At a spirited pro-Ukraine rally in New York’s Washington Square Park Sunday, more than one of the dozens of hand-lettered signs implored President Joe Biden to do more to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine.

“Biden stop World War 3,” read one. “Biden Stop Putin Save Ukraine,” read another.

The signs held aloft in a sea of yellow and sky-blue Ukrainian flags raised critical questions about the effectiveness of the economic sanctions and other measures initially imposed by the United States and its Western allies once Mr. Putin launched Thursday the biggest invasion of a European country since World War II.

Once weeks of diplomacy and U.S.-led warnings of severe consequences if Mr. Putin chose to go to war failed to deter Russia, the U.S. and its partners imposed measures widely criticized as too weak and unlikely to quickly alter the Russian leader’s calculus.

On display now around the world is a broad frustration with the limited deterrent ability of slow-moving sanctions and other punitive measures in the face of fast-moving military action.

Moreover, the New York demonstration and dozens more like it over the weekend in Western capitals and other cities around the globe suggest a popular demand for tougher measures than perhaps leaders at first assumed their publics would tolerate.

In Germany, for example, early on considered the weak link in Western unity against Russian aggression, more than 100,000 people rallied for Ukraine Sunday at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate.

Leaders emboldened

The global message – underscored by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s highly effective daily video dispatches from a besieged Kyiv, imploring the U.S.-led international community for bolder action – seemed to be that timid measures aimed at punishing Russia over time were not enough.

And while the impact of the pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin demonstrations remains open to debate, what is clear is that Western leaders are feeling emboldened to move more forcefully.

Over the weekend they went beyond their initial actions to measures that already Monday were having an impact on Russia’s economy as well as on Mr. Putin’s diplomatic agenda. Signs are also mounting that as the invasion appeared to get bogged down and fall well short of initial expectations of a quick Russian victory, the U.S. and other Western powers were prepared to offer stepped-up defensive military support to Ukraine.

Reuters

Check-in counters at Sheremetyevo Airport are all but deserted, after Russia closed its airspace to airlines from 36 countries in response to Ukraine-related sanctions targeting its aviation sector, in Moscow, Feb. 28, 2022.

Weekend actions targeting Russia’s central bank and financial transactions by Russia’s top banks caused the already weak ruble to plunge in value by 30% Monday, while the Russian stock market closed over fears of a broad collapse. The Bank of Russia more than doubled interest rates from 9.5% to 20% in an attempt to defend the ruble.

The turbulence caused Mr. Putin to call an emergency meeting of his economic advisers, while Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov spoke of Russia entering a new “economic reality.”

Need for quicker impact

Initially, when Mr. Putin launched his war on Ukraine, many officials and international affairs experts acknowledged that the U.S. and other Western powers would likely be limited to measures that would inflict pain on Russia over time.

“Sanctions raise the costs to Russia of launching this war in the middle of Europe, but generally speaking they’re not going to get you results tomorrow,” says Bruce Jentleson, a professor of political science and international affairs at Duke University in North Carolina and a former senior adviser to the State Department during the Obama administration.

“In no way is it giving up on Ukraine,” he adds, “but it’s an approach that is going to take some time to get you to your goal, which is to raise the costs and make this an albatross for Putin and a very close inner circle that supports him.”

Still, recognition of a need for measures that have a quicker impact seemed implicit in comments from leaders and officials after the flurry of actions over the weekend.

“Very soon the Russian leadership will feel what a high price they will have to pay” for the invasion of Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said Sunday.

Moreover, in addition to the economic measures that the Group of Seven wealthy democracies took Saturday, Germany announced it would reverse course and proceed to supply Ukraine with advanced military equipment, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Beyond that, Mr. Scholz announced he would also seek to raise Germany’s military spending, kept low over recent decades by German anti-war sentiments.

The Biden administration is also keen to dispel the notion that had been taking hold last week that the measures the Western powers were imposing would only have a medium-term impact and thus be easily dismissed by Mr. Putin.

In comments Monday with reporters, senior Biden administration officials said the financial measures adopted over the weekend by Western leaders aimed to make the “war of choice” a strategic blunder for Mr. Putin and to demonstrate that “no country is sanction-proof when we act together.”

Noting the immediate signs Monday of economic instability in Russia, one official said, “The strategy is to make sure the Russian economy goes backward as long as President Putin goes forward with his invasion of Ukraine.”

One official noted that measures freezing Russia’s holdings in U.S. banks and in U.S. dollars globally would have an immediate impact on Russia’s ability to access the $630 billion in reserves it has carefully amassed over recent years.

Switzerland sends a signal

As a further sign that the world is coming together in unprecedented ways to limit Russia’s ability to insulate its economy from the war, Switzerland announced Monday that it would set aside its traditional neutrality to join the European Union in freezing Russian financial assets.

Swiss President Ignazio Cassis said that “the unprecedented military action by Russia on a sovereign European state” was prompting his country to join other European states and the global community to freeze the Swiss-held assets of Mr. Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and more than 360 other Russian individuals sanctioned by the EU last week.

Dmitri Lovetsky/AP

People stand in line to withdraw dollars and euros from an ATM in St. Petersburg, Russia, Feb. 25, 2022. Ordinary Russians faced the prospect of higher prices and crimped foreign travel as Western sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine sent the ruble plummeting, leading to more lines at banks and ATMs Monday in a country that has seen more than one currency disaster in the post-Soviet era.

Signs also multiplied Monday that the rallying to Ukraine’s cause and in opposition to the Russian war is spreading beyond the Western powers. South Korea announced it is banning the export to Russia of strategic products including semiconductors, sensors, lasers, and aerospace equipment. Seoul also announced it was joining efforts to block some Russian banks from the SWIFT payments system.

For Professor Jentleson, the growing number – and variety – of measures being taken by the U.S. and other countries point to what he calls a “porcupine strategy” to affect Russia’s behavior and tolerance for pursuing its war.

Having failed to stop Russia from invading Ukraine, the U.S. and others are employing sanctions and other “quills” to increase the pressure Russia experiences as long as it keeps up its war, he says. So, in addition to financial measures inflicting economic pain, the U.S. and others are taking steps to bolster the Ukrainian military as it confronts Russia – and then to support a Ukrainian insurgency in the event the Ukrainian military collapses but a Russian occupation drags out.

Calls for more, still

Others with experience in imposing sanctions are lauding what the Biden administration and partners have done so far – but insist still more can be done.

“No doubt, we are in a better place on sanctions and military support than we were 48 hours ago. But we are simply not there yet,” said Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, who in 2019-20 directed Iran sanctions policy for the Trump National Security Council.

Calling a new U.S. and European openness to supplying Ukraine with critical weaponry “excellent,” Mr. Goldberg said in a series of tweets Sunday that Western sanctions on Russia are still not “maximalist” and are not yet treating Russia like a “pariah state.”

He called for moving beyond the partial barring of Russian banks from the SWIFT global payments system to a total ban, while advocating more extensive sanctions against Russian diplomats.

Russia’s invasion of a sovereign country remains at the heart of the mounting global outrage, but at the same time it seems clear that Ukrainians’ tenacity and resilience in the face of a much more powerful aggressor are also fueling the groundswell for action.

In Washington Friday, Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, made another of her many pleas for international assistance for her besieged country that invoked humanity’s natural tendency to side with any David facing a Goliath.

“We realize we are not a match in terms of weapons to the country that is attacking us, a nuclear power,” she said in comments to the National Coalition Supporting Eurasian Jewry organization. “But that is not a reason to lose hope, but to be very direct and open with our friends” in the U.S. and elsewhere “for help.”

Pleading for more weapons “to allow us to defend ourselves” and for stronger sanctions including a complete ban of Russia from the SWIFT system, she said, “Russia has already crossed all the red lines, the world understands there are no more red lines to wait for for Russia to cross.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The chamber of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. President Joe Biden will deliver his State of the Union speech Tuesday night to a joint session of Congress and the nation.

Out of crisis, opportunity. For President Joe Biden, that saying may well capture the moment, as he prepares to deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

After decades in politics, President Biden is positioned to deliver the speech of a lifetime. The eyes of the world will be upon him, as the United States rallies the Western alliance to stand up to Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement Sunday that his nation’s nuclear forces had been put on high alert only underscores the gravity of the moment.  

The unfolding crisis abroad has, for now, dramatically upended the political environment at home. Mr. Biden’s domestic challenges, which have been weighing down his approval ratings, are likely to take a back seat when he goes before the cameras at 9 p.m. Eastern time.

Those challenges remain considerable: Inflation is at a 40-year high; his climate agenda has stalled, as the United Nations delivers a dire warning; and American democracy is under enormous stress amid deep partisan polarization. 

“At first blush, it’s like, oh boy, not a great time to give a State of the Union,” says Peter Fenn, a veteran Democratic strategist. “But on second blush, the issues are so momentous, the timing is so right for a really serious address to the nation.” 

One unexpected bright spot: The pandemic, which has driven or compounded many of those challenges, appears to be waning, at least for now. Masks are now optional inside the Capitol building, and all members may attend the president’s speech – providing viewers with a visual reminder that the nation may be returning to some form of normal. 

But the return of fencing around the Capitol – which went up after the Jan. 6 riot last year and has periodically been reinstalled when security threats arise – serves as a reminder that “normal” is a relative term. 

Overall, with independent Ukraine facing an existential threat, amid the biggest security crisis in Europe since World War II, U.S. domestic matters have largely receded from the news. 

In the short term, the Russia-Ukraine crisis is providing fertile ground for bipartisan consensus, with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress agreeing on a Ukrainian assistance package and sanctions against Russia and Mr. Putin. 

Still, the GOP’s dominant figure, former President Donald Trump, has continued to praise Mr. Putin, calling him “smart” even while condemning the Ukraine invasion. In a speech Saturday, the former president saved his harshest criticism for President Biden. 

“Putin is playing Biden like a drum, and it’s not a pretty thing to watch,” Mr. Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida.

But it’s Mr. Biden who has the bigger megaphone. 

“The circumstances of the moment give him a bully pulpit, and this doesn’t happen all that often,” says Russell Riley, co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “If you’re looking for pivot moments in a presidency that’s had its share of difficulties, this creates the predicate for that kind of historic moment.” 

In the not-so-distant past, another Democratic president delivered his State of the Union at a time of crisis, though of a personal nature, and turned it to his advantage. In 1998, fresh off revelations that President Bill Clinton had had an affair with an intern, he delivered a bravura performance. His approval rating in the Gallup Poll jumped 10 points. 

“Everybody was saying, ‘This is terrible timing,’” says Professor Riley. “He went to the well of the chamber and delivered an address with a lot of substance that actually sort of saved his bacon.”

Four-plus months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush delivered a different sort of crisis address. This State of the Union was most remembered for coining the phrase “axis of evil,” referring to governments that he said sponsored terrorism. It became one of the catchphrases of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and served to rally Americans around a “war on terror.”

Today, Mr. Biden may not be as well positioned as either of these two past presidents to take advantage of his high-stakes moment. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton were already popular at the time of their crisis-infused speeches: Mr. Bush’s approval ratings had soared to 90% after the 9/11 attacks and were still hovering in the mid-80s; Mr. Clinton, bolstered by a strong economy that included a budget surplus, was at a respectable 59%. 

Mr. Biden, by contrast, has garnered dismal numbers of late. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows him with a career-low 37% job approval, with low ratings on his handling of the economy, the Ukraine invasion, and overall leadership.

Still, on domestic matters there are points he is expected to highlight: The spike in pandemic caseloads from the omicron variant has receded. Most mask mandates have been lifted, or soon will be. Most schools have reopened. 

Another applause point, at least for Democrats, will be the expected mention of his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman to be so honored. 

The biggest point of unity may well emerge around Ukraine, where President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s leadership under fire has won him global praise. Mr. Biden can be expected to tout President Zelenskyy’s bravery Tuesday night and double down on U.S. efforts to help Ukraine with both humanitarian and military assistance. 

“Joe Biden has the opportunity to stand in front of the nation and unite us, as a wartime political leader,” says Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric at Texas A&M University. “He should be able to convince us that American actions aiding Ukraine are justified and in our interest.”

On matters of war, she notes, there can be a “rally around the flag” effect – at least in the beginning. The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, after 20 years, contributed to Mr. Biden’s decline in the polls.

The president also has a story to tell on the domestic front, she says – including his efforts to combat the pandemic, provide relief to everyday Americans, and implement the bipartisan infrastructure plan. Still, she adds, American trust in government has been on the decline, and it’s possible his message will fail to move the needle. 

Changing the narrative of a president juggling several major crises simultaneously is no easy task, ahead of crucial midterm elections. 

“This is a big speech – a big opportunity, and a lot of risk,” Professor Mercieca says.

Russia needs Europe, and Europe needs Russia. 

That mantra has long encapsulated a historically complex relationship between neighbors that offered mutual benefits, particularly in energy trading, and held out the prospect of deeper economic and political ties.

No more. After Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale attack on Ukraine, then put his nuclear forces on alert, the calculus in Europe changed irreparably. And Germany, among the most reluctant to break with Russia, has ditched the mantra. What began with a token donation of 5,000 helmets to Ukraine had by Sunday transformed into a full-throated declaration that Germany must rearm, firmly sanction Putin’s government, pivot from Russian energy imports, and prepare to act within a united Europe.

“The 24th of February 2022 marked a turning-point in the history of our continent,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told a special address at the Bundestag, referencing the day Russian troops rolled into Ukraine. “We are in a new age. ... In attacking Ukraine, Putin doesn’t just want to eradicate a country from the world map, he is destroying the European security structure we have had in place since Helsinki.”  

Will all of Europe be ready for this sudden, almost overnight shift, and what political and economic decisions still lie ahead?

In his speech, Mr. Scholz said Germans and all EU members must ask, “not simply what they can extract [from the EU] for their own country. But asking: What is the best decision for our Union? Europe is our framework for action.”

Germany is the richest country in Europe and has long been seen as a commanding voice in the 27-member European Union, though it also takes pains to frame itself as a team player. 

“The wool [is off] Germany’s eyes, says Kristine Berzina, head of the geopolitics team at The German Marshall Fund, a Washington-based think tank. “This conflict has made things real around Russia.”

She adds: “There has always been a sense of ‘Oh, they would never ... they would never actually do the crazy things that people in eastern Europe think are possible.’” Germany is now willing to pay a financial cost and revise its long-held Ostpolitik, she says. That policy, which dates to Soviet times and the division of Germany, called for recognizing and expanding ties with then-East Germany and Soviet-bloc countries.

Germany has now woken up, she says, “in order to stand with Europe and potentially lead Europe right now. That is monumental.”

Markus Schreiber/AP

People walk down the boulevard Strasse des 17. Juni ahead of a rally against Russia's invasion of Ukraine in Berlin, Germany, Feb. 27, 2022.

Mr. Scholz’s speech called on all EU members to work for the greater good, rather than their individual country. Across Europe, hundreds of thousands appeared ready to meet this challenge, as they rallied from Rome to Berlin to Prague, waving signs saying “No War in Ukraine” and “Stop Putin.”

Only in office since December, Mr. Scholz signaled a 180-degree turn for Germany, a NATO member that has a long-standing policy of not supplying weapons to conflict zones. Now it’s agreed to send 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 surface-to-air missiles to Ukraine for its defense against Russian invaders.

“For the first time ever, the European Union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement Sunday. “This is a watershed moment.”

Germany is budgeting an emergency €100 billion for military readiness, and says it will spend more than 2% of gross domestic product per year on defense spending, meeting a NATO goal that has been a source of friction with U.S. presidents past and present. It’s had a military that’s “running on spare parts,” says Andreas Goldthau, a political scientist at the University of Erfurt.

Pipeline geopolitics

Germany relies heavily on Russian oil and gas to power its cities and factories, and it will take time to lessen its dependence. For now, it is scrapping the Russo-German pipeline Nord Stream 2, the second of twin pipelines that would have together raised annual import capacity into Europe of 55 billion cubic meters. Germany plans to build a strategic natural gas reserve, and add two liquefied natural gas terminals to diversify its fuel supplies.

After hedging all week, Germany finally joined the call to ban Russian banks from the international SWIFT system, and the EU has also banned Russian aircraft from EU airspace.

Analysts say this marks a sea change in German leadership after 16 years under Angela Merkel, who was often criticized for being reactive to crises rather than proactive to meet future challenges, reflecting the gravity of the security threat to Europe.

Yet calls for a united European front against Russia face immediate hurdles. For one, high energy prices as a result of restrictions on Russian trade will test less-wealthy European countries whose citizens are already grappling with higher heating bills.

The U.S. has long questioned the risk to Europe of relying on Russia for roughly 40% of natural gas and a quarter of oil consumption. In European policy circles, though, energy was discussed as a security issue in only very broad terms, says Dr. Goldthau, the political scientist.

Now the conversation has changed. “[The Ukraine invasion] changes the whole debate from ‘tree-hugging’ to national security,” says Dr. Goldthau. “And that means you put the energy transition from one box into a different box, and that different box allows you to take different measures. Essentially you securitize the energy transition.”

Michael Sohn/AP

Pipes at the landfall facilities of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline are pictured in Lubmin, northern Germany, Feb. 15, 2022. Germany suspended the pipeline project, which links Russian gas exporters to Europe's largest economy, after Russia invaded Ukraine.

But Europe cannot wean itself off Russian energy overnight. Europe has long plotted a transition to green energy, but plans to be carbon neutral were to occur by 2050, with Russian gas as a transition fuel.

Indeed, energy is an area where European unity could quickly fall apart. Roughly 65% of Germany’s energy imports are made up of Russian gas, with Poland at 55%, and Italy at 43%. A dozen or so other countries are even more dependent.

“Alternatives [to Russian natural gas] are expensive and kind of complicated, and maybe we don’t have a full picture of how we get there,” says Ms. Berzina, of The German Marshall Fund.

“A brave new world”

Mr. Putin and his officials know this, of course. After Germany’s announcement to suspend Nord Stream 2, a Putin deputy tweeted “Welcome to the brave new world where Europeans are very soon going to pay €2,000 for 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas.”

Energy prices have already spiked in Europe, as there are no alternatives “in any quantity that resembles what Europe gets from Russia,” says Evie Zambetakis, director of the Eastern Mediterranean Studies Initiative at the University of Nicosia. “Some countries will be hit harder than others.”

Still, energy trade dependence cuts both ways, says Marcus Dirsus, energy security policy fellow at the University of Kiel. Russia’s economy is built on the receipts from energy exports. “And energy is a card that Russia can play only once,” says Dr. Dirsus, noting that countries counted on stable Russian supplies throughout the Cold War.

“If that backfires, it will only accelerate diversification away from Russian energy supplies.”

Evgenia Novozhenina/Reuters/File

Russian President Vladimir Putin (right) and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, pictured during a signing ceremony in Moscow, June 5, 2019, recently agreed to a sweeping partnership, pledging to stand together against the West.

Countries around the world have rushed to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. China is not one of them. 

Instead, China has provided robust diplomatic support for Russia, while blaming the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for creating the crisis. “When NATO has made five waves of eastward expansion, Russia’s legitimate demands should be valued and properly resolved,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a press conference on Monday.

By siding with Russia, Beijing risks further undercutting its efforts to build an image as a global leader promoting the common interests of humankind.

How has China responded to Russia’s actions in Ukraine?

China abstained from a United Nations Security Council vote on Friday to deplore Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

In official statements, Beijing has repeatedly cast the United States as the “culprit” of the Ukraine crisis. “The person who started the fire should think about how to put out the fire as soon as possible,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a Beijing press conference on Thursday, referring to the U.S.

China has also reiterated its calls for a diplomatic solution that upholds the sovereignty of nations – including Ukraine – and on Friday Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin and called for a negotiated agreement with Ukraine, according to official Chinese news reports. “All countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected,” said Mr. Wang.

Yet despite China’s effort to walk a tightrope between these two somewhat incongruous positions – and avoid a complete unraveling of frayed relations with Europe and the United States – its priority of siding with Russia is clear, foreign policy experts say.

“China is enabling Russia,” says Mathieu Duchâtel, director of the Asia Program at the Institut Montaigne in Paris. “I do see those declarations in support of territorial integrity and sovereignty as very cosmetic, compared to the support that China is basically providing to Russia for its actions towards Ukraine.”

A key question is whether China will use its economic heft to buffer the impact of sweeping international sanctions on Russia, for example by boosting technology cooperation with Russian firms hit by export controls, experts say.

Beijing has vocally opposed sanctions, and while U.S. officials say it has complied with some, it has also moved to back Russia economically. Beijing lifted import restrictions on Russian wheat last week and also recently concluded a multibillion-dollar deal to buy Russian coal. China is Russia’s largest trade partner.

Chinese authorities will “help Russia to circumvent sanctions,” in part because “they want Russia to help them if they face sanctions from the West in the case of some contingency in the future,” says Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program at The German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Ng Han Guan/AP

A Ukraine restaurant visitor holds the Chinese and Ukraine national flags as she poses for a photo on Feb. 24, 2022, in Beijing. China overtook Russia as Ukraine’s top trading partner in 2019, and the recent invasion threatens China’s economic interests in Ukraine, including grain imports and various infrastructure projects.

Why has China sided with Russia against the U.S. and NATO?

In a major advance in Sino-Russian relations, Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin met in Beijing in early February and agreed on a sweeping, long-term strategic partnership in which they pledged to stand together ideologically and militarily against the West. “Friendship between the two states has no limits,” the two countries said in a joint statement.

In the agreement, China explicitly supported Russia’s demand for an end to NATO enlargement, and both sides vowed to oppose the creation of regional security alliances. “Russia and China stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions,” the statement reads. 

China’s stance on Ukraine reflects this growing allegiance between the two authoritarian states, experts say. But that allegiance may come with its own costs.

What risks does the Ukraine crisis pose for China?

Most immediately, Russia’s invasion threatens China’s economic interests in Ukraine, including grain imports. China overtook Russia as Ukraine’s top trading partner in 2019 as the value of total trade between the two countries ballooned to nearly $19 billion last year. Ukraine joined China’s global Belt and Road investment and infrastructure program in 2017 and Chinese firms are engaged in building rail, subway, port, and telecommunications facilities in Ukraine.

The economic fallout of the war for China could extend far beyond Ukraine, given the broad impact of sanctions and worsening relations with Europe, the U.S., and their allies, experts say. “The actions [China’s leaders] are taking with Russia today are clearly going to drive a nail in the coffin of their relationship with Europe,” and have also “seriously damaged” relations with South Korea and Japan, says Ms. Glaser.

The European Union in recent years has reevaluated relations with China, calling it an economic competitor and systemic rival. Beijing’s response to the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces underscores this widening divide, says Philippe Le Corre, a research fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School. “Democracies have to band together and stand for their values,” Mr. Le Corre, who focuses on China-Europe relations, told an online forum on Thursday.

Perhaps the biggest risk is that Beijing’s leadership may have miscalculated by assessing that the West is in irreversible decline and so throwing in its lot with autocratic Russia, says Ms. Glaser. “They don’t understand the outside world as well – they are all drinking the same Kool-Aid,” says Ms. Glaser. “We could look back in a few years and say it is the biggest mistake that Xi Jinping ever made.”

How does China’s aim of reunification with Taiwan influence its calculations on Ukraine?

Beijing views Russia’s actions in Ukraine at least in part through the prism of its own intention to reunite with the self-ruled island of Taiwan, experts say. China’s support for Russia may be viewed as a down payment on reciprocal backing from Russia should Beijing mount a military operation to retake Taiwan. “A war in Europe is not going to help China’s interests. But … the Russia-China partnership is very important at many levels against the West,” says Mr. Le Corre. “If China was to attack Taiwan, it would need the support of the Russian leadership, and it looks like it would get it.”

Moreover, China will watch the intensity of the international and Ukrainian opposition to the Russian military invasion for possible lessons on a Taiwan contingency, experts say. “Sadly, I think one of the key elements China will be watching is whether a democratic society … will be able to conduct guerrilla warfare,” says Dr. Duchâtel. “China will watch the Ukraine war to find answers … and seek to fine-tune its preparation vis-à-vis Taiwan.”

Dmitri Lovetsky/AP

Police detain a demonstrator in St. Petersburg, Russia, during a protest against Russia's war on Ukraine, Feb. 27, 2022. Protests against the Russian invasion of Ukraine resumed on Sunday, with people taking to the streets of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other Russian towns for the third straight day despite mass arrests.

When Russia annexed Ukraine’s largely Russian-populated territory of Crimea in 2014, it was met with a palpable joy among Russians.

What a difference eight years makes.

Today, despite the fog of war and a deepening crackdown on civil society, surprising numbers of Russians are expressing shock at and even outright opposition to their country’s escalating invasion of Ukraine.

As Russian forces close in on Kyiv and other key Ukrainian cities, and the prospect of hard fighting and large-scale casualties looms, the sort of welcome that the bloodless reunification with Crimea enjoyed – and its coinciding spike in popularity of Russian President Vladimir Putin – seems largely absent today.

Even the tone of Russian state TV is not jubilant as it was then, but more insistent on the patriotic imperative to “support the troops” in time of war.

Evgenia Novozhenina/Reuters

People take part in a protest in Moscow on Feb. 27, 2022, against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In recent days tens of thousands of anti-war activists have protested in major Russian cities, and at least 5,000 have been detained.

“There is a feeling that the whole world has turned against Russia, and that we can never win this,” says Olga Kryshtanovskaya, one of Russia’s leading sociologists. Her husband is Ukrainian, and like many Russians, she has close contacts in Ukraine. “Putin has lost a lot of support among the elite. It turns out their loyalty comes at a high price. Some people in my own circle have a different point of view from mine, so I decided to break off contacts with them. It’s not just a difference of political views anymore. It’s a moral discrepancy.

“More people are switching from TV to internet sources. Everyone is looking for truthful information. No one is interested in Russian or Ukrainian propaganda; people want independent and neutral information.”

A social (media) shift

Increasing numbers of Russians, especially the young, no longer take their news from official sources. They turn to the internet, especially the messaging app Telegram, where even Ukrainian-based channels are readily available. Despite attempts by Russia’s state media censor, Roskomnadzor, to slow or obscure the sharing of war-related content on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms, the measures seem so far almost childishly easy to evade.

Zoya Svetova, a journalist and human rights activist, says she doesn’t watch television at all. “I compare different opinions on the social nets. Many people are accessing and reading Ukrainian sites,” she says. “Social media has a lot of advantages. You can hear witnesses speaking about their experiences. There are videos of bombings, destruction, and so on. Many different views can be heard. The authorities realize that social media is a weapon, and that’s why they are trying to limit it.”

It’s early yet, and analysts caution that much depends on the course of the war going forward. But in recent days, tens of thousands of anti-war activists have protested in major Russian cities, and at least 5,000 have been detained. An online petition demanding an immediate end to the war has garnered almost a million signatures, while open letters of condemnation have proliferated, including one signed by over 6,000 doctors and medical workers, and another by more than 5,000 architects.

Leonid Gozman, an opposition politician, says he senses an approaching sea change in public opinion.

“I myself stood in a one-man picket [on Sunday] in the center of Moscow with a sign that said ‘No to War!’ and ‘Putin Must Resign!’ and not a single person expressed a negative opinion to me,” he says. “On the contrary, many came over to offer their support.” Solitary pickets are one of the few forms of protest that do not require an official permit under Russian law.

It’s hard to gauge whether Mr. Putin’s vaunted popularity has taken a hit after several rambling speeches in which he revealed sweeping war objectives that would spell the end of sovereign Ukraine. A CNN poll published barely a week ago found that half of Russians would support the use of force to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Pollsters say those numbers are probably holding up so far. But there seems little doubt that the war has polarized Russians more than any event in recent years.

The Kremlin’s red lines

Russian authorities describe the ongoing war as a “special operation” and have made clear that public use of non-approved terminology might entail legal consequences.

“A lot of people have understood that they need to watch what they say,” says Alexei Makarkin, deputy director of the Center of Political Technologies, an independent Moscow think tank. “Our laws are elastic, as is the way courts interpret them. We have a law about false information, introduced in 2020 and meant to combat fakes about the COVID pandemic. Information coming from the state is considered reliable, hence the term ‘special operation’ is approved for use. But words like ‘war’ and ‘invasion’ are regarded as fake news, and people who say that can face fines.”

Alexei Nikolsky/Sputnik/Kremlin/AP

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, speaks to his defense ministers during a meeting in Moscow, Feb. 27, 2022. Though Mr. Putin's vaunted popularity appears to be holding so far, there seems little doubt that the war has polarized Russians more than any event in recent years.

According to the independent online news outlet Meduza, Russian schools are being issued official guidelines for how to discuss the situation with students. For example: “To a possible question ‘Is this a war with Ukraine? Do we need to do this?’ the teacher is advised to answer, ‘There is no war with Ukraine, but a special peacekeeping operation, the purpose of which is to contain the nationalists who oppress the Russian-speaking population.’”

The tone on state TV programs is surprisingly muted, says Masha Lipman, senior associate at the PONARS Eurasia program at George Washington University.

“On state TV talk shows you can often hear people saying things like, ‘No one likes war, but once you’re in it, you’d better win,’” she says. “It sends the message that anti-war activism is wrong and inappropriate when Russian troops are fighting in the field. Being a pacifist may sound noble on principle, but in such times you should be patriotic and support the troops.”

Still, some Russian oligarchs have publicly taken just that pacifist position. Billionaires Mikhail Fridman and Oleg Deripaska both called for an end to the conflict, in a break with the Kremlin line. And Kremlin insider and Chelsea F.C. owner Roman Abramovich is reportedly trying to help facilitate peace talks between Ukraine and Russia.

Much will depend on how long the war goes on, and how bad its fallout becomes for the Russian public, says Sergei Davidis, a lawyer with the now-banned human rights group Memorial.

“Yes, the majority of the population is silent. They are always silent,” he says. “But more and more people are already getting involved in anti-war activities. If the war takes an unsuccessful turn, and there is a dramatic worsening of the economic pain and isolation faced by Russians, we can expect those numbers to grow. All the more so since no one can explain why on earth Russia even needs this war?”

Each morning before school starts and after recess, Diane Nicholls rings the bell atop the snug one-room schoolhouse where she teaches.

“I don’t feel like I’m living in the 19th-century, but it is charming,” says Ms. Nicholls, who educates a group of 18 students in the Elmore School, Vermont’s last operating one-room schoolhouse.

The Elmore School, a public school serving students in grades one through three, is a cherished tradition in the tiny town of Elmore, with a population of under 1,000. Generations of students have attended since the school opened in the 1850s. Now, townspeople are wrestling with how best to support it.

Residents will vote March 1 on whether the town should withdraw from a joint school district with two other nearby towns in order to strike out on their own in hopes of preemptively preserving their schoolhouse. Concerns mounted after a district-commissioned report released in November 2020 proposed five cost-saving recommendations, with four out of the five options suggesting closing the Elmore School. 

Behind the ballot effort are questions that also play out in other rural areas: How much does a school contribute to a community’s identity? Is a local school such a crucial community hub that taxpayers are willing to pay higher costs to preserve it? 

Chelsea Sheasley/The Christian Science Monitor

The Elmore School, Vermont's last one-room schoolhouse, educates 18 students in grades one through three.

“It’s difficult to say what forms the identity of a community, but we know these institutions like the Elmore Store, the school, are part of it, and we defend them as a proxy for defending the community,” says Trevor Braun, an Elmore resident and board member of the Elmore Community Trust, a nonprofit that recently raised $400,000 to ensure the town’s general store didn’t close. 

March 1 won’t mark the first time residents will vote on whether to form an independent school district. In December 2021 the town voted not to leave the joint district, Lamoille South Unified Union (LSUU), amid concerns that taxes might rise and unknowns over what forming an independent school district means. But enough townspeople signed a petition to bring the question back to the Town Meeting this week. 

Elmore sits on the edge of Lake Elmore, across from Elmore Mountain (all named after Colonel Samuel Elmore, who fought in the Revolutionary War, according to town history). The town is located 14 miles north of Stowe, a popular ski destination and home of the Trapp Family Lodge, known for its connection to the relatives portrayed in “The Sound of Music.”

Elmore consists of a short main drag with the school, the general store across the street, town hall, and one church. The population swells with seasonal summer residents. 

On a recent February morning, students in the cozy Elmore School classroom practiced nonfiction writing. A first grade student wrote about chickens, while a few desks over a third grader wrote about her favorite animal, polar bears. Kids write and draw on paper, with iPads handy on their desks to research questions. 

Colorful acrylic paintings of Lake Elmore in peak fall foliage decorate the class walls, one of the indications of the many traditions that students partake in. Each autumn students paint on the banks of the lake. On Fridays, families cook hot lunches for the students, and the class annually delivers Valentine’s Day cards to the post office boxes in the Elmore Store across the street.

Chelsea Sheasley/The Christian Science Monitor

Students work on a writing assignment at the Elmore School in Vermont on Feb. 15, 2022.

“I remember my very first day here and I just really liked it,” says Ruby, a third grader, who says that now, as one of the oldest kids, she appreciates that “you can have friends younger than you and help them, and it’s fun to see and help them develop their skills.” 

Jon Osborne, an Elmore parent whose two children now attend college, says the Elmore School provided his kids with a “phenomenal” experience, including building a tight-knit group of friends who helped each other in the classroom.  

“From day one they were absorbing that sense of community that stays with them,” he says, during a stop at the Elmore Store to deliver maple syrup from his family business. “We have to keep the school going, not because it’s the last one-room schoolhouse in Vermont. Some people get hung up on that. As I understand it, it’s fiscally sustainable, and the kids who come out of it do good things in life.” 

The superintendent and school board of LSUU say they have no plans to close the Elmore School. The report that recommended closing was completed under a previous superintendent and done by an outside group without consideration of local culture, says LSUU superintendent Ryan Heraty. 

“The report was commissioned to look at capital improvement projects. It didn’t hit the mark on that, and it caused stress and anxiety,” says Mr. Heraty, who has spoken at local meetings with Elmore residents about the district’s intention to keep the school open. 

Chelsea Sheasley/The Christian Science Monitor

Jon Osborne makes a maple syrup delivery to the Elmore Store, the town's general store. Mr. Osborne's two children attended the one-room schoolhouse across the street. He says their experience was “phenomenal.”

“That sense of independence, of local control, is very Vermont,” says Mr. Heraty. 

But even with the school district’s assurances, some residents are skeptical about putting the future of the treasured school in the hands of others. A recent kerfuffle with the United States Postal Service over halting service to the post office inside the Elmore Store raised townspeople’s hackles. In an effective show of civic activism, the town rallied elected leaders and pressured the USPS to reverse course. 

“The fear of [Elmore] school being at risk is so strong that people want to do whatever they can to maintain it. That says a lot about our community, but it’s tough not knowing what the outcome would be” of voting to leave the district, says Mr. Braun. He already voted by mail and skipped the school question, since he sees arguments for both sides and thinks there are too many unknowns. 

Much of the uncertainty stems from legal ambiguity under Act 46, a Vermont law passed in 2015 that controversially consolidated school districts to improve efficiencies and education outcomes. Under the act, districts could voluntarily combine or the state could force mergers. In 2015, Elmore voluntarily merged with schools in nearby Morristown. In 2018, the state forced nearby Stowe to join the district. Stowe is now trying to leave LSUU, which lawyers for the state education agency say is illegal. 

If Elmore were to leave LSUU, it’s unclear what would come next. Residents don’t know if the state would allow the town to revert to a previous agreement where older Elmore kids were allowed to attend their school of choice in other towns. Or the state might force the town to fully operate their own independent school district. (Another small Vermont locale offers a cautionary tale: In 2021 the town of Ripton voted to leave its school district but is now negotiating rejoining after the state said the town had to provide all the related services, like payroll and transportation.)

Research on the effectiveness of rural consolidations is slim and mixed, but consolidations are often controversial in towns poised to lose schools. Public school enrollment has been declining in Vermont for decades, and during the pandemic it dropped by another 5%, according to data from the state’s department of education. 

Chelsea Sheasley/The Christian Science Monitor

Mike Stanley and Kate Gluckman stand by the kitchen in the Elmore Store, which they operate on behalf of the Elmore Community Trust. The new residents are weighing how to vote about forming an independent school district.

Inside The Elmore Store, where residents pop in and out to pick up mail and exchange town news, Kate Gluckman and Mike Stanley are settling in after moving from Mississippi to run the store for the Elmore Community Trust. They are enjoying the warm welcome from locals. 

Ms. Gluckman grew up in a neighboring Vermont town. The couple is still getting up to speed on the school independence vote. They were planning to listen to community members at a town forum and take their cues from the discussion. 

“I just want to support the community,” says Mr. Stanley. “If it’s what’s best for the community, I will vote for it.”

AP

A Ukrainian soldier walks past a burning military truck in Kyiv on Feb. 26 after Russian troops stormed the capital.

Ukrainians were shocked not only by Russia’s invasion, but also by their own response. Millions have put up a vigorous and unified defense against a powerful Russian military. They admire President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for not fleeing the country and for his courage in standing up for its independence. Look more closely, however, and you can see other moments of a sudden mental turnaround.

The invasion showed Ukrainians how much they have embraced the values of the European Union, a bloc of democracies they seek to join. One good example is a humanitarian outreach to the Russian people, not as enemies but as allies in a universal cause about the rules of warfare.

Soon after the invasion began, Ukraine set up a hotline called Ishchi Svoikh (Look for Your Own) to help the relatives of Russian soldiers find out if their loved ones had been taken prisoner or killed. The phone number has received hundreds of calls. In addition, a website shows images and videos of captured soldiers. (Russia has blocked access to the site)

The goodwill gesture to Russians – over the head of President Vladimir Putin – may already have had one effect. On Feb. 27, four days into the full-scale invasion, the Russian Defense Ministry finally admitted that its troops had suffered casualties, although it didn’t say how many. Another possible effect: Russian soldiers in Ukraine might decide not to fire their weapons knowing how much the country they’ve invaded cares about their families back home.

Ukrainians are not the only people to experience a rapid shift in thinking as a result of the invasion. Germans, too, had an aha moment about Mr. Putin’s intentions toward Europe. Russia’s invasion of a sovereign country has led Germany to provide lethal aid to Ukraine and to decide to raise its military spending, upending decades of being a more passive player in Europe’s defense.

“This is a turning point, possibly similar to what happened after Sept. 11,” German parliamentarian Axel Schäfer of the Social Democratic Party told Der Spiegel. “We always reached out to Moscow with an olive branch – now Putin is responding with a clenched, armed fist.”

Historic events, such as 9/11, the 2011 Arab Spring, and now the Russian invasion, often result in a mass awakening. People suddenly wonder why they believed what they once did. Such moral leaps drive human progress. Yet they are inspired by insights, frequently triggered by tragedy, about the power of truth and, in the case of Ukraine, love for one’s apparent enemies.

“Many Russians are worried about how and where their children, their sons, their husbands are,” explained a Ukrainian official about the initiative to reveal information on captured or slain Russian soldiers.

Despite worries about losing their country, Ukrainians are experiencing a  breaking of mental chains. In at least one case, they have turned fear into kindness.

------

Editor’s Note: Since this editorial was published, the Ukraine government has uploaded graphic images on various Internet sites allegedly showing killed Russian soldiers that, according to a Washington Post news story, “could be interpreted as a violation of the Geneva Conventions.”  The government website mentioned in this editorial, which claims to help Russian families get information about the fate of their soldiers in Ukraine, does not show such images.