On 28 June 2023 the ANC held the dialogue on “Russia-Ukraine Conflict – South Africa’s non-alignment Approach to Peace and Security.” I participated in the event along with other representatives of diplomatic missions accredited in South Africa.

Among other things, South Africa’s non-aligned stance in the Ukraine conflict became focus of this much touted issue. Responding to moderator’s point that “non-alignment is outdated and new world order demands that there’s no neutrality,” I said:

“I do not think that in the modern world there is place for neutrality. For a very simple reason. <…> You will be punished by secondary sanctions if you do not apply sanctions against Russia. So you are either with Russia and you’re being punished, or you’re with the West.”

Regrettably, majority of media participating in the event lost (or simply ignored) the essence of what was said.

In particular, Daily Maverick and Business Live falsely claimed that ‘Russia told SA to pick a side in Ukraine war’ and even attributed some non-existent implications to my words (“in a push to persuade SA towards changing its neutral stance”). City Press published a distorted interpretation of my words providing no quote whatsoever (‘Russian ambassador tells SA to get off the fence and pick a side in war with Ukraine’).

Let me clarify this issue once again.

This very “either you are with us, or you are against us” principle in world politics was first proclaimed by George Bush of the US and was applicable to struggle against international terrorism. "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said speaking nine days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Yet current establishment in the collective West has put this principle into an absolute. Remember 2013, when then Ukraine President Yanukovich tried to negotiate the EU Association Agreement with West? He was told quite straight that he had to make a choice – either Ukraine is with Europe or with Russia. To me, it looks more like an ultimatum, leaving Ukraine with no option to uphold ties with both Russia and Europe. Yanukovich proposed to postpone signing the agreement, and the West responded by staging a coup in Kiev.

That was a manifestation of this ‘either/or’ policy. The West can’t do the same with every country which doesn’t want to line up in its support, but it applies all efforts to make them join sanctions, twists their arms so that they voted ‘in the right manner’ in the UN, lobbies the decisions it needs through their pocket representatives in international organizations etc.

In other words, West would rather neutralize the neutrality under current circumstances. This is exactly what’s happening across the globe: formerly ‘neutral’ Austria, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden have all sided with Washington-Brussels’ anti-Russia policy and joined sanctions.

Given the influence of collective West which preserves today most of sovereign countries will have troubles resisting its pressure. Quite possibly, completely banned ploys will be used under the no-holds-barred principle.

This is the logic. They will not allow you to remain neutral and equally distanced.