“To be really neutral is very difficult in the world, which is not stable,” says Denys Mykhailiuk, Ukraine’s acting ambassador to Malaysia.

“Strategic neutrality is typically reserved for strong states that can defend their sovereignty. For many in the Global South, what is described as neutrality is more accurately a form of non-alignment,” he said.

Malaysia, traditionally proud of its non-aligned foreign policy, continues to engage with all parties. Yet experts suggest this approach demands closer scrutiny in an era where global powers are increasingly acting outside international norms.

“Neutrality represents a deliberate political stance of impartiality,” says Munira Mustaffa, executive director of  Chasseur Group. “Silence, conversely, often reflects passive non-engagement.”

ISIS foreign policy head Thomas Daniel echoed this sentiment, saying that “many countries use ‘neutrality’ or ‘non-alignment’ to avoid taking positions on issues they perceive as harming their national interests.”

Malaysia has the right to stay neutral—but should it?

According to Mykhailiuk, neutrality is not simply about not taking sides. It requires balance, visibility and consistent actions, including condemnation when norms are violated. Without this, what is referred to as “neutrality” risks becoming “complicity”.

Mykhailiuk warns that failure to respond to Russia’s war will send a global signal.

“If the aggressor comes out unpunished or rewarded by the new territorial requirements, it will definitely (provoke a) superpower to act on its own discretion, using the threat of force or force itself in relations with the smaller states,” he said.

‘Imperial thinking’ in the 21st century 

This concern is especially relevant in an age of rising imperial ambitions.

While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s assertive stance in the South China Sea differ in method, both reflect a common mindset: historical entitlement as justification for modern-day dominance.

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that China had no legal basis to claim historic rights within the so-called Nine-Dash Line. The ruling was labelled “ill-founded” by China, and ignored.

“My perception is that China’s actions involve sustained coercion and grey-zone tactics, while Russia’s strategy is outright aggression,” says Munira.

“But for smaller post-colonial states like Malaysia or Ukraine, both present serious sovereignty challenges: they must navigate between protecting sovereignty and avoiding confrontation with powers that view international law as secondary to their historical claims.”

Malaysia is no stranger to the consequences of great power impunity.

The 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine, which killed 298 people including 43 Malaysians, remains a wound in the national memory. Russia’s 2015 veto at the UN Security Council blocked efforts to establish an international tribunal.

“Deepening ties with Russia without addressing this tragedy sends a troubling signal,” says Munira.

“It suggests that such actions can be overlooked. Any perception that MH17 is being sidelined would undermine confidence in international accountability mechanisms.”

This issue cuts deeper when viewed alongside Malaysia’s expanding diplomatic and trade ties with Russia, including support for BRICS membership and a recent increase in direct cooperation.

“The balance becomes increasingly complex,” said Munira, pointing to contradictions between Malaysia’s humanitarian support for Ukraine and its diplomatic silence on Russian aggression.

This imperial logic, where great powers act as though smaller nations exist for absorption or domination, can be useful for some countries, and it is increasingly visible. Beyond Russia and China, other global powers are also demonstrating imperial tendencies.

“The risk of ‘imperial thinking’ is reinforced by the recent behaviour of—not just Russia—but also China, the United States and Israel,” says Daniel.

These trends are particularly worrying for smaller nations that rely on international law as their first line of defence.

Asean’s role 

This makes not only the Malaysian position vital, but Asean’s as well, being an organisation of countries that want to be important players in the region.

The Asean Charter is clear about provisions like the peaceful settlements of disputes through dialogue and consultation, the renunciation of aggression, and upholding international law.

However, as Munira explains, Asean’s recent diplomatic record has been mixed. Only four of ten Asean members attended the 2024 Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland; with only two signing the communiqué.

“This reflects Asean’s broader concern that peace efforts must consider multiple perspectives,” she says.

Nevertheless, there is space for leadership. “With over 600 million people and growing markets, Asean can become an important trade and investment partner for Ukraine,” says Mykhailiuk.

Not all support has to come with weapons.

Malaysia has provided humanitarian support to Ukraine, including medical supplies and essential equipment. In his recent interview with Bernama TV, Mykhailiuk called for more assistance, particularly for post-conflict demining, rescue operations, and energy infrastructure.

For Malaysia and other middle powers, the war in Ukraine is not someone else’s problem. It is a test of whether the rules that protect the weak from the strong still apply—and whether countries like Malaysia will help uphold them.

“Weakness is temptation,” Mykhailiuk warns. “So be strong.”

Anastasiya Yushchenko is an undergraduate at the City St George’s, University of London, and an intern at FMT.