Everything mentioned is all well & good. But the Elephant in the room isn't paid hardly any attention to at all. Russia has its own security to think of. It isn't the Russians who lied then expanded their borders towards NATO countries. It wasn't the Russians who wanted conflict in the 1st place. It wasnt Russia who set out to destroy any NATO countries economically, militarily & put policies in place hoping to change any strong Western regime. It isn't Russia who has placed 20 thousand sanctions on Western countries trying to destroy the lives of the citizens in Western countries. Russia has been attacked quite a few times by Western nations. Yet you mention some paranoid Russian politicians might have certain views. I know for a fact if I was a Russian, I'd be outright stupidly naive to not be paranoid about the West. Especially the EU. Which has no resources of worth of its own. While Russia is the most resource rich country on the planet. Too right I'd be paranoid. You've wrote a lot of words without stating anything of worth from a Russian point of view. Even though it's obvious Russia despite fighting against over 40 countries is going to be the Victor. The Russians have no interest in Europe why would they. They're developing at a rate Europeans could only dream of. The last thing they want is more conflict, but by christ they're ready for one. While the West has idiotic idealogs ruling over us, we will only decline. Not once have they wanted peace or diplomacy. Your words avoid to many facts of the current situation. I'm sorry to say all of the main points of this conflict aren't even mentioned. Just more words on how to arm & waste more billions on weapons. What's wrong with a diplomatic rational relationship. Fico, Orban & few others are the rational rulers of the Western countries. As a result they're demonised. Look at Romania & what's happened with their none election. The EU is in a desperate state brought on by the current leadership. The way things will improve, is ridding ourselves of these idiots. Who have no interest in doing what's best for their own citizens. Or Europe will be left even farther behind.
I agree with what you have said and think that yours is the conclusion that Aurelien should have reached from his otherwise thoughtful essay. I don't think that the Russians want war. They have been forced into it by the stupid belligerence of the West.
The plans are there for all to see in the various writings of fools like Brezinski and the American "think tanks". They gave the game away and Russia was ready. Same thing for China and Iran. The West has fucked itself through pure arrogance.
Everything you write is correct; however, what Aurelian is doing in this essay is too look well beyond superficialities. It is a thought experiment in not only what could have been but what could be.
Western legends, of course, can be quite strange. No one in Moscow had ever heard that German cavalry units had entered the suburbs of Moscow in 1941. Everyone in Moscow knows that these were German motorcyclists who rode motorcycles to the city of Khimki and were stopped there. Now there is a monument on this place. Moreover, it was just a small group of German intelligence officers. The main German units were stopped at 40 km of the Leningrad highway. It is 17 km further from Moscow.
Somehow politics has turned into a habit of kicking the can down the road - leading to yet new catastrophes. But this juggling of catastrophes keeps opening novel opportunities for grift. So whatever happens, there will be rich takings for those who are so inclined. And manufacturing a russophobia out of whole cloth has turned out to be surprisingly easy. So, in all, looks like we have a collective psychosis in ascendance. Where are the cooler minds with ability to rein in the ascending chaos? Popularity favors those who are goosing the chaos into ever greater confusion. We are learning a lot about collective psychology exactly the wrong way. Here in Finland Nato is presenter as a security guarantee, and the price ticket of that illusion is wildly expensive us weapons that have little practical use in this location. A fuss is made about building big enough roads to the eastern border so that heavy Nato equipment can be taken there. To do what? To make Finland the next Ukraine? A nightmare. What could be a realistic future is a good question, but realism is shouted down by the collective psychosis. Scary times.
Can't make myself hit the like button on this, although very true. Nato seems to mean a permission to leave one's common sense behind, let alone intelligence. But obviously, and sadly, there is a line of people waiting to be the like Zelenski. He has become obscenely rich, you know. It tells a lot of the state of our current civilization that this line of thinking is completely normal and valid.
Interesting article but once again you miss taking into account what the real rulers of the west want and are likely to do. The western imperial elite have no interest in stopping their rampages since they have paid no price for their actions. We, the average citizens, have paid a price, but they have not. They are unaccountable…at least currently, and they have huge control over the actions of the west even though large numbers of western citizens oppose their efforts.
Just today I read the EU is planning a tribunal to judge Putin; how delusional/power mad do you have to be to setup something like this? It says something about the thinking of our rulers. Don’t expect anything to change for the foreseeable future.
What we should expect to see are new conflicts pop up all around Russia, from the Middle East to the Caucasus region, from Eastern Europe to Finland, possibly in the Pacific with the latest friends of NATO, like Japan or the Philippines, helping out. Maybe even in the international shipping lanes around the world as the USA builds bases on islands around the world, like in the Arctic and even in the Galapagos. The bottom line is this insanity is far from over.
When you offer solutions (‘The best response in my view...’), you mention two terms, namely ‘common interest’ and ‘collective identity’ - not without directly qualifying the first one.
I can't even detect one or the other. The few who claim to be convinced Europeans are mostly politicians, and even of those I don't see many.
There are Portuguese, Danes, Germans, Poles, etc. – but no Europeans. What should the ‘collective identity’ be based on? On Christianity, whose traditions are currently being eroded? On the friendship between nations/peoples? That sounds almost cynical. Or on the status as a global player that Europe likes to claim (while obviously representing transatlantic interests)?
Although there is no doubting a common interest, I see neither the intention to pursue it nor – and this is worse – the cultural substrate on which it could be based.
I do not think that Ukraine was ever intended as a 'Glacis ' from which to defend Europe . Rather I believe that the intent was to use Ukraine to attack Russia , right from the start of the 2014 coup even before the annexation of Crimea and the rebellion in the Donbas . I may be wrong but I think that Western intent towards Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been to break it up into conveniently lootable parts .
Of course. The problem is that Russia does not want to make war on what it sees as its sadly misguided Ukrainian bretheren. Further, the Russian leadership does not want to admit to itself that europe hates them and fears them, that, nobody cares how many symphonies and novels they write, that all their entreaties to law and reason are seen as contemptible weakness, that never will be admitted to The Club.
I would agree with you up 'till mid to late 2023 . However , I doubt that either Putin or the rest of Russia's leadership class have any illusions left about the West and it's intentions at this stage .
In fact, Russians still have many illusions. Many hope to reach an agreement with the West. Otherwise, nuclear mushrooms would have grown up a long time ago, but such conversations are rather harshly suppressed.
Thank you very much Aurelien, for your long explanation, which is undoubtedly true, although I fear that your brilliant thoughts will not reach those who really need them ! In fact, it could even be like shouting into a big dark hole in the field, especially if I consider the EU's chief diplomat to be Kaja Kalla, who is blessed with modest abilities!
For the well-understood interest of my country, I would rather adopt Sun Tzu's eternal wisdom "If you cannot defeat your enemy, then make him your friend!" I think we should not be hostile to the Russians (whom Europe will never defeat) but work together, although we know that this is exactly what the cunning snake Great Britain and the USA want to prevent at all costs !
It is now largely accepted that the only country to profit from the Ukraine Russia war is the USA , the EU and UK now buy much of their gas from the USA.If one wanted to make friends and live side by side comfortably with your neighbouring countries a good way to do it would be to sell them something they need or buy something from them that they want to sell.Russia sold gas to the EU and the UK we all liked this arrangement because it gave us energy in our homes hospitals schools factories and elsewhere at a reasonable cost , Russia liked it because it brought them closer to their many neighbours they made friends with their neighbours a war with them was unthinkable during this time because neither Russia EU or UK wanted to lose what they were gaining , GASPROM even sponsored the Champions League , Russians holidayed extensively all over europe europeans and brits took river cruises in Russia and visited St Petersburg BUT then the USA stepped in , first of all to threaten those countries that had said they were going to stop using the USA dollar to trade globally secondly they threatened China by forming AUKUS and sailing warships up and down the Chinese coast making verbal media threats as if Taiwan were the 51st USA state i mean just how many 51states do they want ? Then thirdly they threatened EU China BRICS with sanctions and a trade war if they did not stop buying stuff from China and Russia , then in a rage they blew up the pipeline taking the gas from Russia to the EU and UK and blackmailed Ukraine into applying to join NATO by saying they would be sanctioned if they didnt apply , USA would preasurise countries to not buy Ukraine wheat etc , Ukraine caved in even after Russia said that having USA made and USA controlled missiles and other military on its border with Ukraine just 400 miles from Moscow could not be tollerated.
The thing is if you want friendly relations with your neighbours having a huge trade deal with them is a superb way to acheive that and this is what Russia did however as we are seeing right now , what more proof do you need , it is USA that is the crazy you have to be wary of , not Russia not China .I think the EU have to take a step back and do what is best for its people , restore good relations with Russia and China resume trade with Russia and China to as it was before the USA bullied Ukraine into provoking Russia the EU should embrace BRICS and take whatever challenge and tariffs the USA imposes when it predictably throws its toys out of the pram.Being on friendly terms with Russia China and (other ) BRICS countries encompasses way more of the worlds population than USA which has clearly lost the plot.
As for UK , it is well on the way to losing the plot too , if only we had good enough politicians to do what is best for its population rather than its rich and landed minority.
"As for UK , it is well on the way to losing the plot too , if only we had good enough politicians to do what is best for its population rather than its rich and landed minority."
Why should they? As far as the ruling class is concerned, acting as catamite to the Americans is serving them very well indeed.
How do you reform anything when the lies are everywhere? We are immersed in them, like a goldfish in it's aquatic environment.
The geniuses who created the present system didn't seem to notice that when everything is PR and propaganda than they would also be entangled in the lies, not just the 'swinish' masses.
Yes. The only way to 'reform' the present system of self-hypnotism is to destroy it completely. The difficult questions are 1) How? 2) How to do it with the minimum damage to the masses? b) What to replace it all with? And c) How to insert the best replacement? Should be easy!
OK. I have a (possible/probable?) answer. If you look at the forecasts of the 'Club of Rome' they initialy started off with a number of scenarios. In a very recent update, the best fit for any previous scenario is the 'business as usual' one, where oil and metal extraction is about a maximum this year, while population and pollution continue to increase, temporarily. Then they all fall off a cliff, and 'civilisation goes back to, at best, the Bronze Age - if the climate allows. I hope not to be alive to see it, and `I'm not hoping for re-incarnation.
WRT cavalry, one'd be surprised at how many Russian (and, to some degree, German and American) tank men were cavalrymen originally: Zhukov, Rokossovky, and Bagramyan came out of cavalry, as were Germans von Kleist and Hoepner and American Patton. There is something very odd, parochial, and ahistoric about the way moderns think cavalry were out of date during World War 2, let alone World War I. This fits with a lot of historical truisms that people think they know today, obviously--another of my pet peeves is the idea that the French were wrong to deploy their tanks as they did during World War II. Not only was it affected by intense interservice rivalry between infantry and cavalry (French cavalry arm actually created tank doctrines and raised tank divisions that were very similar to the German panzer arm--just that they only controlled 1/3 or less of French tanks in 1940.), small tank units allocated to supporting infantry divisions and specialist heavy tank "breakthrough" units--ideas advocated by the infantry arm, who controlled the rest--were in fact vindicated by the history of World War 2 after blitzkrieg became passe after 1941 or so. Often seemingly outmoded ideas are in fact a lot more grounded on reality than PMC types with superficial understanding of history think.
The traditional role of heavy cavalry as mounted shock-troopers was certainly obsolete after the invention of the machine gun, and probably since the invention of the field-gun. Certain weapons definitely do go out of date, or at least lose some of their traditional roles or capabilities, or are much more limited in application than originally.
Often, more up to date analogues are found for obsoleted roles, though: for example, heavy cavalry was replaced by heavy tanks by mid-20th century (there's a reason the French infantry called their tank divisions "Cuirassiers" after all). Some of the heavy cavalry role was replaced by former "light" cavalry--hussars and uhlans were not mere scouts and screening troops the old light cavalry were and fought more like the old heavy cavalry more often than not (thus, the French cavalry called their tank divisions "mechanized 'light cavalry' divisions," i.e. fast moving and hard hitting tank troops, not so much that they were "lightly armed.")
“We must hope that, for the first time in a very, very long time, Europe will finally take Russia and Russian concerns seriously, and move beyond the stark fear of the Cold War and the equally unreasoning sense of superiority that followed it. This is going to be a massive development, and will require an equally massive political change: perhaps equivalent to that post-1945, when many existing political groupings were simply swept away.
There is now another opportunity to make sensible decisions.”
What I'm left wondering is where European politicians with the requisite knowledge and wisdom will come from? It's very difficult to imagine the likes of Starmer or Scholz being able to do this, and as far as I can tell their minions, associates and fellow politicians in most other parties, down to the office tea-lady, have been imbued with the same mixture of western fantasy and arrogance. Even if they are in fact "simply swept away" who is going to replace them? Can today's upcoming managerial technocrats rise to the occasion? The only voices of sanity I can find are those such as Sahra Wagenknecht, Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, but there's hardly enough of them to staff 23 governments, even if they could get elected in.
"What I'm left wondering is where European politicians with the requisite knowledge and wisdom will come from?"
They won't.
"The only voices of sanity I can find are those such as Sahra Wagenknecht, Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, but there's hardly enough of them to staff 23 governments, even if they could get elected in."
They won't be elected, and if they were somehow elected, you can bet your last Euro that the election results will be retroactively cancelled because "Russian interference" or something.
The recent transformation of the AfD is most instructive. Fact is, they could publicly toss refugee toddlers alive and screaming into piranha tanks and nobody would so much raise a peep, as long as they supported American Hegemony in general and The War On Russia in particular. We saw a similar miraculous transformation with respect to Meloni.
Thanks, Aurelien! I think that one likely scenario is the provocation by the west of new conflicts with Russia, not a direct war with Nato, but rather a Ukraine-like conflict in places like Georgia, Moldova and possibly, in the future, Belarus.
By now most European governments are so hopelessly corrupted and occupied by low-IQ woke climate zealots who just wish to tax the hell out of the citizenry, if not simply reduce their numbers in order to "save" said climate, that I really wonder if Europe should be defended at all. Provided that the Russians would just wish to rule and not kill us, I would say: let them. They couldn't do much worse than what we have here now. (Mind, I am not very representative for how people think over here in Holland...)
A rational discussion of climate change is only possible with 1. acceptance of physics 2. understanding of complex systems. That's off-topic for this blog, of course, but I'm constantly surprised that people presumably looking for clear and factual social and geopolitical thinking repeat these stale and ignorant climate denial tropes.
Those who cannot distinguish between physics and political responses to climate change should expect a fair helping of disdain to such comments (although Famous was unnecessarily rude). FWIW I completely agree that 'net zero' policies are delusional and doomed to near-term failure.
"Ignorant climate denial tropes". I assure you I am not ignorant. And to accuse anyone of "ignorant climate denial tropes" is to place oneself thoroughly into the camps of the political zealots. ANY action proposed to counter the changing of the world's climate is de facto political. Please read "Plunderers of the Earth" by Julius Ruechel. It just might open your eyes.
'Ignorant climate denial tropes' are forms of words used to deny the consequences of human actions. It's understandable, but futile.
Yes, of course all actions to address human-caused climate change are political. That's the distinction between physical reality (fossil fuels -> CO2 -> heating) and human social arrangements (ie politics). Either we choose to leave some fossil fuels in the ground, or we burn them all. Global heating will vary accordingly. How that choice is played out between social groups is politics, not physics.
See that's where you do need to do a bit more homework: this "fossil fuels Co2, heating" thing. Because when you look at this world's climatic past, you see that the rising of CO2 levels always FOLLOWS a period of rising temperatures. CO2 is not a precursor for warming. CO2 is also not a problem for nature: it is the stuff plants breathe. Our CO2 levels are historically low. What we actually need is more CO2. Climate is driven by a very complex set of circumstances, which cannot be adequately simulated in any computational models, despite what "scientists" claim. To claim the simple trope of "fossil fuels, Co2, heating" as physics is ignorant at best. As I said, please read "Plunderers of the Earth" by Julius Ruechel. It will enlighten you. Also, you may want to look here: https://clintel.org/
Sigh. Yes, it's a complex system, but your statements are, shall we say, fanciful. Start off by explaining (to yourself, this is my last comment in this thread) which part of the 19th century physics of spectral absorption is wrong. More CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) means more heat retained in the Earth system. Everything else from there is complex, but more heat is the driver.
Thanks for the Ruechel book hint. Don't think I'll read it, although he seems more sophisticated than most authors of AGW denial tracts. His Grass Fed Cattle book looks more worthwhile and I might read that - he seems to know that topic properly.
Returning to the topic of this blog, I wonder whether Aurelian will turn his forensic gaze to the 'net zero' predicament? A parallel case of Western retreat into fantasy.
You copy-N-paste like a big boy - gold star for you today. Why is there no winter in Russia?? Where's your copy-N-paste explanation?
~
**Russia comes in from the cold, with flowers blooming around Moscow in January**
"January in Russia conjures up images of Muscovites crunching through the snow in bulky coats -- not bunches of delicate snowdrops blooming in grassy areas around still-standing Christmas trees.
Instead of ice choking the Moscow River and the biting cold of the “moroz” – the hard freeze that stings the face -- the capital’s sidewalks are bare, and temperatures are well above freezing in what is usually one of the coldest months of the year.
Even in Siberia and in many places across the country that spans 11 time zones, it’s been unusually warm, too, not unlike elsewhere in the world.
According to Europe’s climate agency Copernicus, the first 27 days of 2025 globally are the hottest first 27 days on record, dating back to 1940. The start of 2025 on average is 0.11 degrees Celsius warmer than the start of 2024, the previous hottest start.
Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that extreme weather events worldwide, from the fires in Los Angeles to heat waves in Saudi Arabia and the current mild temperatures in Russia are “with a very high degree of scientific certainty” connected to human-caused global warming."
See those global warming Jacked fires in LA? That is your future. Humans at the height of their technology and knowledge and wealth cannot even keep their cities and towns from burning down. BTW this along with all the other climate consequences is EXACTLY what was predicted many decades ago and the only thing they got wrong was the timing - FASTER THAN EXPECTED. IF you have little grand kids I pity you. The whole fucking things will be flooded or burnt down or industrial agriculture will have long failed. They will not see middle age.
~Remember all the predictions that the Ukranians would freeze to death this winter because Russia bombed their power plants to hell? That has not happened because Ukraine has not had a winter either. If they had a normal winter they would have freezed and the western media would have used that as more propaganda, but again - no winter thanks to global warming you infantile dupe & fool. How far up your ass is your head not to notice that the seasons have changed? How many disasters do you need? All you deniers are complete fucking idiots. I doubt you will get much sympathy for your far right stupidity around here. Enjoy what normal time you have left.
~
*Ukraine's unlikely ally against Russian attacks on energy sector — warm weather*
"This winter was predicted to be one of the toughest ones of the war yet. In a worst-case scenario, blackouts were expected to reach 20 hours a day. Greenpeace warned in November that Ukraine’s power grid faced a "heightened risk of catastrophic failure.”
But thanks to a combination of unseasonably warm weather, and Ukraine’s ability to adapt to a third year of Russian campaigns against its energy system, the worst has not come to pass."
Global Warming driven drought in N America and Ukraine, Russia, Romania - check for yourself. Check what those bread basket farmers have to say. For once in your life check instead of automatically copy-N-pasting like a fuck-tard.
I'm not being truthful. I'm hiding how I really feel about run away climate change - I love it because I love watching it destroy the millions of fuck heads like you. Everything you hold dear is toast. Yes my Schadenfreude is rock hard. Deniers make me so hot. .
Wow. Did I ever say the climate wasn't changing? It is! Climate ALWAYS changes. It just doesn't change because anything human beings are doing. It certainly doesn't change BACK because human beings stop doing things. This whole global warming thing is a one great big hoax. LA was burning because of bad environmental practices: in a hot dry environment you need small wildfires from time to time to keep the undergrowth in control. Instead there was a no-fire policy, because people have been stupidly building houses in a high fire risk aria. Ever wondered why those houses couldn't be insured against the risk of fire? The insurance companies certainly knew!
I am not saying the temperatures haven't been rising these past few years. It's just so stupid to think that it will lead to some catastrophic burning of everything. If you look at a slightly longer timeline, you will see that we're in a bit of a up trend right now, but in a few years, decades it will start cooling again. The overall long trend (of thousands of years) is down.
In the mean time I wonder why I am typing all this. You do not seem to posses many skills vis a vis polite discourse.
Neither their "woke-ishness" nor their climate zealotry are as thoroughly disqualifying where any strategic nous is concerned as their slavish Atlanticism ...
1. "But things are moving on, and the West is beginning to fumble its way towards the recognition that it can’t get everything it wants, that it won’t be able to dictate either the terms of peace or the terms of a future relationship with Russia, and that it will have to have some kind of strategy for dealing with the Europe, and the world, which are now in the process of construction"
I have seen no evidence of this. Rather, Europe continues to double down. And why shouldn't they? The rulers pay no price, personally or professionally, as it's not as if their children are getting slaughtered or they are having to huddle in the cold.
2. "The first is that the post-2014 policy of containing Russia has backfired disastrously. Far from Ukraine being a glacis against Russian attack, a well-armed advance post of the West with massive defensive fortifications, it provoked the very attack it was intended to prevent."
The war was always entirely intentional on the part of NATO. The idea was to spend Ukrainioan blood and western treasure. Once Ukraine has soaked up enough Russian munitions, then the call will go out to Send In The Poles!
The other lesson from history that Ukraine is going to teach us is summarised well in the very effective but crude modern day acronym, FAFO.
The irony is that while Russia may well retaliate in different ways against the elites of western nation states that have curated the Ukrainian debacle, it is going to be Ukrainians themselves who will deliver the most painful blows.
While they never really had a chance, Ukraine has at least demonstrated that they are tough, brave peopjeceho will fight to the death.
As the truth emerges amongst Ukrainians about western responsibility for what happened to their fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews & friends - to their nations, in fact - western societies & elitesxate going to face extreme payback from Ukrainians themselves.
Be in no doubt. They will come after their own (eg Zelensky), and after the western elites who deliberately destroyed Ukraine.
"Be in no doubt. They will come after their own (eg Zelensky), and after the western elites who deliberately destroyed Ukraine."
Don't kid yourself. As long as europe is held out as The Club, The Magical Land Where Institutions Basically Work, Ukrainians will continue to play the role of Charlie Brown while NATO is Lucy with the football.
How many times have the Americans sold out the Kurds? Six times is it, or seven? I lose count.
But the Kurds keep on coming back for more, sure that this time will be different.
Time for another history correction (you are almost as bad as the Americans). It was the Canadians who were the bad asses of WW1. I've read plenty examples by Brits & Germans saying so. I've read a number of excerpts of German letters home where they speak of their fear of facing the Canadians.
**The forgotten ruthlessness of Canada’s Great War soldiers**
Modern Canadians cannot condemn the sometimes shocking behaviour of their WWI soldiers without knowing the stress of battle, historian Tim Cook says' "Canadian soldiers would emerge from the First World War with a reputation for winning victories that others could not. But even in a war of unparalleled ferocity, enemy and ally alike would remember the Canadians as having been particularly brutal.
British war correspondent Philip Gibbs had a front row seat on four years of Western Front fighting. He would single out the Canadians as having been particularly obsessed with killing Germans, calling their war a kind of vendetta. “The Canadians fought the Germans with a long, enduring, terrible, skilful patience,” he wrote after the war."
**Graphic: How Canadians won the Battle of Vimy Ridge**
On Easter Monday 1917, Canadian forces, fighting for the first time together, would capture most of the German positions by the afternoon. How did they do it?
"Fighting at Vimy Ridge had seen the slaughter of 150,000 British and French soldiers during the course of the First World War. But on Easter Monday 1917, Canadian forces, fighting for the first time together, would capture most of the German positions by the afternoon."
The Americans and Brits only know history that they wrote themselves about themselves (feel good good guys). This is why they do not 'get' Russia or China either.
Everything mentioned is all well & good. But the Elephant in the room isn't paid hardly any attention to at all. Russia has its own security to think of. It isn't the Russians who lied then expanded their borders towards NATO countries. It wasn't the Russians who wanted conflict in the 1st place. It wasnt Russia who set out to destroy any NATO countries economically, militarily & put policies in place hoping to change any strong Western regime. It isn't Russia who has placed 20 thousand sanctions on Western countries trying to destroy the lives of the citizens in Western countries. Russia has been attacked quite a few times by Western nations. Yet you mention some paranoid Russian politicians might have certain views. I know for a fact if I was a Russian, I'd be outright stupidly naive to not be paranoid about the West. Especially the EU. Which has no resources of worth of its own. While Russia is the most resource rich country on the planet. Too right I'd be paranoid. You've wrote a lot of words without stating anything of worth from a Russian point of view. Even though it's obvious Russia despite fighting against over 40 countries is going to be the Victor. The Russians have no interest in Europe why would they. They're developing at a rate Europeans could only dream of. The last thing they want is more conflict, but by christ they're ready for one. While the West has idiotic idealogs ruling over us, we will only decline. Not once have they wanted peace or diplomacy. Your words avoid to many facts of the current situation. I'm sorry to say all of the main points of this conflict aren't even mentioned. Just more words on how to arm & waste more billions on weapons. What's wrong with a diplomatic rational relationship. Fico, Orban & few others are the rational rulers of the Western countries. As a result they're demonised. Look at Romania & what's happened with their none election. The EU is in a desperate state brought on by the current leadership. The way things will improve, is ridding ourselves of these idiots. Who have no interest in doing what's best for their own citizens. Or Europe will be left even farther behind.
I agree with what you have said and think that yours is the conclusion that Aurelien should have reached from his otherwise thoughtful essay. I don't think that the Russians want war. They have been forced into it by the stupid belligerence of the West.
The plans are there for all to see in the various writings of fools like Brezinski and the American "think tanks". They gave the game away and Russia was ready. Same thing for China and Iran. The West has fucked itself through pure arrogance.
Of course Russia doesn't want war. They got it anyway.
Everything you write is correct; however, what Aurelian is doing in this essay is too look well beyond superficialities. It is a thought experiment in not only what could have been but what could be.
I think he might be trying to persuade those who would be triggered by any suggestion that Russia was provoked or reasonably reacted.
Right has nothing to do with it.
Western legends, of course, can be quite strange. No one in Moscow had ever heard that German cavalry units had entered the suburbs of Moscow in 1941. Everyone in Moscow knows that these were German motorcyclists who rode motorcycles to the city of Khimki and were stopped there. Now there is a monument on this place. Moreover, it was just a small group of German intelligence officers. The main German units were stopped at 40 km of the Leningrad highway. It is 17 km further from Moscow.
Thank you, very thoght-provoking!
Somehow politics has turned into a habit of kicking the can down the road - leading to yet new catastrophes. But this juggling of catastrophes keeps opening novel opportunities for grift. So whatever happens, there will be rich takings for those who are so inclined. And manufacturing a russophobia out of whole cloth has turned out to be surprisingly easy. So, in all, looks like we have a collective psychosis in ascendance. Where are the cooler minds with ability to rein in the ascending chaos? Popularity favors those who are goosing the chaos into ever greater confusion. We are learning a lot about collective psychology exactly the wrong way. Here in Finland Nato is presenter as a security guarantee, and the price ticket of that illusion is wildly expensive us weapons that have little practical use in this location. A fuss is made about building big enough roads to the eastern border so that heavy Nato equipment can be taken there. To do what? To make Finland the next Ukraine? A nightmare. What could be a realistic future is a good question, but realism is shouted down by the collective psychosis. Scary times.
As if the Russians couldn't use those very same roads. What a bunch of idiots you have for leaders.
Can't make myself hit the like button on this, although very true. Nato seems to mean a permission to leave one's common sense behind, let alone intelligence. But obviously, and sadly, there is a line of people waiting to be the like Zelenski. He has become obscenely rich, you know. It tells a lot of the state of our current civilization that this line of thinking is completely normal and valid.
Interesting article but once again you miss taking into account what the real rulers of the west want and are likely to do. The western imperial elite have no interest in stopping their rampages since they have paid no price for their actions. We, the average citizens, have paid a price, but they have not. They are unaccountable…at least currently, and they have huge control over the actions of the west even though large numbers of western citizens oppose their efforts.
Just today I read the EU is planning a tribunal to judge Putin; how delusional/power mad do you have to be to setup something like this? It says something about the thinking of our rulers. Don’t expect anything to change for the foreseeable future.
What we should expect to see are new conflicts pop up all around Russia, from the Middle East to the Caucasus region, from Eastern Europe to Finland, possibly in the Pacific with the latest friends of NATO, like Japan or the Philippines, helping out. Maybe even in the international shipping lanes around the world as the USA builds bases on islands around the world, like in the Arctic and even in the Galapagos. The bottom line is this insanity is far from over.
Thank you for this essay!
When you offer solutions (‘The best response in my view...’), you mention two terms, namely ‘common interest’ and ‘collective identity’ - not without directly qualifying the first one.
I can't even detect one or the other. The few who claim to be convinced Europeans are mostly politicians, and even of those I don't see many.
There are Portuguese, Danes, Germans, Poles, etc. – but no Europeans. What should the ‘collective identity’ be based on? On Christianity, whose traditions are currently being eroded? On the friendship between nations/peoples? That sounds almost cynical. Or on the status as a global player that Europe likes to claim (while obviously representing transatlantic interests)?
Although there is no doubting a common interest, I see neither the intention to pursue it nor – and this is worse – the cultural substrate on which it could be based.
I do not think that Ukraine was ever intended as a 'Glacis ' from which to defend Europe . Rather I believe that the intent was to use Ukraine to attack Russia , right from the start of the 2014 coup even before the annexation of Crimea and the rebellion in the Donbas . I may be wrong but I think that Western intent towards Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union has been to break it up into conveniently lootable parts .
Of course. The problem is that Russia does not want to make war on what it sees as its sadly misguided Ukrainian bretheren. Further, the Russian leadership does not want to admit to itself that europe hates them and fears them, that, nobody cares how many symphonies and novels they write, that all their entreaties to law and reason are seen as contemptible weakness, that never will be admitted to The Club.
I would agree with you up 'till mid to late 2023 . However , I doubt that either Putin or the rest of Russia's leadership class have any illusions left about the West and it's intentions at this stage .
In fact, Russians still have many illusions. Many hope to reach an agreement with the West. Otherwise, nuclear mushrooms would have grown up a long time ago, but such conversations are rather harshly suppressed.
I wish I coukld agree, but Russia continues to pussyfoot around, even as her enemies are deadly serious.
Thank you very much Aurelien, for your long explanation, which is undoubtedly true, although I fear that your brilliant thoughts will not reach those who really need them ! In fact, it could even be like shouting into a big dark hole in the field, especially if I consider the EU's chief diplomat to be Kaja Kalla, who is blessed with modest abilities!
For the well-understood interest of my country, I would rather adopt Sun Tzu's eternal wisdom "If you cannot defeat your enemy, then make him your friend!" I think we should not be hostile to the Russians (whom Europe will never defeat) but work together, although we know that this is exactly what the cunning snake Great Britain and the USA want to prevent at all costs !
It is now largely accepted that the only country to profit from the Ukraine Russia war is the USA , the EU and UK now buy much of their gas from the USA.If one wanted to make friends and live side by side comfortably with your neighbouring countries a good way to do it would be to sell them something they need or buy something from them that they want to sell.Russia sold gas to the EU and the UK we all liked this arrangement because it gave us energy in our homes hospitals schools factories and elsewhere at a reasonable cost , Russia liked it because it brought them closer to their many neighbours they made friends with their neighbours a war with them was unthinkable during this time because neither Russia EU or UK wanted to lose what they were gaining , GASPROM even sponsored the Champions League , Russians holidayed extensively all over europe europeans and brits took river cruises in Russia and visited St Petersburg BUT then the USA stepped in , first of all to threaten those countries that had said they were going to stop using the USA dollar to trade globally secondly they threatened China by forming AUKUS and sailing warships up and down the Chinese coast making verbal media threats as if Taiwan were the 51st USA state i mean just how many 51states do they want ? Then thirdly they threatened EU China BRICS with sanctions and a trade war if they did not stop buying stuff from China and Russia , then in a rage they blew up the pipeline taking the gas from Russia to the EU and UK and blackmailed Ukraine into applying to join NATO by saying they would be sanctioned if they didnt apply , USA would preasurise countries to not buy Ukraine wheat etc , Ukraine caved in even after Russia said that having USA made and USA controlled missiles and other military on its border with Ukraine just 400 miles from Moscow could not be tollerated.
The thing is if you want friendly relations with your neighbours having a huge trade deal with them is a superb way to acheive that and this is what Russia did however as we are seeing right now , what more proof do you need , it is USA that is the crazy you have to be wary of , not Russia not China .I think the EU have to take a step back and do what is best for its people , restore good relations with Russia and China resume trade with Russia and China to as it was before the USA bullied Ukraine into provoking Russia the EU should embrace BRICS and take whatever challenge and tariffs the USA imposes when it predictably throws its toys out of the pram.Being on friendly terms with Russia China and (other ) BRICS countries encompasses way more of the worlds population than USA which has clearly lost the plot.
As for UK , it is well on the way to losing the plot too , if only we had good enough politicians to do what is best for its population rather than its rich and landed minority.
"As for UK , it is well on the way to losing the plot too , if only we had good enough politicians to do what is best for its population rather than its rich and landed minority."
Why should they? As far as the ruling class is concerned, acting as catamite to the Americans is serving them very well indeed.
How do you reform anything when the lies are everywhere? We are immersed in them, like a goldfish in it's aquatic environment.
The geniuses who created the present system didn't seem to notice that when everything is PR and propaganda than they would also be entangled in the lies, not just the 'swinish' masses.
"How do you reform anything when the lies are everywhere?"
You don't. The only solution is to Burn It All Down.
Yes. The only way to 'reform' the present system of self-hypnotism is to destroy it completely. The difficult questions are 1) How? 2) How to do it with the minimum damage to the masses? b) What to replace it all with? And c) How to insert the best replacement? Should be easy!
Looks like I lost track of my 1, 2, a, b, c, etc. - sorry.
Nobody said it would be easy or feasible.
Well, if it's not easy, at least we can try. However, if it's not feasible, as I suspect, then what are we left with?
I don't know.
OK. I have a (possible/probable?) answer. If you look at the forecasts of the 'Club of Rome' they initialy started off with a number of scenarios. In a very recent update, the best fit for any previous scenario is the 'business as usual' one, where oil and metal extraction is about a maximum this year, while population and pollution continue to increase, temporarily. Then they all fall off a cliff, and 'civilisation goes back to, at best, the Bronze Age - if the climate allows. I hope not to be alive to see it, and `I'm not hoping for re-incarnation.
@Feral Finster
The traditional answer was "curse God and die".
WRT cavalry, one'd be surprised at how many Russian (and, to some degree, German and American) tank men were cavalrymen originally: Zhukov, Rokossovky, and Bagramyan came out of cavalry, as were Germans von Kleist and Hoepner and American Patton. There is something very odd, parochial, and ahistoric about the way moderns think cavalry were out of date during World War 2, let alone World War I. This fits with a lot of historical truisms that people think they know today, obviously--another of my pet peeves is the idea that the French were wrong to deploy their tanks as they did during World War II. Not only was it affected by intense interservice rivalry between infantry and cavalry (French cavalry arm actually created tank doctrines and raised tank divisions that were very similar to the German panzer arm--just that they only controlled 1/3 or less of French tanks in 1940.), small tank units allocated to supporting infantry divisions and specialist heavy tank "breakthrough" units--ideas advocated by the infantry arm, who controlled the rest--were in fact vindicated by the history of World War 2 after blitzkrieg became passe after 1941 or so. Often seemingly outmoded ideas are in fact a lot more grounded on reality than PMC types with superficial understanding of history think.
The traditional role of heavy cavalry as mounted shock-troopers was certainly obsolete after the invention of the machine gun, and probably since the invention of the field-gun. Certain weapons definitely do go out of date, or at least lose some of their traditional roles or capabilities, or are much more limited in application than originally.
Often, more up to date analogues are found for obsoleted roles, though: for example, heavy cavalry was replaced by heavy tanks by mid-20th century (there's a reason the French infantry called their tank divisions "Cuirassiers" after all). Some of the heavy cavalry role was replaced by former "light" cavalry--hussars and uhlans were not mere scouts and screening troops the old light cavalry were and fought more like the old heavy cavalry more often than not (thus, the French cavalry called their tank divisions "mechanized 'light cavalry' divisions," i.e. fast moving and hard hitting tank troops, not so much that they were "lightly armed.")
“We must hope that, for the first time in a very, very long time, Europe will finally take Russia and Russian concerns seriously, and move beyond the stark fear of the Cold War and the equally unreasoning sense of superiority that followed it. This is going to be a massive development, and will require an equally massive political change: perhaps equivalent to that post-1945, when many existing political groupings were simply swept away.
There is now another opportunity to make sensible decisions.”
What I'm left wondering is where European politicians with the requisite knowledge and wisdom will come from? It's very difficult to imagine the likes of Starmer or Scholz being able to do this, and as far as I can tell their minions, associates and fellow politicians in most other parties, down to the office tea-lady, have been imbued with the same mixture of western fantasy and arrogance. Even if they are in fact "simply swept away" who is going to replace them? Can today's upcoming managerial technocrats rise to the occasion? The only voices of sanity I can find are those such as Sahra Wagenknecht, Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, but there's hardly enough of them to staff 23 governments, even if they could get elected in.
"What I'm left wondering is where European politicians with the requisite knowledge and wisdom will come from?"
They won't.
"The only voices of sanity I can find are those such as Sahra Wagenknecht, Clare Daly and Mick Wallace, but there's hardly enough of them to staff 23 governments, even if they could get elected in."
They won't be elected, and if they were somehow elected, you can bet your last Euro that the election results will be retroactively cancelled because "Russian interference" or something.
The recent transformation of the AfD is most instructive. Fact is, they could publicly toss refugee toddlers alive and screaming into piranha tanks and nobody would so much raise a peep, as long as they supported American Hegemony in general and The War On Russia in particular. We saw a similar miraculous transformation with respect to Meloni.
Thanks, Aurelien! I think that one likely scenario is the provocation by the west of new conflicts with Russia, not a direct war with Nato, but rather a Ukraine-like conflict in places like Georgia, Moldova and possibly, in the future, Belarus.
By now most European governments are so hopelessly corrupted and occupied by low-IQ woke climate zealots who just wish to tax the hell out of the citizenry, if not simply reduce their numbers in order to "save" said climate, that I really wonder if Europe should be defended at all. Provided that the Russians would just wish to rule and not kill us, I would say: let them. They couldn't do much worse than what we have here now. (Mind, I am not very representative for how people think over here in Holland...)
The discussion on climate change is concluded. May we return to the question, please?
A rational discussion of climate change is only possible with 1. acceptance of physics 2. understanding of complex systems. That's off-topic for this blog, of course, but I'm constantly surprised that people presumably looking for clear and factual social and geopolitical thinking repeat these stale and ignorant climate denial tropes.
Those who cannot distinguish between physics and political responses to climate change should expect a fair helping of disdain to such comments (although Famous was unnecessarily rude). FWIW I completely agree that 'net zero' policies are delusional and doomed to near-term failure.
"Ignorant climate denial tropes". I assure you I am not ignorant. And to accuse anyone of "ignorant climate denial tropes" is to place oneself thoroughly into the camps of the political zealots. ANY action proposed to counter the changing of the world's climate is de facto political. Please read "Plunderers of the Earth" by Julius Ruechel. It just might open your eyes.
'Ignorant climate denial tropes' are forms of words used to deny the consequences of human actions. It's understandable, but futile.
Yes, of course all actions to address human-caused climate change are political. That's the distinction between physical reality (fossil fuels -> CO2 -> heating) and human social arrangements (ie politics). Either we choose to leave some fossil fuels in the ground, or we burn them all. Global heating will vary accordingly. How that choice is played out between social groups is politics, not physics.
See that's where you do need to do a bit more homework: this "fossil fuels Co2, heating" thing. Because when you look at this world's climatic past, you see that the rising of CO2 levels always FOLLOWS a period of rising temperatures. CO2 is not a precursor for warming. CO2 is also not a problem for nature: it is the stuff plants breathe. Our CO2 levels are historically low. What we actually need is more CO2. Climate is driven by a very complex set of circumstances, which cannot be adequately simulated in any computational models, despite what "scientists" claim. To claim the simple trope of "fossil fuels, Co2, heating" as physics is ignorant at best. As I said, please read "Plunderers of the Earth" by Julius Ruechel. It will enlighten you. Also, you may want to look here: https://clintel.org/
Sigh. Yes, it's a complex system, but your statements are, shall we say, fanciful. Start off by explaining (to yourself, this is my last comment in this thread) which part of the 19th century physics of spectral absorption is wrong. More CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) means more heat retained in the Earth system. Everything else from there is complex, but more heat is the driver.
Thanks for the Ruechel book hint. Don't think I'll read it, although he seems more sophisticated than most authors of AGW denial tracts. His Grass Fed Cattle book looks more worthwhile and I might read that - he seems to know that topic properly.
Returning to the topic of this blog, I wonder whether Aurelian will turn his forensic gaze to the 'net zero' predicament? A parallel case of Western retreat into fantasy.
You copy-N-paste like a big boy - gold star for you today. Why is there no winter in Russia?? Where's your copy-N-paste explanation?
~
**Russia comes in from the cold, with flowers blooming around Moscow in January**
"January in Russia conjures up images of Muscovites crunching through the snow in bulky coats -- not bunches of delicate snowdrops blooming in grassy areas around still-standing Christmas trees.
Instead of ice choking the Moscow River and the biting cold of the “moroz” – the hard freeze that stings the face -- the capital’s sidewalks are bare, and temperatures are well above freezing in what is usually one of the coldest months of the year.
Even in Siberia and in many places across the country that spans 11 time zones, it’s been unusually warm, too, not unlike elsewhere in the world.
According to Europe’s climate agency Copernicus, the first 27 days of 2025 globally are the hottest first 27 days on record, dating back to 1940. The start of 2025 on average is 0.11 degrees Celsius warmer than the start of 2024, the previous hottest start.
Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that extreme weather events worldwide, from the fires in Los Angeles to heat waves in Saudi Arabia and the current mild temperatures in Russia are “with a very high degree of scientific certainty” connected to human-caused global warming."
https://apnews.com/article/russia-climate-warming-temperatures-4793d1b5fa4db439050c6682625755f9
~~
See those global warming Jacked fires in LA? That is your future. Humans at the height of their technology and knowledge and wealth cannot even keep their cities and towns from burning down. BTW this along with all the other climate consequences is EXACTLY what was predicted many decades ago and the only thing they got wrong was the timing - FASTER THAN EXPECTED. IF you have little grand kids I pity you. The whole fucking things will be flooded or burnt down or industrial agriculture will have long failed. They will not see middle age.
~Remember all the predictions that the Ukranians would freeze to death this winter because Russia bombed their power plants to hell? That has not happened because Ukraine has not had a winter either. If they had a normal winter they would have freezed and the western media would have used that as more propaganda, but again - no winter thanks to global warming you infantile dupe & fool. How far up your ass is your head not to notice that the seasons have changed? How many disasters do you need? All you deniers are complete fucking idiots. I doubt you will get much sympathy for your far right stupidity around here. Enjoy what normal time you have left.
~
*Ukraine's unlikely ally against Russian attacks on energy sector — warm weather*
"This winter was predicted to be one of the toughest ones of the war yet. In a worst-case scenario, blackouts were expected to reach 20 hours a day. Greenpeace warned in November that Ukraine’s power grid faced a "heightened risk of catastrophic failure.”
But thanks to a combination of unseasonably warm weather, and Ukraine’s ability to adapt to a third year of Russian campaigns against its energy system, the worst has not come to pass."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-unlikely-ally-against-russian-193252344.html
~
Global Warming driven drought in N America and Ukraine, Russia, Romania - check for yourself. Check what those bread basket farmers have to say. For once in your life check instead of automatically copy-N-pasting like a fuck-tard.
I'm not being truthful. I'm hiding how I really feel about run away climate change - I love it because I love watching it destroy the millions of fuck heads like you. Everything you hold dear is toast. Yes my Schadenfreude is rock hard. Deniers make me so hot. .
Wow. Did I ever say the climate wasn't changing? It is! Climate ALWAYS changes. It just doesn't change because anything human beings are doing. It certainly doesn't change BACK because human beings stop doing things. This whole global warming thing is a one great big hoax. LA was burning because of bad environmental practices: in a hot dry environment you need small wildfires from time to time to keep the undergrowth in control. Instead there was a no-fire policy, because people have been stupidly building houses in a high fire risk aria. Ever wondered why those houses couldn't be insured against the risk of fire? The insurance companies certainly knew!
I am not saying the temperatures haven't been rising these past few years. It's just so stupid to think that it will lead to some catastrophic burning of everything. If you look at a slightly longer timeline, you will see that we're in a bit of a up trend right now, but in a few years, decades it will start cooling again. The overall long trend (of thousands of years) is down.
In the mean time I wonder why I am typing all this. You do not seem to posses many skills vis a vis polite discourse.
Neither their "woke-ishness" nor their climate zealotry are as thoroughly disqualifying where any strategic nous is concerned as their slavish Atlanticism ...
I agree - but there are just not enough of us, and anyway, Russia has other fish to fry now.
1. "But things are moving on, and the West is beginning to fumble its way towards the recognition that it can’t get everything it wants, that it won’t be able to dictate either the terms of peace or the terms of a future relationship with Russia, and that it will have to have some kind of strategy for dealing with the Europe, and the world, which are now in the process of construction"
I have seen no evidence of this. Rather, Europe continues to double down. And why shouldn't they? The rulers pay no price, personally or professionally, as it's not as if their children are getting slaughtered or they are having to huddle in the cold.
2. "The first is that the post-2014 policy of containing Russia has backfired disastrously. Far from Ukraine being a glacis against Russian attack, a well-armed advance post of the West with massive defensive fortifications, it provoked the very attack it was intended to prevent."
The war was always entirely intentional on the part of NATO. The idea was to spend Ukrainioan blood and western treasure. Once Ukraine has soaked up enough Russian munitions, then the call will go out to Send In The Poles!
Absolute brilliance, from a great mind.
Thank you, Aurelien.
The other lesson from history that Ukraine is going to teach us is summarised well in the very effective but crude modern day acronym, FAFO.
The irony is that while Russia may well retaliate in different ways against the elites of western nation states that have curated the Ukrainian debacle, it is going to be Ukrainians themselves who will deliver the most painful blows.
While they never really had a chance, Ukraine has at least demonstrated that they are tough, brave peopjeceho will fight to the death.
As the truth emerges amongst Ukrainians about western responsibility for what happened to their fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews & friends - to their nations, in fact - western societies & elitesxate going to face extreme payback from Ukrainians themselves.
Be in no doubt. They will come after their own (eg Zelensky), and after the western elites who deliberately destroyed Ukraine.
"Be in no doubt. They will come after their own (eg Zelensky), and after the western elites who deliberately destroyed Ukraine."
Don't kid yourself. As long as europe is held out as The Club, The Magical Land Where Institutions Basically Work, Ukrainians will continue to play the role of Charlie Brown while NATO is Lucy with the football.
How many times have the Americans sold out the Kurds? Six times is it, or seven? I lose count.
But the Kurds keep on coming back for more, sure that this time will be different.
I find it quite worrying that I keep 'liking' your posts now
Sorry 'bout that. I wish I were wrong.
Well, don't worry - no-one is ever completely (maybe even partially) right.
Nor the converse -- not even, to my astonishment, one Lawrence Summers ...
Time for another history correction (you are almost as bad as the Americans). It was the Canadians who were the bad asses of WW1. I've read plenty examples by Brits & Germans saying so. I've read a number of excerpts of German letters home where they speak of their fear of facing the Canadians.
**The forgotten ruthlessness of Canada’s Great War soldiers**
Modern Canadians cannot condemn the sometimes shocking behaviour of their WWI soldiers without knowing the stress of battle, historian Tim Cook says' "Canadian soldiers would emerge from the First World War with a reputation for winning victories that others could not. But even in a war of unparalleled ferocity, enemy and ally alike would remember the Canadians as having been particularly brutal.
British war correspondent Philip Gibbs had a front row seat on four years of Western Front fighting. He would single out the Canadians as having been particularly obsessed with killing Germans, calling their war a kind of vendetta. “The Canadians fought the Germans with a long, enduring, terrible, skilful patience,” he wrote after the war."
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-forgotten-ferocity-of-canadas-soldiers-in-the-great-war
~
**Graphic: How Canadians won the Battle of Vimy Ridge**
On Easter Monday 1917, Canadian forces, fighting for the first time together, would capture most of the German positions by the afternoon. How did they do it?
"Fighting at Vimy Ridge had seen the slaughter of 150,000 British and French soldiers during the course of the First World War. But on Easter Monday 1917, Canadian forces, fighting for the first time together, would capture most of the German positions by the afternoon."
https://nationalpost.com/news/graphics/how-canadians-won-the-battle-of-vimy-ridge
~
**How Canada earned the world’s respect
The Canadian Army was created from almost nothing. Training, leadership and grit made it indispensable to the effort to win the First World War.**
https://macleans.ca/history/how-canada-earned-the-worlds-respect/
~
The Americans and Brits only know history that they wrote themselves about themselves (feel good good guys). This is why they do not 'get' Russia or China either.