What a strange article and what a bunch of unrelated factoids thrown in to reach conclusions that aren't really supported by the data.

It would take something about as long as the article posted here to write a proper refutation but if there was a point to be made then it could not doubt have been made much better.

For instance:

"Most of the emerging world either backs Russia over its invasion or is neutral. Some countries depend on Russian arms, others feel a misplaced nostalgia for Soviet largesse, but many see the West as decadent, self-serving and hypocritical. And many more, even if they do not welcome the invasion, see it as somebody else’s problem."

Where to even start? The two large players that matter in the 'developing world' are China and India, both have their own very unique reasons to be either supportive of or ambivalent towards Russia, not because they depend on arms but because Russia and/or Russian connected territories serve their interests or because they have similar political systems and have similar designs on their immediate surroundings. That's already by population almost 3 billion people and yet it is only two countries.

"As America and the rest of NATO rally support for action against Russia, that is a stunning rebuke."

So that 'stunning rebuke' is not nearly as stunning as the author makes it out to be.

Then:

"It is also taking the world down a dangerous path."

Correction: Russia is taking the world, and especially Europe down a dangerous path. If anything it has destabilized the European continent in a way that nothing has since WWII, not even the war around former Yugoslavia, where - it needs to be said - Russia again played a major role.

"On March 2nd, 141 countries voted in the UN to deplore Russia’s invasion. Just five voted against and 35 abstained. "

The ones that abstained have their reasons to walk a very fine line, in part because they depend on Russia and in part because they have ambitions to be more like Russia.

The ones that voted against are: North Korea, Eritrea, Syria, Belarus and Russia itself.

I don't think anybody is going to be surprised by four of those, the one that remains is Eritrea. Russian veto power in the security council has repeatedly protected Eritrean leadership.

"But the real pattern is more complex. Our sister organisation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, has noted that only a third of the world’s people live in countries that have not only condemned Russia but also imposed sanctions on it."

Yes, that's also the part of the world that either aligns with the West because they are closely tied economically and/or because they have the ability to do so without entirely ruining their own economy. If Upper Volta decides to boycott or sanction Russia it won't move the needle much because they aren't really the most active trading partners, but if the US, UK, the remainder of Europe or Japan does so it definitely does move that needle.

There is a whole debate possible about whether or not sanctions are effective and then another one about whether or not these particular sanctions are effective. But it is pretty easy to see why those countries that are most directly affected by Russia invading Ukraine would be the ones to support the sanctions and leave the rest of the world less likely to do so.

Proximity + economic ties + feeling threatened by Russia is enough explanation for me.

"Most of them are Western. Another third are in neutral countries. This group includes giants like India and tricky American allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The final third are in countries that are echoing Russia’s rationale for the invasion. The biggest, China, has repeated propaganda claiming that Ukraine has hosted American-backed bioweapons laboratories."

I don't really see what this paragraph adds to the previous one, it is pretty clear that China has its own agenda with Taiwan, a word that isn't even present in the article, and that India has its own dependencies on Russia.

"In Mr Putin’s world, where might makes right, today’s lack of support is proof of Western decline."

Winner of the 'jump to conclusions' prize.

Anyway, this whole article looks to me as though it started out from a conclusion, then pulled together a bunch of unrelated facts to paint a completely incoherent picture.