Why Ukrainian Netizens Are 'Julid' Towards Indonesia: Unpacking Perceptions in Global Geopolitics

Nov 10, 2025 by recoveryshake.com 139 views

Why Ukrainian Netizens Are ‘Julid’ Towards Indonesia? Unpacking Perceptions in Global Geopolitics

Ukrainian netizens expressing critical or sarcastic sentiments towards Indonesia have become a notable, albeit nuanced, phenomenon in the digital realm. The term ‘julid,’ an Indonesian slang word, roughly translates to being overly critical, gossipy, or disparaging, often with a hint of sarcasm or snark. This digital criticism stems from a complex interplay of geopolitical stances, differing expectations, and the magnifying glass of social media in an interconnected world. As global events unfold, particularly the conflict in Ukraine, nations’ diplomatic positions are scrutinized not just by state actors but increasingly by citizen observers. Indonesia, a major non-aligned power with a significant role in international forums, has found its foreign policy decisions subjected to this intense online commentary from a population directly affected by war.

The Rise of ‘Julid’: Netizen Phenomena on the International Stage

The phenomenon of Ukrainian netizens being ‘julid’ towards Indonesia is not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of a broader trend where citizen diplomacy and digital criticism increasingly shape international narratives. In an era dominated by social media, individuals and groups can directly voice their opinions, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels and often exerting significant pressure on foreign policy. For Ukraine, a nation fighting for its sovereignty, the global community’s response is viewed through a lens of urgent solidarity. Any nation perceived as not fully aligning with their cause, or appearing to maintain a neutral stance that benefits the aggressor, often faces the ire of its citizens online. This is where Indonesia enters the conversation.

Indonesia, as a significant player in the Global South and the largest economy in Southeast Asia, holds considerable diplomatic weight. Its G20 presidency during a tumultuous period, coupled with its long-standing non-aligned foreign policy doctrine, placed it in a challenging position. While many nations in the West unequivocally condemned Russia and imposed sanctions, Indonesia maintained a more balanced approach, advocating for peace and dialogue without taking a definitive side against Russia. This stance, aimed at fostering a diplomatic resolution and ensuring global stability, was often perceived differently by Ukrainian citizens. They might interpret Indonesia’s neutrality not as a step towards peace, but as a lack of strong moral condemnation, or even tacit support for Russia, leading to the ‘julid’ remarks.

The early online chatter regarding Indonesia’s position began to surface as the conflict escalated, particularly around key diplomatic events like the G20 Summit in Bali. Ukrainian social media users, often sharing news and opinions in English or through translation tools, started to question Indonesia’s commitment to democratic values or its solidarity with a nation under attack. They frequently drew comparisons between Indonesia’s response and those of other countries, highlighting perceived inconsistencies or perceived lukewarm support. Specific instances, though not always widely reported by mainstream media, circulated within Ukrainian online communities, fueling a narrative of disappointment and frustration. These digital conversations underscore the potent impact of social media on shaping diplomatic relations. While traditional diplomacy operates behind closed doors, online sentiment is public, immediate, and can rapidly spread, influencing public opinion both domestically and internationally. The sheer volume of online discussions, even if from a minority, can create a powerful echo chamber, making it appear as a more widespread sentiment than it might actually be. Understanding this digital dynamic is crucial for any nation navigating the complexities of modern international relations, especially when facing direct, often emotionally charged, criticism from citizen groups abroad.

The Roots of Criticism: From Neutrality to Humanitarian Aid

The roots of the criticism from Ukrainian netizens towards Indonesia largely stem from a fundamental divergence in perspectives regarding the ongoing conflict and Indonesia’s official diplomatic stance. While Indonesia has consistently expressed concern over the humanitarian situation and called for a peaceful resolution, its approach has been characterized by a policy of non-alignment and an emphasis on dialogue rather than outright condemnation or sanctions against Russia. This position, deeply rooted in Indonesia’s historical Bebas-Aktif (Free and Active) foreign policy principles, seeks to maintain independence in international affairs and contribute to global peace without siding with any major power bloc. From Jakarta’s vantage point, this stance allows it to serve as a bridge builder and maintain lines of communication with all parties, potentially facilitating a path to peace. Indonesia has also provided humanitarian aid, reinforcing its commitment to alleviating suffering without directly intervening in the political or military aspects of the conflict.

However, from the Ukrainian perspective, a nation grappling with invasion and existential threats, the expectation from the international community is often a clear, unequivocal condemnation of the aggressor and robust solidarity with the victim. For many Ukrainians, any stance perceived as ‘neutral’ or ‘balanced’ is interpreted as insufficient, or worse, as indirectly legitimizing aggression. They often anticipate stronger statements, more punitive actions, and a clear moral stand against what they view as a blatant violation of international law and human rights. The concept of ‘neutrality’ can be a double-edged sword; while intended to promote peace, it can be seen by the aggrieved party as a failure to uphold justice. Ukrainian citizens, through social media and international news, monitor global responses closely, and Indonesia’s nuanced position might be perceived as falling short of their hopes for widespread international support. This perceived gap between their expectation of robust support and Indonesia’s diplomatic pragmatism often fuels the ‘julid’ sentiments.

Specific events, such as Indonesia’s hosting of the G20 Summit in Bali and President Joko Widodo’s peace mission to Kyiv and Moscow, further highlighted these differing perceptions. While Indonesia intended these actions to promote dialogue and de-escalation, Ukrainian netizens, and perhaps the Ukrainian government, might have desired a stronger signal of support, such as excluding Russia from the G20 or a more direct condemnation during the presidential visit. The dilemma of ‘neutrality’ in a highly polarized conflict is that it rarely satisfies either side fully, and can be particularly frustrating for the party enduring direct aggression. The Ukrainian online community, driven by a deep sense of patriotism and urgency, uses digital platforms to express this frustration, calling for greater international accountability and solidarity. These online expressions are not merely casual remarks; they reflect a profound sentiment shaped by the realities of war and a strong desire for global justice, often clashing with the complex, sometimes pragmatic, calculations of foreign policy from a distant nation like Indonesia.

Impact and Resonance in Indonesia’s Digital Space

The impact and resonance of Ukrainian netizens’ ‘julid’ comments in Indonesia’s digital space have been varied, often triggering a range of reactions from Indonesian internet users. When these criticisms surface, they don’t go unnoticed. Indonesian netizens, known for their vibrant and opinionated presence online, often respond defensively, seeking to explain or justify their country’s foreign policy. Many emphasize Indonesia’s long-standing tradition of non-alignment, its constitutional mandate for world peace, and its commitment to humanitarian aid, arguing that these actions reflect a principled approach rather than indifference. They might point to Indonesia’s efforts to facilitate peace talks or its provision of aid as proof of its genuine concern, countering the narrative of perceived inaction or complicity. This defensive stance is a natural reaction to perceived external criticism, especially when it touches upon national pride and sovereign policy decisions.

Conversely, some Indonesian netizens might express understanding or even bewilderment at the Ukrainian criticism. They might question why Indonesia, a country thousands of miles away and facing its own domestic challenges, should be singled out for not taking a more aggressive stance. Others, particularly those more attuned to international relations, might acknowledge the valid grievances of the Ukrainian people while still defending Indonesia’s right to pursue its own foreign policy agenda. This nuanced reaction highlights the diversity of opinions within Indonesia itself, reflecting different levels of understanding of international geopolitics and the emotional toll of the conflict.

Misinformation and disinformation also play a significant role in escalating online tensions. In the fast-paced world of social media, nuanced diplomatic positions can easily be oversimplified, misinterpreted, or deliberately distorted. A critical comment from a Ukrainian netizen, taken out of context or amplified by algorithms, can quickly become a lightning rod for debate, sometimes leading to heated exchanges between users from both countries. Accusations of bias or ignorance can fly, further entrenching positions and making constructive dialogue difficult. This digital environment poses significant challenges for digital diplomacy, as government communication strategies must contend with rapidly spreading narratives that may be far from the official truth. The Indonesian media, both traditional and online, also plays a role in shaping how these criticisms are perceived domestically. Reports on Ukrainian online sentiment can range from dismissive to analytical, influencing how the broader Indonesian public understands the situation and reinforcing particular viewpoints about their country’s standing on the global stage.

While this online criticism from Ukrainian netizens may not directly alter official bilateral relations between the two governments in the short term, it undoubtedly influences public opinion in both countries. It can create a sense of unease, misunderstanding, or even resentment, potentially affecting people-to-people connections, tourism, or cultural exchange programs in the long run. Navigating these digital currents requires not just traditional diplomatic acumen but also a sophisticated understanding of online communication, public sentiment, and the complex interplay between national identity and global events.

The Role of Communication and Public Diplomacy in Addressing Online Criticism

In an increasingly digital world, the role of communication and public diplomacy in addressing online criticism, particularly from sources like Ukrainian netizens targeting Indonesia, has become paramount. Governments can no longer rely solely on traditional diplomatic channels but must actively engage in the digital sphere to manage perceptions and explain their foreign policy decisions. For Indonesia, facing ‘julid’ sentiments, a proactive and transparent communication strategy is crucial. This involves not just defending its stance but explaining the rationale behind its non-aligned policy, its commitment to humanitarian values, and its efforts to promote peace through dialogue rather than confrontation.

One key aspect of a successful response is for the Indonesian government, particularly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), to adopt a more accessible and empathetic tone in its digital communications. Instead of formal press releases, engaging content that addresses common misconceptions, perhaps through infographics, short videos, or Q&A sessions, can be more effective. Such content should clearly articulate Indonesia’s foreign policy principles, such as Bebas-Aktif, and explain how these principles guide its actions on the international stage. For instance, explaining that Indonesia’s neutrality is not indifference but a strategic choice to facilitate mediation and ensure global food and energy security can help clarify its position to a global audience, including concerned Ukrainian citizens.

Furthermore, proactive communication goes beyond mere explanation; it involves demonstrating tangible actions that align with stated values. Indonesia’s provision of humanitarian aid to Ukraine, for example, should be actively publicized and explained in context – as a demonstration of solidarity with the suffering people, independent of political alignment. Bridging the gap between diplomatic intentions and public perception often requires translating complex geopolitical strategies into relatable human stories. This could involve highlighting how Indonesian humanitarian efforts directly assist Ukrainian citizens, thereby demonstrating genuine concern beyond political rhetoric. Such initiatives can help to soften the critical edge of online commentary by showing concrete support for humanitarian causes without compromising Indonesia’s strategic neutrality.

However, effective digital diplomacy is not just about what a government says, but also how it listens and responds. Monitoring online discussions, understanding the underlying grievances of the critics, and engaging in respectful dialogue, even with those who are critical, can be invaluable. While directly engaging with every ‘julid’ comment might be impractical, a strategic approach could involve addressing recurring themes or common misunderstandings in broader public statements or dedicated digital campaigns. The long game of international perception is about building trust and understanding over time. It requires consistent effort, cultural sensitivity, and a willingness to engage with diverse perspectives, even those that are critical or challenging. By investing in robust digital public diplomacy, Indonesia can better navigate the complexities of online scrutiny, mitigate negative perceptions, and foster a more accurate understanding of its role in shaping a peaceful world. This is essential for maintaining its standing and influence as a significant voice from the Global South.

Understanding Geopolitical Realities: Between Expectations and State Policies

Ultimately, understanding the geopolitical realities behind the ‘julid’ sentiments from Ukrainian netizens towards Indonesia requires appreciating the inherent complexities of foreign policy, where national interests often intersect with, and sometimes clash with, international expectations. For any sovereign nation, foreign policy is a delicate balancing act, designed to protect national security, promote economic prosperity, and uphold core values. Indonesia’s approach to the Ukraine conflict, rooted in its historical commitment to non-alignment and its Pancasila principles (especially Persatuan Indonesia – Unity of Indonesia, and Kemanusiaan yang Adil dan Beradab – Just and Civilized Humanity), reflects these deeply ingrained national considerations. While the world, particularly nations directly impacted by conflict, might desire a clear-cut moral stance, state policies are often shaped by a pragmatic assessment of long-term consequences, regional stability, and global relationships.

Indonesia’s historical context as a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) informs its current policy. During the Cold War, NAM aimed to provide an alternative path for newly independent nations, steering clear of allegiance to either the Soviet or American blocs. This legacy continues to influence Indonesia’s reluctance to be drawn into proxy conflicts or to unequivocally align with one side against another, even in situations where human rights violations are evident. From Jakarta’s perspective, maintaining open communication channels with all parties, including Russia, is essential for potential mediation efforts and for safeguarding its economic and strategic interests, such as ensuring stable supply chains for food and energy resources critical for its large population. These are internal strategic calculations that might not be immediately apparent, or even relevant, to those directly facing the ravages of war, who prioritize immediate solidarity and decisive action against aggression.

Moreover, the concept of sovereignty itself plays a crucial role. Just as Ukraine asserts its right to self-determination, Indonesia maintains its right to define its foreign policy based on its national interests and values. The criticism from Ukrainian netizens, while understandable from their vantage point, highlights a fundamental tension between the emotional appeal for global solidarity and the calculated, often slower, movements of state diplomacy. This situation presents a valuable learning curve for both sides. For Indonesia, it underscores the need for more effective public diplomacy that can articulate its nuanced position to a global audience, particularly to those directly affected by conflict. For Ukrainian citizens, it offers a glimpse into the diverse and often complex motivations behind the foreign policies of nations far removed from the immediate conflict zone, reminding them that not all neutrality is born of indifference, but sometimes of a deeply ingrained strategic philosophy. The future outlook suggests that such online dialogues will continue to evolve, pushing nations to be more transparent and communicative about their international roles, while also urging global citizens to understand the multi-faceted lenses through which international relations are viewed and conducted.

In conclusion, the ‘julid’ sentiments from Ukrainian netizens towards Indonesia serve as a poignant reminder of the complexities of international relations in the digital age. They underscore the challenges faced by non-aligned nations in navigating highly polarized global conflicts and the significant impact of public perception, especially from affected populations, on national image. Understanding these criticisms requires looking beyond the surface-level remarks and delving into the deep-seated geopolitical realities and humanitarian concerns that drive them. For Indonesia, it is an ongoing lesson in the importance of clear, empathetic, and proactive digital diplomacy to bridge gaps in understanding and reinforce its commitment to peace and justice on the global stage.