Malaysia Orientalism And Europe S Waning Influence

---

 
AS the Russia-Ukraine war drags into its third year, its impact has stretched far beyond the borders of Eastern Europe. What began as a regional conflict has become a global litmus test for power, ideology, and influence.
For Europe, the war has exposed deep vulnerabilities not just in military terms, but in its economic stability, political cohesion, and moral authority.
From Malaysia’s vantage point in Southeast Asia, the shifting tides of this conflict present a unique opportunity to reassess long-standing global hierarchies and revisit the legacy of Orientalism in framing international relations.
The Western response to the war, particularly from European capitals, has relied heavily on moral narratives. Russia has been framed as a revisionist power led by an authoritarian regime, threatening the liberal democratic order.
This portrayal echoes Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism, a framework where the West historically cast the East as irrational, backward, and dangerous.
In this narrative, Europe reaffirms itself as the rational, civilised centre standing against an unpredictable and despotic East. Russia, though geographically part of Europe, is culturally and politically portrayed as “the Other”, fitting neatly into this Orientalist mould.
(Image: Shutterstock)Malaysia, shaped by its colonial past and a post-independence commitment to non-alignment, views these narratives with caution. The country has long resisted simplistic dichotomies that reduce global conflicts to battles between good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, or West and East.
In the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, Malaysia has maintained a position of neutrality, consistently calling for peaceful resolution, diplomacy, and the upholding of international law. It has avoided aligning explicitly with either side, opting instead to focus on humanitarian concerns and multilateral engagement.
This approach is not just a matter of political pragmatism but it is a conscious rejection of the ideological framework imposed by former colonial powers.
Malaysia’s foreign policy reflects a desire to craft an independent voice in global affairs, one that is informed by its unique cultural, historical, and geopolitical experiences.
It challenges the West’s tendency to dominate global discourse and rejects the moral superiority that often underpins Western interventions in international conflicts.
Europe’s declining influence in the wake of the war has only reinforced this position. Internally, the European Union is struggling to manage economic instability, energy crises, and political divisions, while externally, it faces difficulties in mobilising global consensus against Russia.
The war has also highlighted the limitations of Western leadership in securing a just and stable international order. For Malaysia and other countries in the Global South, this weakening of Europe’s moral and political clout serves as a reminder that Western narratives do not hold universal validity.
Instead of taking cues from Europe, Malaysia is looking to a more multipolar world, where influence is not concentrated in the hands of a few traditional powers.
The country maintains active engagement with both Western and Eastern partners, including the United States, China, India, and Russia, balancing its interests while avoiding entanglement in ideological conflicts.
This strategy underscores Malaysia’s refusal to be cast once again in the role of the subordinate “Oriental”, a passive actor in a world ordered by the West.
However, Malaysia’s position is not without its challenges. The humanitarian crisis caused by the war, its impact on global food and energy prices, and the growing influence of external powers in Southeast Asia require Malaysia to navigate carefully.
While maintaining neutrality, the country must also ensure that it does not appear indifferent to aggression or violations of international norms.
Its credibility as a principled advocate for justice particularly in other global causes such as the Palestinian struggle that depends on consistent and coherent diplomacy.
At the same time, Malaysia’s stance offers a valuable counter-narrative to the dominant Western framing of the conflict. By refusing to view the war through a rigid East-West binary, Malaysia promotes a more inclusive and balanced approach to international affairs.
Its foreign policy highlights the importance of sovereignty, dialogue, and mutual respect, principles often overshadowed by the West’s tendency to moralise and intervene.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict thus becomes more than a geopolitical crisis; it becomes a moment of reflection for former colonies like Malaysia.
As Europe struggles to maintain its grip on global influence, countries in the Global South are asserting their right to define their own positions, free from the legacies of imperialism and the distortions of Orientalism.
Malaysia, in particular, is demonstrating that post-colonial states can chart independent courses based on pragmatism, principle, and a refusal to be cast in roles scripted by others.
In conclusion, the war in Ukraine has exposed not only the fault lines in European security but also the deeper assumptions that continue to shape global power dynamics.
Malaysia’s response, grounded in neutrality and shaped by a post-colonial consciousness, challenges the enduring frameworks of Orientalism that still colour Western foreign policy.
In doing so, it asserts a vision of international relations that is more equitable, more multipolar, and ultimately more reflective of the realities of the 21st century. 
R Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.

---