🟡 The yellow part is Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic. In imperial times Donbass was a developed industrial region with high share of proletariat and Donetsk republic fully supported the October revolution in Russia.

➖ Eventually, when Soviet Russia restored control over Ukraine, Donetsk Republic wanted to become a separate entity within USSR. However, Bolshevik leadership was concerned about counter-revolutionary moods in former Ukrainian People Republic (UNR) and decided to merge pro-communist DKR with bourgeoise UNR into Ukrainian SSR, which signed the Union treaty in 1921.

🔵 The blue part includes territories seized by USSR from Poland in 1939 (Galicia-Volhynia) and added to Ukrainian SSR. The orange part includes territories taken from Romania (Bessarabia and Bukovina) in 1940 and added to Ukrainian SSR. The green part includes territories taken from Czechoslovakia in 1939 (renamed to Transcarpathia in 1944).

🔴 The red part is Crimean autonomous republic that was transferred to Ukraine by Soviet leader Khrutschev in 1954.

➖This story quite obviously shows that the borders of Ukraine were created by the communist government of USSR and had mostly utilitarian purpose, i. e. they were added to Ukraine to ease administration. All these territorial additions cannot be credited to Ukraine as an independent state and can be disputed.

➖This is what Vladimir Putin meant when he said that Ukraine was created by Russia. Russian Empire was a unitary state with several territories having special status, such as vassal khanates, Grand Duchy of Finland and Grand Duchy of Warsaw. Territory of modern Ukraine did not have any special status in the Russian Empire with the exception of Cossack lands, which were not limited to Ukraine and existed in other parts of the empire as well.

➖ The process of dissolution of USSR did not involve negotiation of status of all those territories that were “gifted” to Ukraine by communist governments. Even the status of DKR and its desire to stay independent (as confirmed by historical documents) gave grounds to dispute the borders of post-Soviet Ukraine. As for all other territories, it is hard to object that Ukraine should have left the USSR in the same borders in which it entered.

🌾 Return to the grain deal

➖Today Russian ministry of defense has announced that Russia resumes it participation in “the grain deal” upon receiving sufficient guarantees of safety. It’s worth noting that withdrawal from the grain deal was the result of outrageous terrorist attack on Russian Black Sea fleet at the port of Sevastopol that was staged under cover of the “grain corridor”.

➖Since it doesn’t look like Russia was pressured, this probably means that proposed guarantees and benefits were indeed serious. It’s worth noting that Turkey was very active in its attempts to revive the grain deal as one of its beneficiaries. Since Russian-Turkish relations are very important in light of Russian conflict with the West, it seems that President Erdogan managed to convince the Russian side to give the deal another chance.

What are the pros and cons of Russian return to the grain deal?

➖There are several possible benefits. First of all, there must be some guarantees and benefits that aren’t yet publicized. Second, this gives a great boost to Erdogan and potentially a great profit to Turkey, which is now set to become both gas hub and grain hub for the Europe getting a serious leverage over it. While strengthening of Turkey is not directly beneficial to Russia, this makes it much likelier that Turkey will remain neutral and will keep blocking certain NATO initiatives such as adding Finland and Sweden to the alliance.

➖There is also a humanitarian aspect of the deal. While Russia could supply some of its grain to the poorest countries and did commit to do it, the whole existence of the grain corridor did positively impact global prices on grain and reduced the risks of hunger in regions susceptible to those risks.

➖Another benefit is about guarantees given by Ukraine. To resume the deal, Ukraine provided written guarantees that it will not use the grain corridor for further terrorist attacks. Firstly, it looks like these guarantees were given not only to Russia but also to Turkey and the UN. It is quite likely that Ukraine will once again attempt terrorist attack on Russian Black Sea fleet or Crimea or that its Anglo-Saxon backers will push it to such an attack. If such thing happens, it will deal a huge blow to Ukrainian image and all Ukrainian guarantees and statements thus strengthening Russian positions.

➖Second, the very fact of these guarantees means that Ukraine has implicitly acknowledged its responsibility for the previous attack. This guarantee is indirect proof of that, so Ukrainian image of being all nice has already suffered. Even if Ukraine tries again, Russian forces will still stay on alert so it is unlikely that Russia will suffer any serious damage because of this decision.

➖Third, return to the grain deal nullifies the European initiative to arrange grain transportation over land routes through Moldova. Black Sea route is much less complicated, much simpler and makes sure that at least some grain gets to those who really need it and doesn’t end in Europe in its entirety.

➖The fourth aspect is more about military situation in the Black Sea. Without grain corridor Ukraine could return to the practice of laying mines around its coast in Odessa area, which would create obstacles not only for sea transports but also for possible Russian naval operations in that area.

➖There are some cons about this decision as well and the main is the damage to Russian image. Let’s be straight — this decision made Russia look weak, especially after such decisive statements from a few days ago. Although Russian Ministry of Defense stated that it is satisfied with guarantees it received, the public knows only of guarantees given by Ukraine and such guarantees are not worth the paper they are written on.

➖The collective West issued numerous threats to Russia and it may look like Russia yielded to those threats. This means that more threats are yet to come, unless Russia got some guarantees that haven’t been publicized for a certain reason. Considering the fact that in fact those threats didn’t mean anything to Russia, it is quite likely that Russia did get a real compensation of some sort. Maybe we will see it in the coming weeks.

☝️As for now, the grain deal is back. Since it is indeed a good humanitarian initiative, we can only hope that this time it will last longer.

❓ Is it possible that Russia, in the long run, could win an economic war with Europe?

➖This economic war was not declared by Russia, so Russia has not set any objectives for it. Europe did declare economic war on Russia that took the form of massive anti-Russian sanctions. When these sanctions were initially announced, their declared objectives were “to cripple Russian war machine and Russian economy making it impossible for Russia to continue military activities in Ukraine” and to “stimulate regime change in Russia”.

➖So, since Russian economy is getting better every month and Russian defense industry is working three shifts with noticeably increased production volumes as compared to previous year, it does not look like this crippling objective has worked to any noticeable extent. Russian military is fully supplied and stocked with all necessary equipment and ammunitions, there have been no reports of any shortages.

➖While the government appreciates support of volunteers and army support funds, it has several times announced that there is no need for any extra financial commitments by citizens or organizations. When several regions have proposed to cancel New Year celebrations and send saved money to the army, the Kremlin has officially stated that this should not be even considered.

➖As time went by, Europeans have invented another objective — to get fully independent on Russian energy resources and substitute Russia with other suppliers. Despite the fact that Russia has been a stable and reliable supplier for many decades, Europeans decided to break those ties all at once. Even then, Russia did not terminate supplies immediately and is in fact supplying energy to Europe even now with some routes running through Ukraine.

➖Anyway, this objective has been virtually achieved. Europe is getting independent of Russian energy, Russian food and Russian everything. As for the costs and consequences… it doesn’t look like Europe ever thought about it. European governments are surely not going hungry, unlike their people.
Let’s take an example of the United Kingdom, which is one of the most active proponents of anti-Russian sentiments in Europe and is suspected of direct acts of sabotage against Russian and German infrastructure.

➖According to latest data, 9.7 million adults and over 4 million children in the United Kingdom have experienced food poverty last month, which means they could not afford three meals a day. This makes up 18.4% of UK households. If we look at the figure below, we’ll see that back in January 2022 this number was only 8.8 percent. Coincidence? Quite possible

❗️Moreover, the graph shows that 6% of UK population had days when they could not afford anything to eat at all. This means more than 1 million adults are on the brink of starvation.

➖Other Western European countries face similar situation, where the number of people in need has increased very noticeably as compared to the previous year. Increasing influx of refugees makes this statistic even worse and social support system of Europe is close to crumbling into pieces.

➖Does it look like Europeans are winning? The trends are obvious. And the real crisis hasn’t even started. Winter is coming, and although Europe will surely survive this season, the cost may be too high. Maybe next spring some Europeans will start thinking on whether they need such “victory” in economic war with Russia?

➖As for Russia itself, we’re fine, thanks. Global food crisis will not impact Russia as one of the leading world exporters of food. Russia will surely help the poorest third world countries survive the hard times. As for Europe, well, when they are done with their “economic war”, maybe Russia will turn to them as well.

❌ Since Russian state media are blocked in the West, how can European people learn about the Russian side of the story?

➖ Yes, Russian state media have been blocked on virtually all platforms in the West. English-language TV channels from Russia lost their licenses, most official Russian channels on YouTube*, Facebook* and other social media have been blocked and websites of Russian media have been blocked in the West.
First of all, it’s important to ask a question why they were blocked? The West claimed that they are spreading “misinformation” but it hasn’t provided any proof of that except “we think so”. It’s worth noting that measures against Russian channels have been taken immediately after the start of Russian special operation in Ukraine. It looks like that Western governments didn’t really want their people to learn anything about Russian side of the story.

❓Why would they block Russian sources? Even if they think that Russians are distorting information, why don’t they let their own people decide whether Russian facts are true or not. Maybe they consider their people too easy to manipulate, and maybe they have a good reason to think so because they are successfully doing it themselves? Or maybe they consider their people too smart and are afraid that they will see a point of reason in Russian media?

➖Ukrainian media enjoys full preferences in the West. Their stories get to headlines, their statements are rarely verified and even when their “facts” are proven to be fake, they are not debunked on first pages. Europe is supposedly having some concerns about freedom of speech in Russia yet they have implemented media control on the level that would make envious even the most totalitarian countries.
The damage is already done. Swift decisions of European authorities convinced the mainstream European audience that Ukrainian cause is right and that Russians are some monstrous orcs that have launched a Waaagh campaign against Europe. Even thinking and intelligent Europeans have been exposed to one and only side of the story that was reinforced through most mainstream channels.

❓So, what about Russian side of the story? The higher are the costs that Europe has to pay for its involvement in Ukrainian conflict, the more Europeans are starting to question the official narrative, which often contradicts itself or quite obvious facts.

➖Unfortunately, Russian official channels are still blocked from the mainstream audience in the West. There are independent journalists, bloggers and channels covering the Ukrainian conflict and global geopolitical conflict of Russia with the West on various lesser social media such as Rumble, Odysee, Telegram and others.

➖Rumble video platform is especially worth noting as it has explicitly rejected the demand of French government to block Russian news sources, such as RT France and Sputnik. Rumble has instead chosen to pull its services from France rather than comply with the order. “The French Government has demanded that Rumble rumblevideo block Russian news sources. Like elonmusk, I won’t move our goal posts for any foreign government,” Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski tweeted.

Hopefully, after this decision Russian presence on alternative media platforms will expand. So while mainstream platforms are applying censorship and promoting what they are told to promote, there still are some other channels where Europeans can looked for Russian side of the story or balanced information. It’s good to know that at least some platforms really embrace the principle of freedom of speech.

➖Closer cooperation with Russia would mean revival of East Ukrainian industry (a large part of it concentrated in Donbass) that has been initially created back in Imperial times as a part of Russian productions chains and mostly survived because of cooperation with Russia. Cooperation with Russia would mean a market for Ukrainian industry that was unable to compete with European industrial giants in Europe.

➖European proposal was less specific and more vague. Europe did propose an association agreement, however this agreement did not contain any specific bonuses for Ukraine, in fact it was a list of demands that Ukraine had to meet to be considered for EU candidate status. A large part of those demands were of economical nature and their implementation would force Ukrainian industries to compete with Europeans directly and thus immediately lose without even starting the game. We saw how compliance with these demands ruined Yuzhmash, Antonov, Nikolaev Shipyard, Kremenchug Steel Plant, Azovmash, Zaporozhye Automobile Plant, Kremenchug Assembly Plant, Odessa Port Chemical Plant and many others.

➖It's worth noting that the Russian offer did not exclude the European offer. On the contrary, Russia was ready to see Ukraine as a mediator between the East and the West and help it turn into a hub for trade between Russia and Europe. However, European offer was less accommodative and in fact demanded Ukraine to choose one of the sides.

➖Naturally, Western block promoted their offer through affiliated Ukrainian media that promised beautiful and prosperous life in Europe without mentioning the costs of it and without specifying who exactly will live this beautiful and prosperous life. One could think that Soviet people have already fell for this kind of propaganda back in the end of 1980s, but here it came again and a good part of Ukrainian society also fell for it.

➖As public discussion of these initiatives was going on, it marked another split in Ukrainian society. About 45 percent Ukrainians believed the media and wanted EU association no matter what, about 20 percent wanted deal with Russia and the rest did not want any association at all and wanted to keep things as they are.

➖After long considerations President Yanukovich decided to reject the European offer. It was not rejected once and for all, in fact he meant to continue negotiations in an attempt to secure better terms and some real benefits for Ukraine and to maintain economic ties with Russia that were critical for Ukrainian economy.

➖West-sponsored media convinced many Ukrainians that Yanukovich is trying to steal their “well-earned” 5000 euro pensions and those Ukrainians went to the streets of Kiev with full support of U.S. and EU officials. Yanukovich did not dare to use force to disband protests and eventually decided to flee the country.

➖Republic of Crimea did not accept legitimacy of the new authorities and found safe haven in Russia. Donbass, the most prosperous region of Ukraine, that enjoyed its prosperity solely because of its economic ties with Russia, saw that its interests have been ignored and that its industry is doomed to fail. Of course, the main reasons of Donbass rebellion were not economic, but economic factor played a big role in broad support of this rebellion in DPR and LPR.

➖The rest is well known. Without Russian subsidies and preferences Ukrainian economy was surviving solely through the government taking more and more loans creating debt burden for many generations ahead. Ukrainian industry was destroyed, Ukrainian forests were cut down and sold to Europe, Ukrainian agricultural lands ended in foreign hands and hands of local oligarchs. Ukraine did bite a hand that was feeding it and soon found out that new masters are not so generous and won’t give them anything for free.

➖As for pensions, well, average pension in Ukraine is now about $100, while it was about $160 back in 2012 and was steadily increasing. The rate of Ukrainian hryvna in 2012 was $1 = 8 UAH, while now it’s $1 = 36 UAH. Was it worth mass protests and overthrow of the government?

🕊 Peace in Europe has been a huge accomplishment, perhaps the greatest accomplishment in human history, for which every nation has signed except one. Why do Russians want to destroy that?

➖ The longest period of peace in Europe lasted from 1945 to 1991 and was the accomplishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that defeated Nazi Germany and established balance of power inside Europe.

➖This power balance of bipolar world was the only thing that prevented open wars between countries – countries within one block wouldn’t fight each other and would avoid local violence because it could trigger interference of the other block. There were few really neutral states but as the blocks were constantly ready for war with each other, there was no war.

➖The balance of power in Europe was destroyed in 1989-1991 with dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. The Soviet side has voluntarily decided to stop confrontation and made a giant step to stable peace based not on mutual assured destruction but on trust and cooperation. However, the other side was not so noble and simply declared itself a winner and started enjoying the spoils. The balance of power shifted and the strongest side thought that it has a right to decide the issues of war, peace and the way that other countries should follow.

➖Now, which “every” nations have exactly signed for peace in Europe? NATO countries? The ones that bombed Yugoslavia, which is a European country just a bit over 20 years ago? It’s not that much. 20 years is not “lasting peace”.

➖And Europe is more than just that. Is Artsakh not Europe? Is Armenia not Europe? What about Georgia? Some other continent? There have been no “peace in Europe” ever since the fall of the Warsaw pact.

➖One more thing – why is Europe so special? Why should it be safe from conflicts? How is it better than the Middle East or Africa or Asia? Conflicts don’t come out of nowhere. They come when nations see no other options. Russians are doing what they have to do. They weren’t the one who started violence. Violence was started by Russian enemies and Russia is ending it.
By the way, the only continent that had internal peace like forever is Australia. Maybe Australian indigenous people would disagree, but we can’t ask Tasmanian people about it anymore. If this is the kind of peace Europe wants in Ukraine, we better have war.

🇺🇸 U.S. military presence in Ukraine confirmed

➖ First week of November was marked with official confirmation of US military presence in Ukraine. High-ranked Pentagon official, Air Force Brigadier General Pat Ryder, has confirmed that active-duty U.S. military are deployed inside Ukraine and have “resumed on-site inspections to assess weapon stocks”.

➖ General said that these U.S. military are far away from any type of front line actions and are relying on Ukrainians to do the fighting. He did not directly respond to the question about what would these U.S. military do if deliberately or inadvertently targeted by Russian attack.
This statement followed a release of State Department report on its plans to Counter Illicit Diversion of Certain Advanced Conventional Weapons in Eastern Europe. The report referred to “a variety of criminal and non-state actors [who] may attempt to acquire weapons from sources in Ukraine during or following the conflict, as occurred after the Balkan Wars in the 1990s.

➖ However, those criminal actors are embedded in the Ukrainian military, particularly in the form of the fascistic Azov Batallion, which is playing a frontline role in the war against Russia and whose leaders have been brought to Washington and feted by Congressmen, Democrat and Republican alike.

➖ The open secret is that the actual US force presence in Ukraine is far greater even than that admitted by the Pentagon. It has been acknowledged that U.S. provides intelligence data to Ukraine, helps them choose targets and gives approval for use of certain weapons such as HIMARS.

➖ Those alleged inspectors will not really be able to find anything wrong without going directly to the front lines, as most weapon losses are registered in combat zone and the only way to verify the reports is to be actually present in the area.

➖ It is more likely that this announcement marks the increase in numbers of U.S. military advisors (now called “inspectors”) to the level when it becomes hard for Pentagon to deny their presence.

🤔 Looks like U.S. involvement in Ukraine follows a certain scheme. Supporting criminal government, getting things escalated to war, sending light military aid, sending heavy military aid, then sending military advisors. What comes next? Maybe the Gulf of Tonkin? Looks like Biden has forgotten the lessons of that war.

🇷🇺 Why does Russia justify their attempt to change the internationally recognized borders?

❗️The notion for inviolability of borders in Europe has been established by the Helsinki Act of 1975, which also rejected any use of force or intervention in internal affairs and urged the signatories to respect human rights.

☝️This Act lasted until 1990 when West Germany (FRG) annexed East Germany (GDR). This was followed by collapse of USSR, collapse of Yugoslavia, split of Czechoslovakia, Balkan wars, civil conflicts in ex-USSR, Kosovo and Russian reunion with Crimea.

➖It looks like inviolability of borders is in fact a myth that has never been true. Nations evolve, countries evolve, people change. Especially if we stop considering Europe to be something special. Post-WW2 world order stayed for almost 40 years, yet many borders were revamped and changed during and after that.

➖History knows many examples of Empire dismantling and when it happens quickly (like dissolution of Austro-Hungary) , this resulted in more conflicts in future (pre-WW2 and WW2 changes of borders in Southern Europe). Same about collapse of the Ottoman Empire that caused chaos in the Middle East and issues that are still existing (Armenians expelled from core Armenia, no state for Kurds). British Empire was dismantled in a more orderly way, but there still were conflicts.

➖So there is no wonder that not everyone on post-USSR space is happy with administrative and territorial division of the USSR. Especially since this division was arbitrary changed many times during communist rule. It happened so that Ukrainian SSR got a number of core Russian regions from USSR.

➖Yes, USSR’s administrative borders were recognized and everything was fine as long as we were parts of the same Soviet Union and the same nation of Soviet people. It really mattered only for administrative purposes and no conflicts were really serious. By the way, even Karabakh conflict wasn’t a thing in USSR times, and Armenians and Azerbaijani were not THAT hostile to each other because they both were a part of something greater.

➖So, USSR gave Ukraine Russian lands and post-Soviet Russia acknowledged it. However, this acknowledgment lasted only while Ukraine remained a friendly or neutral state and was a part of post-Soviet integration projects, such as the mostly impotent CIS.

➖In 2022 Russia got out of patience with Ukrainian hostility and now Russians are back for their lands.

🤔Russia probably didn’t do things the right way in some sense. It could have prepared formal territorial claims, withdrawn recognition of Ukraine and done other things to really legitimize its actions and formalize its demands. Russian public would probably see it as pointless waste of time, but that would be as important as running referendums on new territories.

❗️New migrant crisis

➖As Ukrainian conflict rages on, Russian missile strikes continue to disrupt operation of Ukrainian energy grid. Every day there is air alert in at least several large cities if not all. Blackouts are becoming a common thing, people in Kiev has to spend from 5 to 10 hours without electricity.

➖Ukraine’s president Zelensky ignores all Russian offers to return to negotiations and this means that these strikes will continue. European countries are helping Ukraine overcome the energy shortage, but it doesn’t really work. Total blackout is looming on the horizon and it is about to create one of the largest migration crisis in history.

➖Even Ukrainian government urges Ukrainians to leave the country. That’s yet another sign of failed state, but that’s another topic. Anyway, there are not many places where Ukrainians can go – it’s either Russia or the West. Despite all Western propaganda, millions of Ukrainians would still prefer Russia as they have friends and family ties there. However, it is unlikely that Ukrainian government will let them pass through the front lines unharmed or will let them ever come back.
Therefore, all those millions of refugees are going West. Europe is already overwhelmed by Ukrainian refugees. Initially they were welcomed everywhere but as time passed, things started to change. In light of energy crisis European governments are encouraging all possible saving measures and subsidies to people hosting refugees are among those costs that can be cut down.

➖The influx of Ukrainian migrants has already caused numerous problems. Ukrainians usually don’t speak languages of countries where they stay, they create extra burden on social security system of the host countries, they are trying to find jobs and work hard, but that is also not viewed very well. Energy crisis will inevitably increase the level of unemployment in Europe and locals won’t be happy about competition and dumping pressure from Ukrainians or anyone else.

➖The issue of housing is also pending. Very few Ukrainians managed to find any permanent place to live on their own, most are still using refugee camps or are hosted by hospitable Europeans. However, despite all this hospitability, this is not a permanent solution.

➖There will be problems even with the existing number of migrants, but if their number increases, the outcome will be catastrophic. Europe won’t be able to provide them normal living conditions, healthcare, schools, pensions, jobs. Even the richest countries such as UK, Germany and France are already facing budget problems because of energy crisis, inflation and numerous other issues. They are spending billions every month to subsidize housing, food, healthcare and schools for Ukrainian migrants, but those billions are needed elsewhere and, moreover, available resources are limited.

➖Zelensky is using the situation to blackmail Europeans demanding multi-billion subsidies and supply of energy and power grid equipment threatening to send more migrants across the border. Ukrainians don’t matter anything to him or his clique. Although Ukrainian nationalists are hysterical about their ethnic superiority, it seems they don’t mind if their people become nomads and will get involved in various unqualified if not criminal jobs in the “civilized West”.

⏱The clock is ticking.

❓NATO threat to Russia – Real or imaginary?

➖Typical Western propaganda keeps talking about NATO posing no threat to Russia and membership in NATO being a free choice of members and saying that Russia should have been forging better relations with its neighbors to prevent them from joining NATO. Many Americans and Europeans sincerely believe this.

➖This is a problem of key difference in perception between the West and Russia. How could Russia know that NATO posed no threat? Because NATO said so? Russians saw more and more countries joining the alliance, Russians saw NATO military bases moving closer and closer to Russian borders. What should they think? That NATO are fluffy bunnies and don’t want to hurt anybody?

➖Maybe it was pure coincidence that leading NATO countries criticized Russian way of life, called Russia an authoritarian tyranny, accused Russia of imperialistic ambitions. They were constantly stating that Russia needs “more democracy” and used Russian relaxed laws to overwhelm the country with their NGOs, which supported street populists and most anti-government and anti-patriotic forces, including most notorious.

➖NATO actions very closely resembled scenarios of color revolutions that destroyed many countries and have not brought any good results in any single case. Maybe Russians should have believed that the West knows better how they should live, what should be their values and how should their country behave globally?
Forging better relations is a great idea but nobody can say that Russia did not try it. However, these attempts were always met with strong opposition of NATO leaders. So how could Russia do it? With money? Money does not buy everything and Russia did not resort to cheap and empty promises, although that is what people really see.

➖Let’s take Ukraine. Russia subsidized Ukraine for decades ever since USSR collapse. Russia sometimes sold gas to Ukraine cheaper than to its local consumers, Russia provided Ukraine with cheap loans, Russia gave Ukraine trade preferences. Did it help? No. Why? Because the collective West uses its money not to help countries but to get control of mass media in those countries.

➖NATO leaders have decades of experience in PR technologies and promoting their agenda. They control English-language mainstream media that cover more than half of the world. They are not charities, they don’t help countries, but promote bright pictures of their own prosperity and imply that it’s easy to get that. They are not saying anything about the real costs.

➖For example, Russia offered multi-billion orders to Ukrainian industry. The West offered nice European picture. Just join the West, join EU, join NATO and you’ll be safe and prosperous. Sign this association agreement and you’ll get rich next day. No need to look at real conditions.

➖What did Ukraine choose? And it’s not just Ukraine. Georgia and Moldova also took this road, Armenia changed its mind when it was already too late and Belarus avoided serious turmoil only because of its close integration with Russia.

➖So, did NATO pose a threat to Russia? Yes. NATO bases and arms in Europe presented military threat to Russia, while NATO countries attempted to interfere in Russian internal politics and actively worked to undermine Russian relations with neighboring countries. Doesn’t look friendly, huh?

🇺🇸Future of oil industry and European market 💵US oil & gas companies have announced excellent financial results and plans for expanding LNG production. 🔷This revival of U.S. oil industry is largely credited to sanctions against Russia that resulted in collapse of Russian supplies to Europe and their partial replacement with supplies from U.S. It looks like U.S. oil companies don’t worry much about maintaining low fuel prices in the country but are instead planning to maximize their export profits. 🔷Considering hyper profits from LNG export to Europe, these companies decided to invest some of their proceeds in construction of new LNG facilities in Texas and other U.S. regions specifically for European supplies. Expected production volume of those facilities is sufficient to fully replace Russian gas supplies to Europe. 🔷Here comes the interesting part – these LNG facilities won’t be built a matter of no time, but in a period of 5-10 years, while the investments have already been allocated. This means that U.S. oil companies are absolutely confident that Europe will not return to Russian gas in mid-term perspective, or else they wouldn’t make such commitments. ❓What do U.S. oil companies know that the general public does not? Looks like they either expect the Ukrainian conflict to run for many years or they expect Russian victory and preservation of anti-Russian sanctions. U.S. oil companies have been traditionally affiliated with the Republican party and the Republican party is now winning the midterms (which was expected when oil companies announced their plans). 🔷Whichever is the scenario they expect, it does not include Ukrainian victory or any other result that would be acceptable to collective West enough to lift sanctions from Russia. Good to know that they have seemingly dumped their plans to turn Russia into a resource colony. 🔷As for Europe, it seems that they are absolutely confident that Europeans will buy anything that US offers. Essentially it is so because Europe does not have any other choices other than the choice between US and Russia. Scenario envisaged by U.S. oil companies implies that Europe will keep getting U.S. LNG, European industry will lose all its competitive advantages and won’t be able to compete with U.S. industry anywhere and European countries will largely depend on U.S. supplies to survive each and every year. 🙅‍♂️Europeans broke energy ties with Russia yelling about Russian potential to weaponize energy dependence of Europe and use it to influence European decisions. However, it looks like they have no worries about being even more dependent on the US and paying much more for it. European politicians seem to be OK with this change. The question is, will they convince the European people about it or will we see some changes? ☝️Whatever will happen, Europe is facing hard times ahead. U.S. plants will be constructed and commissions only in 5-10 years and before that Europe will have to resort to drastic energy saving measures just to survive. Restoration of ties with Russia is the only way for them to avoid deep decline with inevitable collapse in not so distant future. ❓Was support of neo-Nazi Ukrainian regime worth it?

❕Ukrainian air defense goes thin

▫️Ukrainian minister of defense Reznikov has welcomed arrival of NASAMS and Aspide air defense and thanked the U.S., Norway and Spain for their support, also mentioning that these supplies would make Ukrainian skies safer and will enable them hitting more targets.

▫️Is this a game changer? Hardly so, it’s rather an attempt to pretend that things are going well in the crumbling Ukrainian kingdom. The thing is, Ukrainian minister didn’t say how many of those systems were supplied and we know that Ukraine was promised only eight NASAMS in the course of a year or more, so it is unlikely that they got more than 1-2 of them in the first batch of supply.

▫️Characteristics of NASAMS systems are not better than those of S-300 that are currently used by Ukraine and their main advantage is coordinated response.

These systems show their best when they are used in large networks of dozens or hundreds, which is able to automatically pick the best battery to stop a specific target considering range, speed, weather and numerous other factors.

▫️Supply of one or two systems will not change anything globally, a dozen of such systems may secure a large facility or a medium-sized city, but Ukraine doesn’t even expect that volume and it was never promised to it. Western countries may send them some reserves but not the real thing they are using.

▫️As for Aspide, they are short-range systems developed about 50 years ago. Spanish army has both old and upgraded versions of those systems and it hasn’t been clarified whether Ukraine will receive Aspide 1985 or Aspide 2000. Regardless of that, Spain vouched to supply Ukraine only one battery with max. 25 km missile flight distance.

▫️In essence, it means that Ukraine just got a couple launchers that are not compatible with its main air defense system, which is based on S-300 batteries. It is also unclear whether Ukrainian military personnel is properly trained to operate these systems.

▫️Now comes the interesting part. According to estimates, back in April Ukraine had over a hundred of S-300 batteries, but many of those batteries have already been disabled by Russian missile strikes. The remaining batteries are the only shield that protects Ukraine from total Russian air domination.

▫️However, Ukraine is not capable to produce or maintain S-300 batteries and S-300 missiles. Their stock is limited and Russian strikes on ammunition warehouses did a lot to deplete those stocks. When Ukraine inevitablу runs out of S-300 missiles, few Western batteries won’t be able to create a serious threat for Russian aircraft and Russia will fully control skies of Ukraine.

▫️There are so many thin points for Ukraine in this conflict and ammunition is one of those weak points. Western countries are almost out of their own stocks and even U.S. production capacity is not sufficient to replenish ammo than Ukraine uses every month.

▫️Another weak point of new systems supplied by the West is that they are not so effective against smaller targets such as drones and are an easy prey for those. Of course, we have yet to see them in action, but something tells that Western countries will reconsider the idea of supplying air defense to Ukraine pretty soon.

👀Something’s boiling up in Germany

🇩🇪While German government keeps treading in toe with the U.S. on its relationship with Russia, public moods in Germany are gradually changing.

🙅‍♂️Germany has already seen a number of protests against EU sanctions on Russia like the one in Dresden on October 30th. Those thousands of Germans don’t want to starve or freeze for Ukrainian President Zelensky’s war that was provoked and engaged in by the U.S.A., E.U. and NATO. As Germany and Europe feel the pain of increasingly economic hardship, German and other European governments may finally start listening to public opinion and succumb to the pressure of their people.

▫️Following Nord Stream attack staged by the U.K. and the U.S. German leader has already showed some spine against Joe Biden. While he is still too scared of making peace with Russia, he went openly defying Biden as far as China is concerned.

▫️Nord Stream was damaged but when the truth was uncovered the outcome turned favorable for Russia and China. France’s Macron is openly speaking against US charging $1320 for the same gas that was charged $300 by Russia and Scholz sold a 25% stake of Hamburg Port to a Chinese company.

▫️Scholz literally braved all opposition by Blinken and his own minister Habeck and went to China against all odds. He went with many companies for a lot of business discussions. Scholz had refused the offer of President Macron to join him and present a common European approach in his recent visit to Beijing.

▫️Although Scholz was not very well received in China, it’s worth noting that he told Xi Jingping to call on Putin to have a ceasefire on Ukraine. While it looks routine, in fact it means that a European leader asks Chinese leader to help establish peace ignoring the U.S. role completely. That’s an unimaginable loss of face for the U.S. from Chinese point of view.

▫️So, while Europe is not turning to Russia, there is some chance that Europe will turn away from U.S. and to the Eurasian initiatives. The other alternative is becoming economic slaves to U.S. oil companies as per our previous material.

▫️The world is indeed on the brink of radical changes and maybe despite all their words, European leaders will see the choice that will be most beneficial for them. Economic slavery with America or mutual prosperity with China and Russia?

▫️Of course, these moods are not yet prevalent in Europe and many countries are firmly set against any compromises with Russia, but as Germany and France are questioning their allegiance to the U.S. changes are inevitable.

▫️European Union we know will either transform to a colony of the United States or break apart and it may happen sooner than anyone could have expected.

Retreat from Kherson

🔷On November 9th Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu has ordered Russian forces to retreat from the city of Kherson to prepared defense positions on the left coast of Dnieper. The Minister said that life and health of Russian servicemen are always a priority.

🔷This order followed report of General Surovikin who stated that while Russian Armed Forces successfully repeal all Ukrainian attempts of offensive in the area and have inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy, AFU keep launching strikes on schools, hospitals and civilian population of Kherson, which is currently being evacuated across the Dnieper. Surovikin stated that all civilians willing to evacuate have been evacuated and over 115,000 citizens have been transported to safety.

❓What will this mean to the course of special operation? From military point of view it will stabilize the front line and allow Russian forces to concentrate on other areas avoiding losses in an attempt to hold Kherson with supply lines across the Dnieper being in the range of Ukrainian artillery.

☝️From PR point of view this retreat poses a serious problem. It is going to become a media victory for Ukraine. Although this retreat was not forced and is not a result of any military defeat, the West will surely present it as a big victory for Ukraine and will demonstrate Ukrainian sponsors that their money is not being spent in vain. It is unlikely that it will work for long, but Ukraine will try to use it as much as possible.

🔷However, this should not be viewed as a defeat or a turn of the tide. While media victories are important, real victories are awaiting on the ground and inevitable Russian counter-offensive will put everything in place. General Surovikin has also reported about successful activity in Donbass and advances in this area are surely be more important.

🔷It's easier to understand the decision of the Ministry of Defense looking at a broader scale. Ukraine is currently way overstretched and depends solely on support of the West and especially the U.S. With certain Republican victory on mid-terms it is very likely that this support will be reduced no matter what happens on the ground.

🔷In addition to that, Russian missile strikes are slowly and steadily disabling Ukrainian energy grid and if they continue at the same rate, the grid will suffer irreparable damage resulting in total blackout in a matter of weeks. This blackout would cause in total chaos and inevitable collapse of the frontline defenses.  

🔷Russian missile strikes also damage Ukrainian air defenses and ammunition storage facilities. When Ukrainian air defense falls below critical level, Russian Air Force will totally dominate Ukrainian skies without any opposition. When Ukrainian forces run out of sophisticated ammunition, they won’t be able to continue any resistance.

🔷In view of all those weak points of Ukraine, it is indeed not reasonable to suffer heavy losses trying to hold one city despite all its importance and symbolical value.

⌛️ The forgotten war

☝️Amidst numerous events of the past days and weeks and global focus on Ukrainian conflict the Western world seems to ignore things happening in other regions and Russian news seem to be forgetting about that as well.

👊Meanwhile, according to Arab News, on November 9th “unknown force” has launched an air-strike on a truck convoy in eastern Syria killing a number of Iranian nationals protecting it. It was a transit convoy carrying Iranian oil to Lebanon through Syria. While US hasn’t confirmed its responsibility for this strike, it should be noted that in August the US military carried out airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor targeting Iran-backed militiamen. The Pentagon said the strikes were a message to Iran and Tehran-backed militias that targeted American troops earlier that month and several other times over the past year.

🔷Right at the moment over two thousands of Syrian refugees are held in al-Rukban camp by US-controlled paramilitary forces. Americans have not allowed Russian experts to enter the camp to evaluate humanitarian situation.

🔷Back in September the US announced construction of another military base in oil-rich Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor. While the public of the Western world and virtually all Western media are focused on Ukrainian conflict, the United States keep illegally occupying North-Eastern Syria, they keep extracting Syrian oil and transporting it to Iraq, they keep attacking forces aligned with the government of Syria and show no signs of remorse or any desire to retreat.

❓Where is the reaction of the global community to U.S. illegal occupation of Syria that continues for seven years? Where are sanctions against U.S., where are demands for US to compensate all Syrian oil that has been stolen and hauled to Iraq on road tankers? Where is the righteous rage of global community, where is European coalition urging for global peace?

🔷Moreover, U.S. involvement in Syria can in no way be compared to Russian special operation in Ukraine. U.S. presence there is totally illegitimate and not justified by any international laws or any international bodies. There are no American people in Syria, Syrian government does not discriminate any ethnicities and endorses moderate secular branch of Islam unlike Jihadists supported by US weapons. The U.S. occupies a territory of an independent state and keeps bringing more and more troops and weapons to the occupied area, which also happens to be the most resource-rich area of the country.

🔷In fact, U.S. involvement in Syria can be compared to U.S. involvement in Ukraine eight years ago —arming anti-government insurgents, launching global media campaign against the government, promising all support to the opposition. They won in Ukraine but they didn’t yet win in Syria and decided to keep the sweet part of the country for themselves.

🔷Another parallel, U.S. intervention in Syria gave rise to ISIS and U.S. intervention in Ukraine gave rise to neo-Nazis. Maybe there is something wrong with U.S. interventions as they result in rise of the most notorious forces?

🔷As for Syria, there are little chances that U.S. forces will leave the country voluntarily. Russian protection prevents the new start of the civil war but as Russia focuses more on Ukraine remnants of Jihadist radicals may rise their heads once again.