sweng

What educated westerners think matches what people living outside the west think.

Wow, just wow. So we don't actually need to ask e.g indiginous people of their opinions, it's enough to ask "educated westeners". Which century are we living in?

It’s pretty obvious from all the actions the global majority countries have taken that they do in fact support Russia

Is that why they keep codemning Russia in various UN resolutions? The numbers speak for themselves.

It does't matter if educated westeners think Russia is right: that's not what's being discussed. Unless you think the opinions of white westeners like Chomsky override the actual position of poorer countries? "Oh, Chomsky agrees with Russia? Sorry Botswana, you have to also support Russia now, Chomsky said so. Better fire your UN ambassador, they forgot to ask Chomsky what he thought, before voting to condemn Russia".

I haven't heard anything so patronizing and colonoalistic in a long time.

If you think that poor countries support the west over Russia after what the west has been doing to them, then you’re utterly delusional. M

I'm not, and nowhere did I claim that. I said they don't support Russia. What kind of depressing world do you live in where you have to support either the West or Russia. Countries are free to do their own thing, and do not need to support either. To spell it out: A country can oppose Russia, while at the same time also not support the West.

The UN resolution clearly shows: The vssz majority of countries, including the global south, think what Russia is doing is wrong. Many of them continue to trade with Russia despite the attack on Ukraine, not because of it. It should come as no surprise that especially poorer coutries can not pick and choose who they trade with.

Ah, you define support as "not actively opposed"? That is an incredibly low bar.

Again, the UN vote clearly shows that the countries don't support Russia or think what the country does is right.

The fact that poor countries arw in no position to sanction anyone does not mean they support Russia.

Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a "de facto" member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?

NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous "de facto" members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a "de facto" member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.

Your links actualy don't show that the "vast majority" spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don't. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.

There is no such thing as "de facto" NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html

Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.

that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.

Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?

Everything except building trust, it seems.

And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.