The war in Ukraine will soon enter its fifth month. The world watched as the Russian army invaded and an incredulous West looked on, almost unable to respond except through sanctions.

Questions over the effectiveness of such a response – and its sustainability in the long run – still linger. We listened to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky make his case to a sympathetic audience which nonetheless realises that it is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

People were saddened and outraged as the war crimes in Bucha and other parts of Ukraine made the headlines. Many stood in awe as brave Ukrainians resisted the illegal and cruel Russian aggression. There can be no doubt as to which of the two countries has won the moral argument.

Now, as it becomes more apparent that the conflict will be long drawn, it is vital that the West fights the fatigue that risks setting in. It is essential to look at the broader arguments. The war is a grotesque microcosm of trends of the past decade or so.

Firstly, a new axis pitting authoritarian against democratic forms of government is coalescing. The months preceding the war give us some hints. President Vladimir Putin was the only head of state to attend the opening of the Beijing Winter Olympics. Subsequently, a joint statement by presidents Putin and Xi Jinping was issued stating there are no limits to their friendship or forbidden areas of cooperation. This should be cause for concern.

One should not oversimplify things; China and Russia have different geopolitical concerns and different methods of achieving their aims. Russia thrives on creating chaos in the world order while China thrives on order, though it is equally expansionist in its ambitions. Nonetheless, this uneasy axis is one to watch.

Secondly, the concept of “might is right” has been back for a while – though other, more urgent matters grabbed our attention.

This is certainly not the first time Russia has breached international norms, conventions and laws. For example, its incursion into Crimea and the Donbas region in 2014 strictly violated the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. In previous years, it also breached the borders of other countries, not least in Transnistria (1992) and Georgia (2008). On all these occasions, Russia argued it was engaging in special military operations to protect its citizens. Unfortunately, lacklustre action has only encouraged its ambitions.

Thirdly, the response adopted will have broader implications. Sanctions against Russia will undoubtedly create hardships for Russian citizens. The economic fallout of the war is being felt across the globe. Inflation, disrupted supply chains and lingering uncertainty have the potential to further disrupt a global economy still trying to recover from the aftereffects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, failure to respond would embolden the new authoritarian axis. The defence of democracy has always come at a price.

Still, the tensions building beyond Ukraine are concerning. Moscow has indicated that, while it has no territorial issues with Finland and Sweden, it would respond if NATO “military contingents and military infrastructure were deployed there”. Putin spoke of raising “the same threats for those territories where threats have arisen for us”.

Beijing has been coy in its intentions over Taiwan. At the G7 summit in Madrid, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss warned an invasion would be a “catastrophic miscalculation”.

The new authoritarian axis creates some urgent policy dilemmas. While Russia sows chaos, China creates new levels of dependence which extend beyond its sphere of influence.

Either way, democracies have their work cut out. May they remain united and strong in their resolve.