It was a very enlightened piece about why so many countries are not on board with sanctions against Russia and why the same countries are not buying what the US is selling Re. its stance on why Ukraine must win this war ... to save democracy and Europe, blah, blah, blah and, most importantly, why history matters.

These countries don't like what Putin has done but, they have their own interests to worry about and they feel the US has acted in a hegemonic way - in bully fashion, even - not to mention hypocritically.

The global divide and the international order that the US lead the way on setting up is fracturing. I used to think that US global leadership was or should be paramount. Maybe it was at one time but, that time is fading fast. The US/NATO action in Ukraine is not helping to maintain or sustain American influence around the globe.

Bashi should know that this is about so much more than gross domestic product.

"About two thirds of the world's population lives in countries that have refused to condemn Russia." (From the article)

Also from the article,

"Conversations with people in South Africa, Kenya and India suggest a deeply ambivalent view of the conflict, informed less by the question of whether Russia was wrong to invade than by current and historical grievances against the West — over colonialism, perceptions of arrogance, and the West’s failure to devote as many resources to solving conflicts and human rights abuses in other parts of the world, such as the Palestinian territories, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo."

Biden frames the war in Ukraine as a fight for freedom and democracy. All of which rings quite hollow in countries like South Africa, India and Brazil where the US has not devoted enough attention for the last many years, at least, to their issues of concern. South Africa's current leaders, in particular, remember well who supported their fight against apartheid and who did not. The Arab world has long lost faith in US leadership on any number of issues. China and Russia have taken full advantage of all of this disillusionment with what is now seen as Western hegemony.

Instead of blaming problems such as inflation on Putin's war in Ukraine, the Global South - Asia, Middle East, Africa and even Latin America to a lesser extent only because of their close proximity to the US - blame Western sanctions for many of the challenges they now face. Again, from the article,

"They do not subscribe to the narrative that countering Russia is a moral imperative if the principles of democracy and territorial integrity and the rules-based world order are to be upheld ... That’s not an argument that serious people buy,” said Kanwal Sibal, a former Indian foreign secretary, citing the NATO bombing of Serbia, U.S. support for dictatorships during the Cold War, and the Iraq War as examples of what he sees as the United States violating those same principles. “The rest of the world genuinely sees this as a European war. They do not see a global conflict or the way it is presented by the West,” he said."

The US may be learning ... maybe ... "The United States decided not to impose sanctions on India for a missile deal it concluded with Russia last year and instead has been pursuing expanded ties, including its own defense deals."

i don't have the patience for wapo's paywall. if there's a pertinent passage or paragraph, please paste it here.

/alliteration

whatever the case in various isolated countries, sanctions can't realistically be termed success or failure in a bubble. they are one catory of factor that can apply pressure to every other factor - be it military, economic, political, technological, social, etc.

so even if there's no immediate impact, the kremlin and its allies have fewer options in every sphere. they can't yacht on every sea, they can't buy in every housing market. sanctions are no panacea, but enough russians remember getting in line for soviet toilet paper that they'll gradually recalibrate their degree of support for the regime and its war. where national support for a ground war is concerned, it matters a great deal not only IF the public supports the war, but also how strongly.

i believe most russians know putin's pretext for war is moosepoop, are complying only as much as they must to avoid being targeted themselves, and hold his regime responsible for any hardships they may experience significantly more than they do washington, london or brussels.

JL

Also many of those countries don't have an automatic mechanism to enforce sanctions, so they are not listed but generally follow along. Sanctions can spill over and many countries will have to chose which side they do business with or realize that by supporting Russia it might prevent them doing business with some of the larger corporations on earth. Russia can limp along but I don't think it is enough to rebuild (or purchase replacements for) their war machine long term...

What about the use of common sense?

Sanctions were predictably destined to fail in this case, given the world in which we live. Meaning that most of the world, and especially the Global South, are decidedly not on board with sanctions against Russia and are equally reticent about what exactly the US is selling Re the Ukraine war and NATO expansion when these countries are dealing with their own existential issues, much of which are coming as a direct result of the prolonging of this war.

Less shocking after your mention of the south pacific...

So, warnings and sanctions were all that the US did to avert war. Yeah, sounds about right.

It seems that way to you, does it? Shocking. Positively shocking.

In the article it mentions that for younger to middle age Ukrainians, they have known freedom for long enough that they are likely to fight for it and this was a warning to the Russians that invasion would not be a cake walk (which turned out to be true). Seems like to avoid bloodshed you would prefer to toss them under a rather repressive bus, but would flee if in a similar situation...

What if the US invaded Canada because Canada decided to withdraw from the western alliance opting instead for a military security arrangement with Russia ... would I fight or just accept US control and lose freedom?

Well, in that case, I would first demonstrate and fight hard in opposition to Canada leaving NATO and joining a Russian alliance. If it went ahead anyway, I'd probably jump ship and head for the South Pacific. :)

You mean the North Pacific? Heh.

Or to put it another way, if Russia invaded Canada (you do share a watery icy border), would you fight or just accept Russian control and lose your freedoms?

I was wondering when I would be asked about that fantasy again.

That's not putting it another way at all. It is pure folly to even suggest such an incongruous scenario as that without even a remote premise for such an invasion. So, you'll forgive me if I decline to engage.

That sentiment was surely around back then but, it didn't last for very long. And, in fact, it was probably quite non-serious for the short amount of time that it was in vogue.

Uh...that's kind of the point of the article. Short answer, lots. It's a quite long read...

What did the US do, exactly, to "head it off"?

So, I think it is not surprising, given how Russia has reacted to all of this over the course of the last thirty plus years and given the US insistence (so much for Ukrainian sovereignty, ahem) on expanding NATO through Kiev, that this all-out Ukraine war began.

My concern now is how the war will end. I'm guessing Ukraine would have been far better off to negotiate before this thing started and not listened so much to the disingenuous advice it was getting from the US.

The US has been pushing for NATO expansion up to and including through Kiev to Moscow for thirty years.

Living in Italia, I have little idea whether any credible news source is highlighting the parallels - and that the same lapses and excuses are being repeated 45 years later.
https://www.wjhg.com/content/news/40-years-ago-Tragedy-on-the-tracks-in-Youngstown-475220313.html

There's nothing "new" about the Republican "normal" in TP 5. They've been doing it for decades.

Refusing to fund or allow studies looking at gun safety or medical cannabis, are just two examples.