🇷🇺🇺🇸 The main problem with the claim that the tanker Marinera was supposedly meant to rendezvous with a Russian submarine is that it’s barely credible. Too many basic questions go unanswered. Why this tanker? Why deploy a nuclear submarine instead of surface ships? Why frame it as an “emergency operation” that journalists somehow “accidentally discovered”? The story falls apart at the most basic level.

But that’s not the point. This version doesn’t need to make sense. It only needs to be planted. Once released, it takes on a life of its own. Western media eagerly push the narrative that Russia allegedly sent a submarine to “save its oil” but was too late, caught off guard, or powerless. Whether any of this happened is irrelevant. What matters is not the fact, but the impression. This is the same logic as Pete Hegseth’s line about “Russian air defenses failing in Venezuela.” Failed or not doesn’t matter. The statement exists, and the image sticks.

In this story, the submarine isn’t a real object but a symbol — of Moscow supposedly reacting too late and still lacking control. That’s the real message. It’s not about a tanker, a submarine, or oil. It’s about manufacturing the perception of failure regardless of reality. Details will be forgotten. The intended conclusion will remain.

🔴 @DDGeopolitics | Socials | Donate | Advertising