The war in Ukraine remains a topic of existential importance across Central and Eastern Europe. In response to all those — particularly in Western Europe — who felt that Eastern Europe was too obsessed with Russia, Putin's war has validated the security concerns of NATO's eastern flank.
From the top down, the conflict has brought about a shared understanding of the causes of the war, as well as greater unity and solidarity. The decisions adopted over the past year have consolidated the perception that every inch of NATO territory is protected, although things are significantly more complicated, security-wise, for countries like Moldova and Georgia.
The West is now better prepared to deal with Russia than a year ago. In this context, the key debate of recent months has been about how long this shared East–West consensus in Europe will last, particularly among the general public.
I would argue that, while actively working to preserve unity and a renewed sense of purpose, the G7, NATO and European Union countries should acknowledge the strength of their alliances and focus their strategic communication efforts on where they can really make a difference. In terms of strategy and communication, we should be on the offensive.
The West is too concerned with "war fatigue"
To put it bluntly, the West is too concerned with "war fatigue" within its own societies and should instead seek to attract support from the rest of the world for a just peace in Ukraine and a rules-based global order.
Data shows that war fatigue is currently not as problematic a phenomenon in the West as public discourse might suggest. Although there are a few voices demanding a decrease in American and European aid for Ukraine, it seems as if Western leaders have done enough to ensure continued support.
Continued support for Ukraine in Europe and the US
Polls indicate that, despite several Republican concerns, political support for Ukraine in the US remains bipartisan, and public opinion remains largely unchanged. There is no indication that the US will decrease its aid to Ukraine.
Similarly, polls in the EU commissioned by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) also indicate a continuation of support for Ukraine and an increase in Europeans' belief that peace is possible only with a Ukrainian victory.
Overall, the war seems to have consolidated the West. This is not to say that leaders should drop the ball and disregard public opinion. Recent speeches by key Western leaders have strengthened the idea that the West will support Ukraine as long as it takes, although there are valid arguments that the size of the support and the speed of military delivery will also be essential for Ukrainian success.
Non-Western countries see the war as a European issue
What is most striking about the current framing of the issue is that the war is painted as being about "democracies versus autocracies," "East versus West," protecting the liberal world order and defending European security.
Although this framing is factually correct and has proven useful in uniting the West against Russia and aiding Ukraine, it has not helped increase support for Ukraine globally. There is a growing and worrying perception that in Asia, South America, and Africa, few people care who wins Putin's illegal war.
Animosity towards the 'interventionist' West
The ECFR polls show that non-Western countries predominantly feel that the US and the EU are backing Ukraine in order to defend Western dominance. Moreover, two-thirds of the world's population live in countries that are either neutral or Russia-leaning in terms of the war in Ukraine.
This is the case because many do not want to see a bigger conflict between the US and Europe on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. Moreover, they consider it likely that a multipolar world order will emerge, maintain a certain degree of animosity towards the "colonial" or "interventionist" West, are not democracies, or are not interested in entering "a European war."
Time to change the narrative?
The main problem remains the position of non-Western countries and the fact that the rest of the world tends to perceive Russia's war against Ukraine as a contained European security issue.
For this reason, the political leaders of those countries that support Ukraine need to reframe the narrative of what this conflict means for the world, while remaining agile enough to maintain support among EU, NATO and G7 countries. This reframing should, in my opinion, cover at least three dimensions.
Global rules matter
Firstly, the new narrative should emphasize the principles of the UN Charter and security for all countries. Global rules — such as territorial integrity, respect for internationally recognized borders, non-interference in the domestic affairs of another state, and the non-use of force — matter. It is about respecting each other as countries with equal rights under international law.
The international community has evolved to resolve disputes through political, diplomatic or legal means, not through war. It is for the safety and security of each and every country that the international system should not allow such a war. The current global order could be adjusted to promote greater equality and fair rules.
Ukraine matters
Secondly, this is not about the US or the West, but about Ukraine. Ukraine matters. Many countries have chosen to distance themselves from the US-led support coalition or do not want to take sides in a conflict between the US and Europe, as well as between Russia and China, either because they do not want to get caught in the middle, or because of their own national interests and historical experiences, including with European countries.
This is about Ukraine, a country that in 1994 gave up its nuclear arsenal and put its security in the hands of the international community; a country that, like many others, wanted to follow its own path, but was invaded and saw its citizens killed in horrific acts. This is not about taking political sides, but about supporting the ability of a country to be free to choose its own destiny. This focus on the freedom of choice should resonate in many countries that fought hard for their independence.
People matter
Thirdly, human security matters. People matter. The most important fact remains that many civilians are suffering, have been killed, raped, displaced, and face food and health insecurity. The world needs to focus on these people and what they have suffered.
In a world where we fight to eliminate these kinds of problems, which unfortunately still exist in large parts of the world, we must not allow the situation to deteriorate. The ultimate recipients of security are not Europeans, Russians, the West or the East, but humans all over the world.
If any other political implications deter countries from taking a stand, this is the ultimate argument: We must take a stand for the sake of humanity and peace.
Radu Magdin is a global Romanian analyst, consultant and former prime ministerial adviser in Romania and Moldova.
Edited by Robert Schwartz and Aingeal Flanagan