Almost no day passes without yours truly reading some pro-Russian comment about the West being mad, psychotic, or otherwise out of its collective mind.
I think the answer is much simpler, and bases on some elements that are all as common in the West as running water.
The first: ignorance.
The West – collectively speaking, and certainly at decision levels – just does not know history. The new British PM does not even know geography. They have none of that cultural layer that makes a person educated rather than merely instructed. Therefore, they have tragically underestimated (as in 2014, with less bloody consequences) the ability of Russians to suffer for the cause of their Fatherland. I would say that, perhaps, 3% of this ability to suffer (but it might well be 1%) has been exhausted. The Western rulers, who think Russians are scared sissies just like them, think it’s more like 70% or 80%.
Liz Truss is as cool, collected and cold-blooded that she goes in utter panic because a (clearly, multi-vaxxed…) woman faints in front of her. Imagine her being informed that the Russians have just thrown a dozen Kinzhal missiles on the Portsmouth naval base, most of the warships there have been sunk, and almost nobody in the crews has survived. She would cry hysterically for three hours, and nobody would dare to even give her a slap to calm her down.
The West also vastly underestimated the vengefulness of the Russian psyche when you attack their Fatherland. Napoleon – another extremely genial Italian individual, but culturally unprepared to deal with the Russians – never imagined that, with him occupying a half-destroyed Moscow, the Russians would even refuse to receive his diplomatic envoy. Even less did he imagine that, not two years after the start of his Russian adventure, the Russians themselves would occupy Paris.
Hitler made the same mistake, and it took a while more; but the Russians occupied Berlin, too.
Free history lesson to take home: poke the Bear, and you don’t know whether you will be in one piece when the bear gets angry. Plus, the Bear will not care about losses. He will care that he destroys you, and only that will count.
A second type of ignorance is economic ignorance. These people can’t think, and can’t count. They have no idea of how much gas, how much oil, how much steel, aluminium, fertilisers, how much of everything they need and where they can source it from. Methinks, they have asked some group of 27 years old “consultants” how are things, and said 27 years olds have given the only answer they were conditioned to give, and not terrified to give.
Ja, Herr Bundeskanzler. Ja, Frau Ministerin.
We will be fine.
The second: arrogance
It seems obvious to me that the collective West has greatly overestimate the ability of NATO-trained troops to effectively fight against a First World Army. They thought everybody is an Afghan. Newsflash: Russian soldiers not only live on a different level of technology, but also of soldiering skills than the Pulcinella armies of ISIS, Al Kaida, Iraq 2003, or even Iraq 1991. Couple this with the first point, and you’ll easily realise that the Russians had won this campaign before it started. The Collective West reminds me of a wannabe school bully who decided to go up on the school’s wrestling champ. You won’t want to watch what follows.
As they said in philosophy class at school: γνῶθι σεαυτόν, “know thyself!”
The third: degeneracy
The first and second point explain, to an extent, why the Western rulers have deluded themselves they could eat Russia for breakfast. But I think this is far from all. The fact is, everybody has understood that Russia and the modern West represent two opposite cultural values: degeneracy here, wholesomeness there. The Western ruling classes, well aware of this if rarely spelling it out in public, both hate Russia’s Christian values and hope to garner easy approval by fighting them. This has been spelled out officially by the head of MI6, once a secret service in the service of Her Majesty, now a public service whoring for Western propaganda. Still: one says what one hundred think.
The fourth: Social Media
I have written about the sad, devastating phenomenon of clickwhoring here. I will, therefore, not repeat myself. However, notice how the mechanism described in the post influences the entire press and, in turn, the politicians who are the slaves of the public opinion, real or perceived ( = most of them).
These are, I think, the four main components of why this conflict drags on and everybody systematically pretends to live in an alternative reality where the Ukraine is winning, you are fighting for sodomy and tranniedom, and it make sense to freeze to death and ruin your economy for them.
It’s no psychosis. It’s no imbecility. It’s a short-term, myopic calculation of political advantage, fuelled by arrogance, ignorance and bad advice, and heavily influenced by a media apparatus enslaved by social media, and against which no politician dares to go.
The Catholic Herald reports of the alertness of the Police in the preparation of the Papal visit, now less than two months away. Not only there are (as Anna Arco reports) Muslim fringe organisations aiming at disrupting the visit, but an aggressive welcome to the Pope is also planned from other sides as well – from Peter Tatchell pink desperadoes to Orangist groupings to aggressive Atheists -. It seems as if the papal visit could become a showdown between radically different mentalities.
This has led many commenters on Catholics blogs to wish that the visit may be postponed, or that it should not take place at all. I disagree with this thinking for the following reasons:
1) The United Kingdom is not a tin-pot African country. They’ll be able to provide for the Holy Father’s security quietly and efficiently. It is not as if the Holy Father were visiting the Gaza Strip wearing a Moshe Dayan t-shirt.
2) This is a State Visit. The Holy Father has been invited by the Queen. To postpone or cancel it would be tantamount to saying to the British Government “you can’t provide for my security”. Perhaps not the diplomatic equivalent of accusing them of being a tin-pot African country, but not far.
3) We must be pleased that the Pope is controversial. I am glad when the Church is controversial, I am worried when she isn’t! JP II was perceived as a largely harmless mediatic Glastonbury Festival, but B XVI is perceived as a real threat to secular society. This is why the secular press smiled on the former and hates the latter.
4) Once reassured (as I think we all should) about the personal security of the Holy Father and his entourage, we should look at disturbances and assorted provocations not only without worries, but with a shade of anticipation. Provocations and disruptions are going to come from fanatical nutcases and assorted fringe groups. There’s nothing to fear from them. On the contrary, the average man and woman in this country will instinctively symphatise with the old man having the gut to visit the wolf’s den and to be insulted and slandered for our sake.
The Pope on one side, loonies and leftist journalists on the other: who do you think is going to make the better impression on Middle England?
There will certainly be a lot of dirt being thrown around and the press will not have any scruple in gigantically amplifying every hint of new scandal or revelation – founded or not – in the days preceding the visit. But the perception of the press – that they mould the conscience and opinion of the country – is just an illusion. Decades of proto-marxist BBC have certainly not given us a country even remotely similar to the one they’d wish, the Guardian has supported the Yellows for the first time and as a result….. they have lost seats, and the “Sun” is best known for supporting the candidate they think is going to win.
There is not much of a downside in this visit, but there are tremendous opportunities for a strong message fearlessly delivered in the middle of the most secularised and aggressively anti-Catholic country in Europe.
If the message is loud and clear people will listen to the Pope, not to the fringe groups’ static noise.