Western officials particularly Olaf Shultz, Macron, Polish president Andrzej Duda and VP Kamala Harris reportedly had a difficult time convincing leaders in the global south to take a hawkish posture towards Russia via Ukraine during last weeks Munich Security Conference. The conference is increasingly attended by some leaders outside of Europe who have a more non aligned posture concerning the west and the rising great powers of Russia and China, although it is still a western forum dominated by the traditional imperialist states.

This is in contrast to the way western media reported the March 2nd Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (NYT) "Condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine" (even though the operation wasn't conducted like a modern shock and awe war at first) with a solid majority of 143 countries out of 191

As well as the similar March 22nd Resolution (NYT) also adopted by a roughly 2/3rds majority, though it is worth noting that some of the largest and most important non western nations were among those that abstained such as China, India, South Africa, Iran, and Pakistan as well as 17 African countries.

The divide between the so called developing and developed nations on Ukraine was clear early on. A popular March 28th Guardian Op Ed titled The West v Russia: Why The Global South Isn’t Taking Sides noted that

  ...the true rift is not between left and right, nor even between east and west. On the contrary, the map reveals a rift between north and south, between the nations that we call developed and those we call developing. And by revealing this tectonic shift, the map can tell us something important about geopolitics in the coming age of multipolarity. 

The possibility of sanctions due to lopsided western control of the global financial system and other forms of pressure (cutting aid, gunboat diplomacy) had an influence on these well publicized General Assembly resolutions. As it became more and more clear the west would take a maximalist position [on Ukraine] and threatened to plunge the globalized capitalist system into recession an possibly famine, much of the world became even more lukewarm, and by June the head of the (fairly moderate) African Union called for the lifting of sanctions on Russia (Telesur) .

Now back to the Financial Times article about the Munich Conference , some highlights (which is most of it) :

       Western leaders used an important security meeting in Munich to make the case that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine posed a threat not just to Europe but to the whole world. There was little evidence their message got through.

      Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, a clutch of senior US and European officials sought to convince the rest of the world of the threat posed to them by President Vladimir Putin’s invasion — and show them that blame for higher global food and energy prices lay with Moscow.

      US vice-president Kamala Harris said “no nation is safe” in a world where “one country can violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another”.

     French president Emmanuel Macron said the “neocolonial, imperialist” Russian invasion was not “only a European war”. German chancellor Olaf Scholz said it would be everybody’s problem if “the law of the strongest prevailed in international relations”.

      Yet their attempts to portray the war in universal terms met some familiar retorts.

      Brazilian foreign minister Mauro Vieira said that the conflict was a “very sad situation” and stressed his government “deplored” invasion.

      But, in a message that jarred with the stance of western attendees calling for resolve to fight a long war in Ukraine, Vieira added: “It’s been one year now. We have to try to build the possibility of a solution. We cannot keep talking only of war.”

     Organisers of the annual gathering in the Bavarian city were proud that this year’s event had a record number of participants from countries in what they termed the global south, even as it remained dominated by officials from Europe and the US.

     There was palpable frustration among some leaders from African and South American nations that the war in Ukraine, which on Friday will enter its second year, was consuming the time, money and attention of the west at the expense of other pressing problems.
        
    Francia Marquez, the vice-president of Colombia, said that her country wanted Europe’s help tackling the fallout from climate change and protecting the Amazon rainforest. “We don’t want to go on discussing who will be the winner or the loser of a war,” she said. “We are all losers and, in the end, it is humankind that loses everything.”

     Namibian prime minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila was asked why her country had — along with China, India and 32 other nations — abstained from a UN resolution in October that saw 143 countries declare the Russian annexation of several Ukrainian regions as illegal.

     She said that Namibia was focused on “resolving the problem, not on shifting blame”. She added: “The bottom line is that money used to buy weapons would be better used to promote development in Ukraine, in Africa, in Asia, in the EU itself where many people are facing hardships.”

    Western officials said bilateral meetings on the conference sidelines revealed a much greater preoccupation with issues such as inflation, debt, higher energy prices and food security than with the war in Ukraine. There was also a lingering resentment, they said, over the west’s disappointing record on sharing coronavirus vaccines and compensation for the damage caused by climate change.
    ...

[and of course its always at least in part about CHINA for the west today]

    China’s stance on the conflict loomed large over the Munich gathering along with tensions between Beijing and Washington. Amrita Narlikar, president and professor at the Hamburg-based German Institute for Global and Area Studies, said that European and American officials needed to do better in countering what she called China’s “very clever” framing of itself as a part of the developing world, where it promotes itself as a partner to help nations safeguard their sovereignty and boost development. 

   Narlikar said a peace plan for the Ukraine conflict that Beijing had promised to publish in the coming days — drawing skepticism from European and US officials — would probably target not just the west. “Equally importantly, the global south can be expected to be the audience,” she said.

    “If China were to present its vision as one of a peace dialogue between Russia and Ukraine, and emphasize the global economic costs of a long-drawn war, this would enjoy considerable support in large parts of the global south.

   “The west needs to get its act together and build more inclusive and winning narratives,” she added. 

(end of article)

Its also worth noting that this got published yesterday right before Biden's surprise visit to Ukraine - which is quite obviously suppose to be a snub towards Putins upcoming February speech roughly around the anniversary of the so called Special Operation - , pledging full support and saying nothing that Contradicts the Zelensky regimes maximalist position on the Donbass and Crimea.
Via The Wall Street Journal :

     Standing beside Mr. Zelensky and flanked by the American and Ukrainian flags, Mr. Biden pledged “unwavering support” for Ukraine and its sovereignty and territorial independence while wearing a suit and a striped tie bearing the Ukrainian flag’s blue and yellow colors.  

Biden also once again placed the conflict on neoconservative terms, pledging allegiance to the Kiev regimes nationalist struggle, and claiming it as a key pillar in a war for western democracy in a world of barbarism :

    "For all the disagreement we have in our Congress on some issues, there is significant agreement on support for Ukraine," he said.
      
    "It’s not just about freedom in Ukraine…It’s about freedom of democracy at large."  

So far according to Wall Street Journal

   Congress has authorized $113 billion in military and economic assistance for Ukraine since Russia’s invasion began.