Overall, I've been pleased with the coverage in The Economist, but the occasional article, like this one, lacks an authentic through line even if it has a litan

Overall, I've been pleased with the coverage in The Economist, but the occasional article, like this one, lacks an authentic through line even if it has a litany of facts. China was never, ever going to go against Russia in this war. It's not even worth talking about the number of people there because Putin literally went to China to discuss the war with Xi before it kicked off. The number of people barely matter when it's not a democracy, since the power structures are decided by a much smaller percent of the population and the press isn't free. India, I actually do take issue with. Their self-serving actions I hold against them and I've been disappointed with Indian leadership and alignment as of late. But all of this misses the point. The unaligned movement is acceptable to my western eyes, but I never for a second forget that they need us for their stability and security. Small, poor, neutral states rarely change the course of world politics. So out of the countries that actually matter there is NATO (and friends like Australia and Japan), India, Brazil, Russia, and China. India and Brazil both disappointingly went neutral, Russia started the war, and China is softly backing their junior partner. So my take away is simple: The countries that are willing to sacrifice at their own cost for others are the ones that have internal politics that mirror their values. The more populist or fascist or communist the country the more likely they are to put their own national interests ahead of others. Or do you think Canadian-Ukrainian trade is so vital to Trudeau that he's willing to frost relations with Russia, outlay hundreds of millions in direct aid and munitions donations, and spend political capital garnering support for Ukrainian defence?