I now think of governments and leaders around the world as falling into either the authoritarian or democratic way of ruling. There are, of course, many ways one can break down various nations and cultures, whether by religion, ethnicity, wealth, geography, and many other categories. These days, however, it seems that conflicts, whether between or within nations, come down to those who support democracy vs. those who want authoritarian rule. This explains why, for the most part, democratic countries support Ukraine while authoritarian countries support Russia. It also explains (at least in my mind) the answer to the question posed by @wolfpup in the midterm election thread about why MTG and Matt Gaetz are proposing a bill to cut off all aid to Ukraine. IMHO it’s because they’re authoritarians, and they thus see Russia as the good guys and Ukraine as the bad guys. Now obviously all authoritarians are not the same. There’s left wing and right wing, religious versions of various denominations as well as secular, some that have official monarchies and others where they have sham elections, are located all over the world, have different predominant ethnic / racial / language makeups, and so on. What they all seem to have in common is a hatred for a democratic form of government. Of course this isn’t limited to differences between countries. The breakdown is seen within countries as well, such as the Democratic (democratic) and Republican (authoritarian) parties here in the US. It should go without saying that for the most part the democracies are the good guys and the authoritarians the bad guys.
Clearly this isn’t the only way to look at things, but it seems to me to be a very helpful way of looking at how power is wielded within and between countries around the world. The debate is this. Is my way of looking at things fundamentally flawed, and if so how?