn further into the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Both countries may continue their support for Russia, but they must weigh the long-term consequences of their actions as they face growing pressure from the international community.
Second: Pro-Ukraine Countries and Organizations (e.g., USA and NATO)
Countries that support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, especially the United States and NATO countries, have experienced both rewards and losses because of their involvement. Their support includes military, economic, and diplomatic help to Ukraine, as well as sanctions against Russia. Below is an analysis of the rewards and losses these countries have faced.
United States (during President Biden’s administration)
Rewards
1. Strengthening Transatlantic Alliances:
The U.S. has strengthened its leadership role in NATO, building stronger partnerships with European allies and ensuring unity among Western nations.
2. Promoting Democracy and Values:
By supporting Ukraine, the U.S. shows itself as a champion of democracy and sovereignty, standing against Russia’s authoritarianism. This enhances its global image as a defender of international rules and human rights.
3. Military and Strategic Influence:
U.S. military support to Ukraine, including advanced weapons and training, gives the U.S. influence over Ukraine’s military development. This also provides valuable experience for future military strategies, especially against Russia and other adversaries.
4. Economic Gains:
U.S. defense companies have profited from selling arms and military aid to Ukraine. The U.S. economy benefits from the high demand for military equipment and technology.
5. Undermining Russia’s Global Power:
Supporting Ukraine helps the U.S. weaken Russia’s influence in Europe and around the world, reducing Russia’s ability to challenge U.S. interests globally.
6. Geopolitical Leverage:
The U.S. can exert pressure on Russia and its allies by supporting Ukraine, showing the world the consequences of aggression and territorial violations.
Losses
1. Economic Costs:
U.S. financial support to Ukraine, including billions of dollars in military aid, economic assistance, and humanitarian help, has created an economic burden. This has raised concerns about the long-term costs of these commitments, especially when there are domestic issues like inflation and social programs demanding attention.
2. Rising Domestic Political Division:
Support for Ukraine has become a divisive issue in U.S. politics. Some see it as a moral and strategic necessity, while others believe the U.S. should focus on domestic priorities instead of getting involved in a distant conflict. This has caused polarization, with some factions pushing for a reduction in aid or a more isolationist approach.
3. Escalation Risk:
There is a risk of the U.S. facing further escalation of the conflict, possibly leading to direct confrontation with Russia. Military aid to Ukraine has already led to Russian threats of retaliation, and there is always the chance of miscalculation that could result in broader military engagement.
4. Sanctions Repercussions:
While U.S. sanctions on Russia have hurt Moscow economically, they have also had negative effects on global markets. Higher energy prices, inflation, and disruptions in global trade (especially in food and energy) have impacted U.S. allies and the American public, causing economic strain.
NATO Countries
Rewards
1. Strengthened NATO Cohesion:
By supporting Ukraine, NATO countries have strengthened the alliance’s unity and commitment to collective defense. This has been an important political achievement, especially with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, signaling the alliance’s growing strength.
2. Security and Stability in Europe:
By helping Ukraine defend its sovereignty, NATO countries aim to prevent Russian aggression from spreading to other parts of Europe. A stable, independent Ukraine acts as a buffer between NATO countries and Russia, reducing the risk of further Russian territorial expansion.
3. Show of Global Leadership:
NATO countries, especially the U.S. and major European powers like the UK and Germany, have shown strong global leadership by supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This positions them as leaders in the fight against authoritarianism and aggression.
4. Enhanced Defense Industry and Economic Activity:
NATO countries, especially those with strong defense industries (such as the U.S., Germany, France, and the UK), have benefited economically from increased military aid to Ukraine. Companies in these nations have seen a rise in the sale of weapons, vehicles, and other military supplies.
5. Bolstering Transatlantic Security:
Supporting Ukraine strengthens NATO’s military position in Europe. If Russia wins in Ukraine, it could embolden Moscow to challenge NATO members directly.
Losses
1. Economic Strain:
The financial support for Ukraine has placed a significant strain on NATO countries, especially those in Europe, with rising inflation, energy crises, and the increasing cost of living.
2. Energy Security Challenges:
NATO countries, particularly in Europe, have faced major energy challenges due to sanctions on Russian energy exports. This has led to spikes in energy prices, supply shortages, and a wider energy crisis, which has impacted European consumers and industries.
3. Internal Political Divisions:
The issue of supporting Ukraine has caused political divisions within some NATO countries. Growing discontent in certain European nations is especially strong regarding the financial burden of aiding Ukraine, particularly as energy costs rise and inflation increases.
4. Risk of Escalation and Direct Confrontation:
NATO’s support for Ukraine has made the alliance a direct adversary in Russia’s eyes. This increases the risk of the conflict turning into a larger war.
5. Refugee and Humanitarian Strain:
The war has created a large number of Ukrainian refugees seeking asylum in NATO countries, especially in Poland, Germany, and other neighboring states. While these countries have shown solidarity, the influx of refugees is putting pressure on their public services, housing, and social systems.
Conclusion
For the United States and NATO countries, the rewards of supporting Ukraine include strengthening alliances, promoting democratic values, and increasing security in Europe. However, the costs are significant, including economic strain and the risk of escalating the conflict. While their support has helped Ukraine resist Russian aggression, these countries must manage the challenges of domestic political divisions, economic burdens, and the possibility of a broader military escalation as the conflict continues. Their commitment to Ukraine remains a key part of the ongoing struggle between Russia and the West, with lasting consequences for years to come.
Third: Neutral Countries with Strong Economies (e.g., Turkey, Gulf States, China, and India)
Countries with strong or relatively strong economies, such as Turkey, the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman), China, and India, have not directly involved themselves in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. These countries have managed the war in different ways, balancing their economic, political, and strategic interests. While their neutral stances have brought them some benefits, they have also faced challenges and losses. Below is an analysis of the rewards and losses for each of these countries.
Turkey
Rewards
1. Increased Diplomatic Leverage:
Turkey has positioned itself as a key mediator between Russia and the West, helping to facilitate dialogue. This boosts Turkey’s diplomatic influence, particularly within NATO and with regional actors.
2. Military and Economic Partnerships:
Turkey has maintained strong relationships with both Russia and Western countries. It continues to buy Russian energy and military equipment (like the S-400 air defense system) while being an important NATO member. This balance allows Turkey to get favorable deals from both sides, including military and economic benefits.
3. Energy Security:
Turkey is a crucial energy transit hub, especially for natural gas and oil. As Europe seeks to reduce its reliance on Russian energy, Turkey’s position has become more important. It could serve as an alternative energy route for Europe, offering both geopolitical and economic advantages.
4. Strategic Position in Regional Politics:
By staying neutral, Turkey has enhanced its role as a regional power in the Middle East and Eurasia. This gives it leverage to protect its regional interests, particularly in Syria, while keeping its options open for future alliances.
Losses
1. Tensions with NATO Allies:
Although Turkey is a NATO member, its relationship with other Western countries, especially the U.S. and EU, has been strained due to its cooperation with Russia and refusal to impose strict sanctions on Moscow. This tension has raised concerns about Turkey’s commitment to NATO’s collective defense.
2. Economic Consequences of Sanctions:
Despite its strong economy, Turkey faces the risk of economic fallout from Western sanctions on Russia, as some Turkish companies trade with Russia. Turkey could also face secondary sanctions if it continues to bypass international sanctions by doing business with Russia.
3. Complex Balancing Act:
Turkey’s strategy of balancing relations with both Russia and NATO requires constant diplomacy. A misstep could alienate one side, which could hurt Turkey’s long-term economic and geopolitical stability.
The Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman)
Rewards
1. Economic and Energy Gains:
The Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have benefitted from the rise in global oil and gas prices because of the conflict. Their energy exports have become more valuable, and they have used their position as key energy producers to secure better trade deals and investments from both Western and non-Western countries.
2. Geopolitical Neutrality and Leverage:
By staying neutral, the Gulf States have strengthened their ability to maintain relationships with both Russia and Western powers. This has allowed them to stay flexible economically and politically, making them key players in global diplomacy.
3. Strengthening Ties with Russia:
Russia and the Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia, have deepened their cooperation, especially through the (OPEC+) agreement on oil production cuts. This collaboration helps ensure higher oil prices, which are crucial for the economies of the Gulf states.
4. Increased Investment Opportunities:
Gulf countries are using their economic power to attract investment and trade with countries involved in the conflict, including Russia and Ukraine. Their neutrality has allowed them to become financial hubs and safe havens for investment during global economic uncertainty.
Losses
1. Pressure from Western Allies:
The Gulf States face pressure from the U.S. and other Western countries to take stronger action against Russia, such as imposing sanctions or reducing ties. This is particularly difficult for Saudi Arabia, which has strategic ties to the U.S. but also maintains ties with Russia.
2. Public Perception and Ideological Concerns:
While politically neutral, Gulf countries may face internal or external criticism for not taking a stronger stance in support of Ukraine. Some countries or individuals may view Russia’s actions as a violation of international law and human rights.
3. Volatility in Global Markets:
While high energy prices benefit Gulf economies in the short term, the overall volatility in global markets caused by the war could have long-term negative effects, such as disruptions in trade routes and financial instability.
China
Rewards
1. Strategic Economic Gains:
China has benefited from increased trade with Russia, particularly in energy. As Western countries impose sanctions on Russia, China has become a key trade partner, securing energy supplies at discounted prices.
2. Increased Geopolitical Influence:
By staying neutral but offering diplomatic support to Russia, China has positioned itself as a significant player in shaping the future global order. It challenges U.S. influence and presents itself as a champion of a multipolar world in global politics.
3. Opportunities to Expand in Global Markets:
China has capitalized on disruptions in Western supply chains by increasing its exports to countries that need alternatives to Russian and European goods. This has allowed Chinese businesses to grow, especially in manufacturing and technology.
4. Control over Strategic Resources:
China has solidified its control over critical resources, like rare earth elements and minerals, while positioning itself as an essential economic partner for countries seeking to bypass Western sanctions against Russia.
Losses
1. Strained Relations with the West:
China’s neutral stance has raised tensions with the U.S. and its allies, who are pressuring China to distance itself from Russia. China risks secondary sanctions or trade disruptions if it continues to support Russia too openly, especially in areas like energy and finance.
2. Risk of Overreliance on Russia:
While China benefits from its relationship with Russia, relying too much on Moscow could backfire if the conflict worsens or if Russia faces greater economic decline. China’s long-term economic security could suffer if Russia’s economy collapses or if Russia becomes more isolated from global markets.
3. Global Trade Disruptions:
The war’s impact on global supply chains and energy prices could affect China’s economy. Disruptions in trade routes and inflation could slow China’s growth, despite its growing dominance in international trade.
India
Rewards
1. Energy and Economic Benefits:
India has benefitted from discounted oil and gas from Russia as Western sanctions have pushed Russian energy prices down. This has helped India control its energy costs and maintain economic growth, despite rising global oil prices.
2. Strategic Non-alignment:
India has maintained a policy of non-alignment, which allows it to balance relationships with both Russia (a long-standing defense partner) and the U.S. (a growing strategic partner). This flexibility enhances India’s geopolitical autonomy in a multipolar world.
3. Enhanced Diplomatic Influence:
India’s neutral position has helped strengthen diplomatic ties with many countries, making it an important voice in international forums like the UN. India has used its position to advocate for peace and dialogue, which has raised its status on the global stage.
Losses
1. Pressure from Western Allies:
India’s continued reliance on Russian military equipment and energy has created tension with Western countries, especially the U.S., which has expressed concern about India’s proximity to Russia. The U.S. has urged India to reduce its dependence on Russia, especially as it increases military cooperation with the West.
2. Internal Economic Strain:
While discounted oil has helped, the global economic instability caused by the war could eventually affect India’s economy through inflation, reduced exports, and disruption of global supply chains.
3. Regional Instability:
India must also consider the potential long-term regional consequences of the war. For example, instability in Europe could affect the broader geopolitical environment, especially in Asia, where China’s growing influence poses a strategic challenge for India.
Conclusion
Countries like Turkey, the Gulf States, China, and India have navigated the Ukraine-Russia conflict with a mix of rewards and challenges. These nations have capitalized on energy opportunities, diplomatic leverage, and strategic autonomy. However, they also face risks, including strained relations with Western powers, overreliance on Russia, economic instability, and the challenge of balancing competing global interests. While their neutral stances provide short-term advantages, the long-term consequences of aligning too closely with one side or the other could lead to difficult decisions in the future.
Fourth: Neutral Third-World Countries with Underdeveloped Economies
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has had significant and complex consequences for Third World countries with underdeveloped economies. These countries, often characterized by limited resources, weak institutions, and dependence on external aid, have been affected in various ways. While some have seen opportunities, the majority have experienced negative consequences from the war. Here is an analysis of the rewards and losses for these countries.
Rewards
1. Increased Commodity Prices (Short-Term Economic Benefit)
Energy and Food Prices: Some Third World countries, particularly those that export raw materials, have benefited from the sharp rise in commodity prices caused by the conflict. Countries that export oil, gas, and agricultural products (like wheat or maize) have seen higher revenues due to increased global demand and disruptions in supply. For example, oil-exporting countries like Nigeria and Angola may benefit from higher global oil prices, leading to short-term increases in revenue.
2. Diversified Trade Partnerships
As many Western countries impose sanctions on Russia, countries that remain neutral or continue trading with Russia (such as India, China, and some African nations) have the opportunity to increase trade with Moscow. For example, Russia may seek to export more fertilizers, fuel, or other goods to Third World countries, offering them favorable trade deals. Some nations in Africa and Asia might take advantage of discounted Russian energy, grain, and raw materials, benefiting their economies by diversifying their import sources.
3. Geopolitical Leverage (Neutral Position)
Countries that maintain a neutral stance, such as many in Africa and Asia, may increase their geopolitical leverage. By avoiding taking sides, they can position themselves as important players in global diplomatic efforts to mediate the conflict or gain international support. Both Russia and the West may seek their cooperation, leading to more favorable diplomatic terms or increased aid. For example, India and several African countries have maintained neutral stances, allowing them to continue fostering trade relations with both Russia and Western nations.
4. Aid and Humanitarian Assistance
Some underdeveloped countries have received increased humanitarian aid or investment from countries looking to mitigate the impact of the conflict. For instance, Western nations, through international organizations, may increase their aid to regions affected by food shortages due to disruptions in grain exports from Ukraine and Russia. They may also provide financial assistance to stabilize economies suffering from the effects of the conflict.
Losses
1. Skyrocketing Food and Energy Prices
Disruptions in Global Supply Chains: The war has caused major disruptions in global food and energy supply chains, as both Ukraine and Russia are key suppliers of food, particularly wheat, maize, and sunflower oil, as well as energy products like gas and oil. Countries that rely heavily on imports, such as many in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, have faced severe inflation, especially in food and energy prices.
Food Insecurity: Countries like Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, which are highly dependent on food imports, have seen a sharp increase in the cost of basic food items. This has worsened food insecurity, leading to malnutrition, social unrest, and a rise in poverty.
Energy Crisis: Countries in South Asia (like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) and Africa have struggled due to rising fuel costs. Higher oil and natural gas prices have affected transportation, energy production, and contributed to inflation.
2. Debt Crisis and Economic Instability
Many Third World countries, especially in Africa and Asia, are heavily in debt. The economic shocks caused by the war have worsened their financial situations. The increased cost of imports, combined with slow or negative growth, has made it harder for these countries to service their debts. Countries like Sri Lanka, which were already facing economic difficulties before the war, have been hit hardest by rising costs and reduced revenue from exports. As a result, more countries are facing debt distress or requiring bailouts from institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank.
3. Reduction in Foreign Investment
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has led to global uncertainty, causing a decline in foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing economies. Investors, worried about the prolonged war and instability, may pull back from regions with fragile economies. This leads to fewer jobs, slower economic growth, and less technological transfer. Latin American countries, African nations, and parts of Southeast Asia may experience decreased investment flows as global capital markets become more cautious.
4. Humanitarian and Refugee Crises
Although Third World countries are not directly involved in the conflict, some, particularly in Africa and South Asia, may face increased refugee flows as people flee Ukraine and neighboring areas. This places extra strain on their already limited resources, especially in countries with inadequate infrastructure and social services. Eastern European countries like Poland and Romania have seen large numbers of refugees, which has strained their welfare systems. This burden could extend to developing countries as they prepare for potential refugee flows from other conflict zones.
5. Disruption of Global Trade and Supply Chains
The conflict has led to disruptions in global supply chains, resulting in delays and shortages of critical goods. This affects manufacturing in countries that depend on exports for income, such as those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The global supply chain has slowed production of everything from electronics to basic goods, leading to economic slowdowns in developing economies. Countries that rely on exporting raw materials and manufacturing for foreign revenue now face even more competitive global markets, as both Russia and Ukraine are key players in global commodity markets.
6. Environmental and Agricultural Setbacks
The loss of Ukrainian grain exports has hurt countries that depend on wheat and corn imports. Countries like Ethiopia, Kenya, and Egypt have been particularly vulnerable to these disruptions, worsening food insecurity and social instability. The war has also caused environmental destruction in Ukraine, disrupting agricultural productivity, and further aggravating global shortages. Countries that rely on international food assistance have been severely affected, as aid has been diverted to European countries dealing with the direct impacts of the war.
7. Competing Global Influence and Pressure
Third World countries, especially in Africa and Asia, often face pressure from both Western and Eastern powers to align politically. As the West pushes sanctions on Russia, and Russia seeks support from neutral countries, developing nations may find themselves caught between competing geopolitical influences. This could have long-term consequences for their diplomatic relations and international support, especially if they align with Russia or China, which could cause tensions with the U.S. and European nations.
Conclusion
For Third World countries with underdeveloped economies, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has resulted in both rewards and losses, although the latter outweigh the former. Some countries have benefited from increased commodity prices and diversified trade partnerships, but these rewards are typically short-term and often come with rising food and energy costs, economic instability, debt distress, and humanitarian challenges. The long-term effects of the war have disproportionately harmed these vulnerable nations, worsening existing issues such as poverty, food insecurity, and economic inequality.
As global trade networks continue to suffer, these countries will likely face sustained economic hardships, making it necessary for international support and cooperation to mitigate the fallout from the ongoing conflict.
Sources
1. Chenoy, Anuradha. “Winners and Losers of the End Game in Ukraine.” Hardnews, 21 February, 2025.
https://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2025/02/winners-and-losers-of-the-end-game-in-ukraine/
2. Davis, J.S. Nicolas. “Winners and Losers of Big Economic War Over Ukraine.” Fair Observer, 22 February, 2023.
3. Zeyuan, Yu. “Three years on: Winners and Losers of the Ongoing Russia-Ukraine War.” Think China, 24 February, 2024
https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/three-years-winners-and-losers-ongoing-russia-ukraine-war