The Economist is cagey about the definition, but by context it works out to "America and its allies" (where "America" is "The United States of America".

See e.g., "How the West should respond to China’s search for foreign outposts" (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/05/07/how-the-west-sh...), which uses the phrase "America and its allies" three times.

The US, NATO, NORAD, ANZUS, SEATO, and specific alliances such as the US-Japan alliance, Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea, and the like, would likely be included. In the context of Ukraine and this article, probably the Common Security and Defence Policy (CDSP) of the EU as well.

Tunisia is a) dependent on Russian and Ukrainian wheat b) about to strike itself off the democracy list

As a friend of mine told NPR: “It’s not that Tunisia’s democracy is threatened. Tunisia’s democracy has been shot in the head.”

The West ~= the "Liberal International Order"

Mostly the US, with some UK mixed in.

> A better term would be liberal democracies

If you think "liberal democracies" still carries the same positive vibe across the world that it used to some years ago you are in for a big surprise.

> "both sides are the same" ring to it

They are definitely not the same, they have obviously different values. Again, Putin has said as much, he's the one fighting for a multi-polar world with multi-polar values, so to speak. I think the same holds for Xi, in China.

> If you think "liberal democracies" still carries the same positive vibe across the world that it used to some years ago you are in for a big surprise.

I mean, I agree that it doesn't carry the same positive vibes that it used to, but it still carries much better vibes than "corrupt authoritarian semi-dictatorships".

To those who might try going "muh western propaganda" on this, save your time. I am speaking as someone who grew up in one of those "corrupt authoritarian semi-dictatorships" and eventually immigrated to a "liberal democracy".

Yeah, the gaslighting cracks me up. I too escaped a former Soviet bloc country that Russia invaded in exactly the same way it is invading Ukraine right now.

I now live in one of those “horrible” western democracies where I can tell the Prime Minister that he’s an idiot to his face and the worst that’ll happen is that he’ll laugh at me in a dismissive way.

But these countries are “all the same”, right? Right?

I live in one of those two. Six million are prevented from traveling by plane in mine at the moment.

"Two cheers for democracy", as usual, to borrow Forster's words.

As he noted, it doesn't merit three cheers. Two, though? Maybe two.

> Mostly the US, with some UK mixed in.

That's the opposition to Russia? Hardly, Ukraine's neighbours are doing far more than anyone in London or Washington.

> They are definitely not the same, they have obviously different values

Yes one of them is democracy, the other is dictatorships. One is good, the other is bad. Refreshingly, some things in life are simple.

> he's the one fighting for a multi-polar world with multi-polar values

if he wanted a multi-polar world he'd have let ukraine be a pole. no, he wants a russian world, with himself at the top of it

that sounds like both a bad idea, and an unrealistic idea, most of all because in that presentation russia considers itself an equal to the others in the list, which it most certainly is not, in nearly all respects

in a more generalized sense, russia actually doesn't care about any of the countries listed but itself, except insofar as it can convince those countries to support russia

the world is already multipolar, as was pointed out – look to the UN for an example of how multiple poles interact with each other in a civilized fashion – nearly 200 of them!

russia doesn't want this, all they want is domination, and the disintegration of the multipolar world that is civilized diplomacy which might unite and thus present a united front against russian domination and genocide

>”the world is already multipolar, as was pointed out – look to the UN for an example of how multiple poles interact with each other in a civilized fashion – nearly 200 of them!”

This isn’t what polarity refers to. The nations of the UN are not at all equal in terms of power and influence.

While no one would question that the United States, Russia, and China are the “poles” in this system, no one would regard any of the 190ish other nations which are far smaller and less powerful as poles.

In the UN the nations are more equal than anywhere else.

At tha General Assembly all nations are equal. And after all of the abuses of veto powers discussions to eliminate the permanent Security Council positions are once again picking up steam.

> If you think "liberal democracies" still carries the same positive vibe across the world that it used to some years ago you are in for a big surprise.

Agree, I would state it as "liberal" "democracies" - this is an opinion of course, but I think if one was to fairly but critically perform an in-depth evaluation, things are not as lovely as they are described to the masses.

> Again, Putin has said as much, he's the one fighting for a multi-polar world with multi-polar values, so to speak. I think the same holds for Xi, in China.

Great pole there! /s The West may have it's problems, but Putin is trying to resurrect the same pole that was led at one point or another by Hitler, Stalin, Mao. The world doesn't need that again.

I agree Putin is some kind of dictator, but are you really calling Ukraine democracy? Then you can also call North Korea democracy.

Uhm, yes? They elected a comedian with no political experience or ties for f's sake. But I suppose that was some sort of rigged election or he's just a figurehead or something?

Uh, he's banned all opposition parties. Where's the democracy? He was a direct employee of a Ukrainian billionaire oligarch, plenty of ties, just check the Pandora Papers...

What are you talking about? He didn't ban opposition, only pro-russian (and that is just small part of opposition).

Yeah? One of those parties had nearly 10% of the seats in the Ukrainian parliament. That's not a democratic move.

are you backpedaling from "banned ALL opposition parties"? it's unclear whether or not you still believe this is the case

Election where major opposition parties were banned? A democratic society where 40+% of population is not allowed to use their own language? When opposition leaders get arrested? Where almost a 100 people were publicly burned alive, and still no one is punished? Where right wing extremists / neonazi paramilitaries are incorporated in an official army and given a licence to kill, as documented by OSCE multiple times in eastern part of the country? And all that happened before this war. Just that they now fight Russians doesn't mean they are democracy, they are just a useful enemy of an enemy.

And the list goes on and on, although only one of the mentioned things would be enough to consider such a country as non-democratic at least.

I think corruption and a rule of oligarch is the least problem in a country like that.

>are you really calling Ukraine democracy

Isn't it strange how Russian money kept trying to prevent it from becoming so and yet, it kept becoming one?

There is some speculation that the liberal democratic rumblings from Zelenski are what forced Putin to act. I have no illusions that a country with deeply rooted corruption issues like Ukraine can turn on a dime, but he was at least voicing support for the idea. If he managed to root out some of the corruption then Putin would lose the ability to puppet the state entirely, and that's a slippery slope to becoming part of Europe and being lost to Russia forever.