Indonesian President Joko Widodo visited Kyiv and Moscow last week, offering to be a diplomatic bridge between the two. As the first Asian leader to make the trip to both capitals since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he made a few headlines, but no real progress.
Critics saw the journey as image politics — and yet, Widodo is not wrong to see a role for states outside the wealthy world in helping to resolve a crisis that has punished emerging markets, particularly those that are importers of food, fertilizer and fuel, like Indonesia. Southeast Asia’s most populous country is well placed to act. It has historic political and military ties to Russia, and economic connections with Ukraine; it also holds this year’s presidency of the G20 and next year’s chair of ASEAN. It has a strong diplomatic presence to back any initiative. However, even small-scale success requires ambition and a concerted push for more than empty Kremlin promises.
Jokowi, as the Indonesian leader is known, had more than one concern on his travels: most obviously, the threat to food security — a longstanding headache for Jakarta that has only worsened since Russia’s troops began streaming over the border into one of the world’s largest grain exporters, bombing silos and farmland, disrupting logistics and driving up prices. Indonesia is a major buyer of Ukrainian wheat.
Illustration: Mountain people
The G20 summit, scheduled for November in Bali, also needs to be salvaged. Unwilling to leave out Russia, Jokowi has invited Ukraine, but now needs to hope both would attend remotely to limit the risk of paralyzing the entire gathering.
There were no miracles. In Ukraine, Jokowi visited the scarred city of Irpin, as other dignitaries have before him, called for peace and offered to carry a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In Moscow, the Indonesian leader said he had secured Russian guarantees for the security of food and fertilizer supplies, but offered no specifics — while the Kremlin simply turned the occasion into a demonstration of support, and proof that efforts to cut off Russia cannot succeed.
Can Indonesia achieve more? Certainly, but it must test the limits of its non-aligned position and acknowledge that unpicking a global food crisis and a war that violates the basic principles of Indonesia’s own foreign policy — among them, respect for sovereignty and non-aggression — is impossible if Russia is allowed to pit the West against the rest. Nor would platitudes on the need for talks suffice. It would not be enough to allow this peacebuilding effort to fade as Jakarta’s recent attempts have, say in Afghanistan or Myanmar.
Indonesia exemplifies the balancing act many emerging nations have struggled with over the past few months. They are juggling discomfort with Moscow’s disregard for basic norms and the reality of popular support for Russia — the result of Soviet-era ties, distrust of the West, admiration for a strongman leader and the widespread perception, fed by pro-Russian social media propaganda, that Putin is supportive of Islamic nations.
Indonesia voted in favor of a UN resolution condemning Russian aggression and Jokowi pointedly visited Kyiv first, but the nation has also sidestepped explicit censure of Russia and refused Ukrainian requests for weapons. That can prove an advantage.
Clearly, the idea of Indonesia bringing an end to the entire war is, at best, optimistic. Putin has shown no indication that he is ready to negotiate an enduring peace and feels he can outlast Ukraine in a war of attrition. After all, he does not have to worry about the vagaries of electoral cycles the way Western leaders do. He is also a man who perceives himself as the great leader of a great power, waging an existential fight — so not amenable to being influenced by a country he sees as a lesser player on the world stage. Ukraine, meanwhile, might be skeptical of Indonesia’s bona fides.
However, with an eye on its import bill and another on the South China Sea, Indonesia still has good reason to act. Failure to do so would allow Moscow to make a bad situation worse by claiming unquestioning support in the Global South, and encourage Beijing to learn all the wrong lessons. Jakarta also has the required clout, because Russia needs not just China, but the wider emerging world to avoid isolation and retain global influence. That includes this large, populous Muslim nation, a major importing economy and a regional heavyweight.
First, Jokowi must resist being complicit in Russian efforts to blame the West for a food calamity that the Kremlin’s own actions have exacerbated — as Senegalese President Macky Sall was last month. There is nothing neutral about supporting one side’s dangerous and misleading narrative. He must also push back against attempts to use grain and fertilizer exports as bargaining chips.
However, he can go further, as a loud emerging-market voice, pushing for the Kremlin assurances necessary to free Ukrainian exports — not just vague statements. He can press Moscow for specific and public guarantees to merchant shippers and insurers to open up Black Sea ports like Odesa. He can help persuade Turkey and others to provide the necessary security guarantees for Ukraine, where officials would otherwise resist removing the mines protecting its coast.
And yes, Jokowi can demand Western action, too, including swift and meaningful financial support for vulnerable economies and coordinated efforts to mitigate the consequences of sanctions overcompliance.
Non-aligned positions, especially for those with traditions dating to the original 1955 Bandung meeting, are hardly irrational. Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar is wrong to separate Europe’s problems and the world’s — the surge in grain, fertilizer and fuel prices proves that. The question is not whether to act, but how to do so. Neutrality is not to be confused with passivity in the face of disaster.
Clara Ferreira Marques is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, and editorial board member covering foreign affairs and climate. Previously, she worked for Reuters in Hong Kong, Singapore, India, the UK, Italy and Russia. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is often accused of getting close to, and even conspiring with, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There are certainly good reasons behind these accusations, yet the confounding truth is that it makes neither historical nor logical sense for it to do so. Whether one believes that the Chinese civil war fought between the KMT and CCP in the previous century has ended or has yet to be resolved, the KMT’s retreat to Taiwan in 1949 resulted in the CCP governing China and the KMT taking root in Taiwan. For years, the KMT refused to even
RSS