Strong argument should be relevant, specific and have a logical integrity.

From Fragments, Collection #11 by Christopher Hobson.  

This visual, care of Economist Intelligence Unit, makes clear that the sanctions against Russia are effectively a Western affair:

When the same data is presented in this graphic from Élucid’s conversation with Emmanuel Todd it offers a powerful reminder of how much of the world is choosing not to actively participate / follow the West:

This a small part of a much larger discussion the core point being that the OECD has one set of objectives and priorities which are not necessarily in alignment with those of so much of the rest of the world.  And to a degree that is true.

It is indeed almost tautologically true that any group of variant categories will not be aligned with one another.

Economies which are primarily Service and Manufacturing are not aligned with Agricultural economies.

Nation states each with a primary religious tradition do not align with one another from different religious traditions.

The northern hemisphere countries do not align with the southern hemisphere countries.

Countries with extensive formal education do not align with those with minimum focus on education.

Countries with strong trading traditions do not align with nations without trading traditions.

Countries with strong Classical Liberal traditions do not align with countries without the Classical Liberal tradition.

Centrally planned economies do not align with free market economies. 

Ad infinitum.

Different categories will have different priorities and characteristics.  That is what makes them categorically different.

So I am not sure what the point is in terms of a cartographic display of OECD countries distinct from non-OECD countries.

I suspect the sotto voce point, not made explicit, is that there are 38 OECD countries, far fewer than the 157 non-OECD countries.  The implication possibly being that there is an undemocratic experience going on.  That leaves the impression that the raw number of countries is an important metric on the issue of sanctions.  And possibly it is.  If that is the argument, then it would be worth making the explicit argument rather than dancing around it.

Because the issue that leapt out at me when looking at the maps was not the number of countries.  It was the question about the size of the economies.  If we are talking about sanctions then size of economies is far more pertinent than number of countries.  What are the metrics around the economies.

The 38 countries of the OECD represent 63% of the global economy, 95% of foreign aid and 18% of the world's population.  Further, many of the non-OECD countries with the largest economies (Brazil, Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India, etc.) have economies deeply integrated with the OECD.  

Looking at the maps, I don't have a disagreement with the maps.  I have a puzzlement as to why the cartographic display is pertinent to the issue being discussed (sanctions.)  There are many arguments that could be made to make the cartography relevant (for example the degree to which Russia is not physically contained by the OECD countries.)  

The display of data is less important than the relevance, specificity, and the integrity or the argument being made.