While I'm glad for Russia's strategy so long as it works out well for them and the global south (which by all means it seems to be doing), I do feel that Russia's prudence has been- naturally- mistaken for weakness by the west.

Frankly, I don't think the hegemonic, "end of history," totalitarian and wholly unhinged neocon mindset rampant in the upper echelons of the west can understand any language other than force at this point (and even then, that might just as well lead to disaster). We're dealing with the nuclear-armed, thoroughly malicious human equivalent of rabid dogs here- and (while I'd hope to question whether the rank and file would allow it to get that far) if they think they can and must burn the world down rather than lose their empire- if they think they'll get away with it, even if their own citizenry and countries burn in the process- I genuinely expect they'd try, and that this seems to be what they're increasingly working towards, one last ditch explosive attempt (or multiple) to hold the world hostage with their terrorism.

I think there will come a time- if we're not there already- where Russia (and China, Iran, etc) will have to question if playing it cool, and avoiding escalation on their part, is actually serving their interests of reducing escalation overall- or if it is just emboldening the west to push further and further than it ever would have if it had been properly cowed in the first place. Of course, that's also supposing that the western system and institutions has the capability even, within itself, to be properly cowed anymore (and if not, how to disarm and neuter the beast of empire before they can bring the world down with them), after 500 years of terrorism and the last few decades of outright unquestioned hegemony with all the arrogance and rot going into overdrive.

I'm sure these questions are already being asked already, by far smarter and more informed people than myself, in all these countries and across the leadership of the global south. I just hope that there's a solution to all this.

Yeah. They just called a meeting at the UN to discuss Western countries helping Ukraine to strike Russia's territory. I suspect they'll start taking action after that.

Thanks! I've enjoyed your comments and seeing you around the 'grad as well :)

I agree also, if I were Russia, I wouldn't be taking the fight outside Ukraine (yet), save for what they are already doing (aiding the various west African states breaking free from France, low-key assistance with the MENA resistance, etc..

It wouldn't be out of any care for the western public opinion, though, FWIW. The so-called "global judicial system" (ie. western-dominated institutions that are increasingly being called into question by the majority of the world as the western double standards are being exposed in front of genocide for what they are) and "international community" doesn't matter one bit in this regard.

Russia's real audience, the ones whose opinions are actually worth a damn- the actual international community, the global majority- would be the real concern. That, and managing the situation in such a way that both avoids unnecessary escalation while ensuring Russia's interests are preserved (and letting the west dig its own grave and then some), of course.

For what it's worth, on the former- I think the rest of the world outside of the west (and even many in the west at this point) see the western farce, and constant fascist antagonisms for what they are. I'd even question if anyone (whose opinion matters) would cry overly much if at all, if Russia decided to give France a proper spanking and humbling. The Russian approach this far has already made it clear without a doubt, for anyone capable of seeing it (anyone who doesn't frankly may as well be considered a lost cause, a terminal kind of colonized/colonial mindset) that Russia has done everything possible, save for commiting the equivalent of national suicide, to avoid and de-escalate this conflict.

would they even be allowed to

I don't know what this means. Allowed by who? A sovereign country can do anything it wants and is practically capable of doing. Nobody can forbid them from doing anything. All that others can do is impose consequences. The question to ask is what would the consequences be of Russia taking such an action?

The "judicial system" is also irrelevant here as well because how are you going to enforce their ruling? The ICC charged Putin and it meant absolutely nothing. They charged Netanyahu and it meant absolutely nothing. International law only has power over countries that cannot defend themselves.

Another example is the DPRK. They were not "allowed" to have a nuclear program. And this wasn't just a farcical colonial institution under the control of the West like the ICC saying it, it was the UN, the only institution that formally has the legitimacy to pass and enforce international laws. But the DPRK did it anyway. They accepted the consequences and that was that. Short of an actual invasion what could anyone do to stop them?

It's not a question of legality or what you are "allowed" to do, but simply of what you can do and get away with and what others can and are willing to do to you in return.

In this case you have to consider potential military retaliation, nuclear escalation, diplomatic consequences with global south countries, etc. Some countries would react more strongly than others. Some would acknowledge Russia's legitimate cause to retaliate, others wouldn't. Some would just protest but do nothing. Just how some countries choose to recognize the legitimacy of the ICC verdicts and some don't, and even of those that do many do so in word only.

It's the same with NATO's "Article 5" by the way. A lot of people are under the impression that somehow these sorts of treaties just kick in automatically once conditions are met and every country has to obey them. But that's not how it works. Countries have to make a political decision whether to acknowledge that conditions have been met, whether to abide by the treaty or not, and if so how. There's a lot of bluster now but when it really comes down to it how many will chicken out?

International law, international treaties...sovereign countries are not really bound by any of that stuff. Sovereign countries are free to break or selectively obey any law or treaty they wish, depending on their overriding interests and political imperatives. They just have to calculate how others are likely to respond and whether that is acceptable to them. The only thing countries are really bound by is the limitations of their own power, their political, military and economic might to convince or coerce others.

At the moment Russia seems to have decided that hitting the West directly would cause more trouble than it's worth, because they are winning anyway so why rock the boat? But they can always change their minds.