At Current Burn Rates The U.S. Guesstimates It Has Between A 10-14 Year Total Supply

 

wikipedia |  Proven oil reserves are those quantities of petroleum which, by analysis of geological and engineering data, can be estimated, with a high degree of confidence, to be commercially recoverable from a given date forward from known reservoirs and under current economic conditions.

Some statistics on this page are disputed and controversial. Different sources (OPEC, CIA World Factbook, oil companies) give different figures. Some of the differences reflect different types of oil included. Different estimates may or may not include oil shale, mined oil sands or natural gas liquids.

Because proven reserves include oil recoverable under current economic conditions, nations may see large increases in proven reserves when known, but previously uneconomic deposits become economic to develop. In this way, Canada's proven reserves increased suddenly in 2003 when the oil sands of Alberta were seen to be economically viable. Similarly, Venezuela's proven reserves jumped in the late 2000s when the heavy oil of the Orinoco Belt was judged economic. 

Reserves amounts are listed in millions of barrels. The column "Years of production in reserve" uses the daily production figures as of 2016^[5] (multiplied by 365).

* indicates "Oil reserves in COUNTRY or TERRITORY" or "Energy in COUNTRY or TERRITORY" links.

Proven reserves (millions of barrels)

Country	US EIA [6]	OPEC [7]	BP [8]	Others	Oil production 2020 (bbl/day)[9]	Years of production in reserve
Venezuela *(OPEC)	303,806	302,809	300,900		527,063	1,578
Saudi Arabia *(OPEC)	258,600	266,260	266,000		9,264,921	76
Iran *(OPEC)	208,600	[10] 208,600	155,600		2,665,809	214
Canada *	170,300	4,421	172,200	[11] 171,000	4,201,101	111
Iraq *(OPEC)	145,019	147,223	143,100		4,102,311	97
Kuwait *(OPEC)	101,500	104,000	104,000		2,625,145	106
United Arab Emirates *(OPEC)	97,800	98,630	98,630		3,138,249	85
Russia *	80,000	80,000	102,400		9,865,495	22
Libya *(OPEC)	48,363	74,363	78,400		408,074	324
United States *	47,107	32,773	55,000	[12] 43,629	11,307,560	11
Nigeria *(OPEC)	36,890	37,453	37,100		1,775,940	57
Kazakhstan *	30,000	30,000	30,000		1,756,705	47
China *	26,022	25,627	18,500		3,888,989	18
Qatar *	25,244	25,244	25,244		1,530,000	45
Brazil *	12,714	12,634	13,000	[12] 16,848	2,939,950	12
Algeria *(OPEC)	12,200	12,200	12,200		1,122,432	30
Guyana *				10,000[13]	83,174	329
Ecuador	8,273	8,273	8,000		479,371	47
Norway *	8,122	6,376	8,000		1,712,937	13
Angola *(OPEC)	7,783	8,384	12,700		1,249,678	17
Azerbaijan *	7,000	7,000	7,000		693,880	28
Mexico *	5,786	6,537	10,800	[14] 9.700	1,710,303	9
Oman *	5,373	5,373	5,300		948,967	16
Sudan *	5,000	5,000	1,500		64,740	211
India *	4,604	4,495	5,680	[12] 4,409	627,415	20
Vietnam *	4,400	4,400	4,000		193,264	62
Malaysia *	3,600	3,600	3,600	[12] 5,542	541,017	18
Egypt *	3,300	4,400	3,500		586,735	15
Yemen *	3,000		3,000		66,000	124
Congo(OPEC)	2,882		1,600		282,541	28
United Kingdom *	2,500	2,069	2,800	2,618	947,208	7
Syria *	2,500	2,500	2,500		35,000	196
Uganda *	2,500
Argentina *	2,482	2,162	2,400	2,330	440,335	15
Indonesia *	2,480	3,310	3,600	[12] 3,497	712,112	10
Australia *	2,446	3,985	4,000	4,002	351,180	19
Colombia *	2,036	1,665	2,300		791,844	7
Gabon *(OPEC)	2,000	2,000	2,000		173,634	56
Chad *	1,500		1,500		115,817	35
Brunei *	1,100	1,100	1,100		98,642	31
Equatorial Guinea *(OPEC)	1,100		1,100		147,563	20
Peru *	858		1,400	[12] 1,489	40,386	58
Ghana *	660				199,478	9
Romania *	600		600		67,574	24
Turkmenistan *	600	600	600		184,579	9
Uzbekistan *	594	594	600		37,997	43
Pakistan *	540			[12] 236	79,112	19
Italy *	497		600	[12] 595	100,514	14
Denmark *	441	439	600	[12] 550	71,339	17
Tunisia *	425		400		30,738	38
Ukraine *	395	395			33,577	32
Turkey *	366			[12] 284	61,757	16
Thailand *	252		400		202,117	3
Trinidad and Tobago *	242		700	[12] 830	56,556	12
Bolivia *	240			[12] 210	60,161	11
Cameroon *	200				66,749	8
Belarus *	198	198			34,249	16
Bahrain *	186				43,000	12
DR Congo	180				23,000	21
Papua New Guinea *	159			[12] 158	40,249	11
Albania *	150				14,331	29
Chile *	150				1,582	260
Niger *	150				9,497	43
Spain *	150				628	654
Myanmar *	139				8,833	43
Philippines	138				12,249	31
Netherlands	137			[12] 141	14,579	26
Cuba *	124			[12] 124	41,079	8
Germany *	115			[12] 229	37,508	8
Poland *	113			[12] 151	18,765	16
Ivory Coast *	100				36,746	7
Suriname	89				14,915	16
Guatemala	86				7,749	30
Serbia *	77				15,249	14
Croatia *	71				11,749	17
France *	61				12,910	13
Japan *	44				4,333	28
New Zealand *	40				18,579	6
Kyrgyzstan *	40				1,000	110
Austria *	35				10,822	9
Georgia *	35				400	240
Bangladesh *	28				3,000	26
Mauritania *	20
Bulgaria *	15				1,000	41
Czech Republic *	15	15.0			2,000	21
South Africa *	15	15			1,000	41
Israel *	12			[12] 12	300	110
Hungary *	12			[12] 35	16,418	2
Lithuania *	12				2,000	16
Tajikistan *	12				180	183
Greece *	10				1,831	15
Slovakia *	9				200	123
Benin *	8
Belize *	6				1,700	10
Taiwan *	2				196	28
Barbados	1				1,000	3
Jordan *	1			[12] 1
Morocco *	0.6				160	10
Ethiopia *	0.4
Kenya *	0		750
South Sudan					162,475
Mongolia *					17,582
East Timor *					14,000
Portugal *					12,932
World	1,661,905	1,535,773	1,750,600		76,137,732	60

 wikipedia |  This list is based on CIA The World Factbook (when no citation is given).^[1] or other authoritative third-party sources (as cited). Based on data from EIA, at the start of 2021, proved gas reserves were dominated by three countries: Iran, Russia, and Qatar.

There is some disagreement on which country has the largest proven gas reserves. Sources that consider that Russia has by far the largest proven reserves include the US CIA (47600 cubic kilometers),^[2] the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) (49000 km³),^[3] and OPEC (48810 km³).^[4] However, BP credits Russia with only 32900 km³,^[5] which would place it in second place, slightly behind Iran (33100 to 33800 km³, depending on the source).

Due to constant announcements of shale gas recoverable reserves, as well as drilling in Central Asia, South America and Africa, deepwater drilling, estimates are undergoing frequent updates, mostly increasing. Since 2000, some countries, notably the US and Canada, have seen large increases in proved gas reserves due to development of shale gas, but shale gas deposits in most countries are yet to be added to reserve calculations. 

Proven Reserves (km³)

Country	U.S. EIA (start of 2021)[6]	OPEC (start of 2018)[7]	BP (start of 2018)[8]	Other	Production km³/year (in 2020)[9]	Years of production in reserve[10]
Russia *	47,798	50,617	35,000		624	77
Iran *	33,980	33,810	33,200		238 (2019)	143
Qatar *	23,871	23,861	24,900		167 (2019)	143
Saudi Arabia	15,910 (2022)	8,715	8,000		114	140
United States *	13,167 (2020)	9,067	8,700		947	14
Turkmenistan *	11,326	9,838	19,500		84 (2019)	135
China *	6,654	2,934	5,500		179 (2019)	37
United Arab Emirates *	6,088	6,091	5,900		63	97
Nigeria *	5,748	5,627	5,200	5,932[11]	46 (2019)	125
Venezuela *	5,663	5,707	6,400		23 (2019)	246
Algeria *	4,502	4,504	4,300		88 (2019)	51
Iraq *	3,738	3,744	3,500		11 (2019)	340
Australia *	3,228	3,173	3,600		146 (2019)	22
Mozambique *	2,832				5 (2019)	566
Canada *	2,067	2,059	1,900		179 (2019)	12
Uzbekistan *	1,841	1,564	1,200		47 (2019)	39
Kazakhstan *	1,840	1,898	1,100		26 (2019)	71
Egypt *	1,784	2,221	1,800		77 (2019)	23
Kuwait *	1,784	1,784	1,700		20 (2019)	89
Azerbaijan *	1,699	1,227	2,800		23 (2019)	74
Norway *	1,557	2,314	1,700		112	14
Libya	1,501	1,505	1,400		11(2019)	136
Indonesia *	1,415	2,866	2,900		63	22
India *	1,388	1,289	1,200		28	50
Malaysia *	1,189	2,909	2,700		75 (2019)	16
Ukraine *	1,104	304	1,100		20 (2019)	55
Vietnam *	708	203	600		8 (2019)	88
Oman *	651	884	700		37 (2019)	18
Myanmar *	651	273	1,200		18 (2019)	36
Pakistan *	595	757	400		38 (2019)	16
Yemen *	481		300		0.09 (2019)	5,344
Argentina *	396	381	300		41	10
Brazil *	368	325	400		25 (2019)	15
Angola *	339	422			7 (2019)	48
Peru *	311	513	400		12	26
Trinidad and Tobago *	311	433	300		31	10
Bolivia *	311	310	300		15 (2019)	21
Congo *	283	111			1.4 (2019)	202
Brunei *	261	252			12	22
Syria	241	300	300		4 (2019)	60
Papua New Guinea	184		200		12	15
Mexico	181	146	200		27 (2019)	7
United Kingdom *	181	269	200		40 (2019)	5
Israel *	176		500		10 (2019)	18
Thailand *	139	180	200		38 (2019)	4
Equatorial Guinea *	139	145			5 (2019)	28
Cameroon *	135	152			3 (2019)	45
Netherlands *	133	804	700		33 (2019)	4
Bangladesh *	127	346	200	[12] 385	29 (2019)	4
Romania *	105	105	100		10 (2019)	10
Philippines	99				4 (2019)	25
Chile *	99	5.30			1	99
Poland *	90	56.3	100		5.66	16
Colombia *	88	104	100		11	8
Sudan *	85				0	-
Bahrain *	82		200		18 (2019)	5
Cuba *	71				1 (2019)	71
Tunisia *	65				1 (2019)	65
Namibia	62				0	-
Rwanda *	57				0	-
Afghanistan *	51				0.08	638
Serbia *	48				0.45 (2019)	107
Italy *	45	27.1	100		4	11
New Zealand *	31				5	6
Ivory Coast *	28				2.44	11
Mauritania *	28				0	-
Denmark *	28	73.9	100		1.3	22
Gabon *	26	25.5			0.31 (2019)	84
Croatia	25				0.85	29
Ethiopia *	25				0	-
Georgia	8.5+16 [13]	8.5			0.02 (2019)	1,225
Germany	23	39.6	100		5 (2019)	5
Ghana	23				1.56 (2019)	15
Japan *	20				1.93	10
Moldova	-			[14] 20	0.006 (2019)	3,333
Slovakia	14				0.06	233
Uganda	14				0	-
Ecuador	11	5.4			0.34 (2019)	32
Ireland *	11				2.66 (2019)	4
South Korea *	8.5				0.24 (2019)	35
Austria	5.66				0.93 (2019)	6
Tanzania *	5.66				1.39 (2019)	4
Taiwan *	5.66				0.15 (2019)	38
Jordan *	5.66				0.12 (2019)	47
Bulgaria	5.66				0.06	94
Somalia *	5.66				0	-
Tajikistan	5.66				0.02 (2019)	283
Kyrgyzstan	5.66				0.03 (2019)	189
Albania	5.66				0.04 (2019)	142
South Africa *	-			[15] 3	1.22 (2019)	2
Turkey *	2.83			300TPAO estimate	0.48 (2019)	6
Czech Republic	2.83				0.19	15
Belarus *	2.83				2.4 (2019)	1.2
Hungary *	2.8				1.7	1.6
Spain	2.55				0.06	42
Morocco *	1.44	474			0.1 (2019)	14
Benin	1.13				0	-
DR Congo	0.99				0	-
Greece	0.99				0.01	99
Barbados	0.11				0.02 (2019)	6
Armenia *	0	18.0			0	-

 

Who Among Us Has Deeply Pondered The USonian Rationale?

Rather, they either become consumed by tactical battlefield analyses, or start to fixate on Russia's existential position. Case in point, once the Khazarian bio-labs in Izyium an

But who here is considering the USA's rationale? As the lion, shark or spider must kill to eat, so too must an empire based on debt money consume all available resources. And who has the globe's last great stores? 

What happens to the $USD if we can't access/control these resources to ensure that the dollar power lives on?

This is why Ukraine is really the OK corral. - we're all in. But how do we ensure success? The same way we always have - by establishing the "victims" moral authority to engage in total war. In this case, total war can be rationalized that a desperate Russia used the first battlefield nuke. Why would they do that? Because they were losing so badly as to be on verge of system wide collapse.

How do we "know" Russia is losing across a collapsing front? Because the massed social media (troll army flooding all platforms) repeats the claim as virtual shock troops while the broader audience is bombarded by the MSM.

What is your take away? Patreaus, et al are telling anybody paying attention that we will escalate and retaliate with nuclear weapons as justification for Russia's "first strike".

The Nordstream false flag was just a dry run.

"Russia will attack other Russian pipelines soon" says John Brennan.

Translation: The US will blow up Turkstream. https://t.co/riSbbyhtg9

— Rosie's Social Media Madhouse! (@DarnelSugarfoo) October 3, 2022

Perhaps the global social conversation should move away from passive topical discussion to more actively sounding world-wide alarm:

Whereas,

1. The $US dollar system requires constant expansionary growth to survive;

2. Credit expansion demands energy inputs along the entire cycle of production, delivery, use and service;

3. The world's last great stores of critical natural resources reside within Russia's geographic boundaries and remain under Russia's political control;

4. Ukraine is being used as a fulcrum to advance the collapse of the Russian state to facilitate resource expropriation for the West;

5. The USA lacks any feasible way forward to achieving victory in Ukraine by limiting itself to the use of conventional force of arms;

6. US failure in Ukraine will lead to a collapse of dollar dependent Western political and socio-economic institutions, including the MIC, Federal Reserve and perhaps the U.S. government itself;

7. Failure vis-a-vis Russia in the Ukraine theater therefore threatens the USA with a direct, critical existentional crisis;

8. US policy and decision makers may have already concluded that a Sampson option via escalation represents the most logical option if the USA as it currently exists were to fail anyway.

Therefore,

It is concluded that global and worldwide political leaders, influential persons and other interested voices should appeal to more rationale minds within the U.S. government to reconsider contemplating this course of action.

The Sampson option.

Let's review basic game theory: if the USA (by that i mean the $USD) is guaranteed to lose under existing, conventional circumstances - then why not gamble that your 1 or 2 reply may be defeated/prevented and/or forestalled?

If they too fail, where's the net incremental loss?

You're an American - you know that a failure of the $USD brings down the entire socio political edifice and functioning economy that supports the MIC, FIRE, and those of us peasants not eke-ing out paycheck-to-paycheck survival.

In other words, Russia represents an existential threat to our very way of life.

And what is our takeaway from all the above?

Russia is losing so badly that in a final desperate act to forestall a total government collapse, madman Putin WILL resort to utilizing nuclear weapons.

At that point the collective west will be fully justified in retaliating in like manner and possible escalating in order to defeat the threat of an evil Putin/Russia.

Since the west ($USD) must have Russia’s resources in order to survive, a drawn out, protracted settlement, truce, stalemate in Ukraine doesn't do us any good.

Time is on Russia’s side, not ours. We must collapse, divide & plunder NOW in order to prevail. We can't do that via conventional means, so we must use nuclear weapons.

Finally, we MUST BE ABLE TO blame Russia in order to assert a "victims" moral authority.

 

Further Consideration Of Legality From The Russian Point Of View

This is an important element that from the beginning has underpinned Putin's and Lavrov's interventions. In accordance with the international right of peoples to self-determination, the LPR and DPR referendums concerned only accession to the Russian Federation within the geographical boundaries of the oblasts. Independence referendums had already been held in 2014.

The two maps from September and October are easy to read. The troops of LPR and therefore Russia, now since today or tomorrow morning (only when the entry into force of the texts to be enacted) have withdrawn from a territory that remains Ukraine between the administrative border and Oskil.

Part of the territory of Donetsk Oblast is occupied by the Ukrainian army. Liman is legally irrelevant.

The "regions" of Kherson and Zaporoje were consulted on their independence, where they were liberated and only the part controlled at the time of enactment is supposed to become Russian territory.

Russia can even claim to have legally respected the will of the people and just demand (ultimatum) the withdrawal of Ukrainians from Donetsk Oblast of Russia.

NATO and the little penis piano player in Kiev won't do it.

Going forward, the Russian counter-attack will then be legally justified as invasion of Russian oblasts by Ukraine. One can even consider Zelensky's outgassings today as a declaration of genocidal war.

We will know in a few days if the Russian army is out of ammunition, or, merely waiting for a legal framework to go to war in earnest.

mid.ru |  Question: What should people do if they live on Russian territory by right that is in fact occupied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (VSU)?

Sergey Lavrov: The issue of borders is described in the conclusion of the Constitutional Court. This issue has moved to the fore now that Russia has launched the discussion of the constitutional laws on the admission of four new entities into the Russian Federation. Read the conclusion of the Constitutional Court. It explains everything clearly. Senator Andrey Klishas, who is speaking now, also commented on this issue. You will have an opportunity to discuss it with him in more detail.

Question: If we are correct, a transitional period will last until 2024.

Sergey Lavrov: If you read the laws that are being adopted now you’d note that they mention 2026 as the completion of the transitional period.

Question: Is it essential to win the recognition of this admission to Russia by other states?

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely not. Of course, it would be better if all countries of the world recognised this new and inevitable reality. We have cited a huge number of judicial arguments, including references to the UN Charter that seals the principle of equality and self-determination of nations, and the UN General Assembly Declaration that makes it clear that all countries should respect the territorial integrity of states with governments which recognise the right to self-determination and represent the whole people belonging to the territory of a country.

Obviously, the Vladimir Zelensky regime, just as the Pyotr Poroshenko regime before it, not only never met these criteria but also crudely violated them. The residents of Donbass would and will never agree that those who illegally seized power in Kiev represent their people that live in this region and other parts of Ukraine where the residents feel inextricably linked with the Russian civilisation.

In terms of international law, it would be important for all countries to display a responsible approach and recognise this obvious, objective reality. We are seeing how far the West has gone in its anti-Russia frenzy. Obviously, lacking convincing arguments in its favour, it is trying to intimidate all other countries, primarily, the developing nations (in Asia, Africa and Latin America) by resorting to threats and blackmail to compel them to denounce Russia. This is yet further evidence of the weakness of the West’s position. If you feel you are right, express your opinion on this or other international events and let others determine independently, like adults, whose arguments sound more convincing: those of Russia and the residents of Donbass that do not want to be under the neo-Nazi regime or those of the collective West that proclaimed Kiev “the beacon of democracy” and swore to fight until the last Ukrainian to weaken Russia as much as possible and probably even to divide it.

I guarantee that the majority of countries understand perfectly well that we are right. Not everyone has the courage and power to talk about this straight. The overwhelming majority are refusing to join the West in the economic and other sanctions pressure on the Russian Federation.

I am convinced that the truth will make its way, regardless of whether the West wants it or not. The scenario that is proceeding now has been prompted by life itself and relies on the free expression of the people’s will. Any other actions – the artificial fuelling of confrontation, mobilisation of anti-Russia forces, threats or blackmail – are anti-historical and will get lost into oblivion. The will of the people will last forever.

 

Tear-Stricken? Satan's Hold On Your Soul Is Far Deeper Than You Imagine...,

variety  |  The tear-stricken faces peering up adoringly at James Bond producer Michael G. Wilson, seated in the royal box at Royal Albert Hall, during a lengthy standing ovation at “The Sound of 007” concert said it all: It’s not just movie music — the music, for this franchise at least, is the movie.

Tuesday’s charity event at London’s grandest venue preceded the Oct. 5 release of feature documentary “The Sound of 007” on Amazon’s Prime Video (the streamer’s top executives for Europe were, unsurprisingly, in the box next to the Bond guardians), and didn’t hesitate to remind both Bond novices and grizzled veterans that the franchise is virtually synonymous with some of cinema’s most iconic tracks. 

The concert — part of a cavalcade of events marking the British spy’s 60th anniversary on screen — was produced and overseen by five-time Bond composer David Arnold, who was front and centre the entire evening, shredding with Hans Zimmer on an electric guitar or belting out late Soundgarden frontman Chris Cornell’s divisive rock anthem “You Know My Name,” from “Casino Royale.” Arnold was musical director for Danny Boyle’s London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony, but this — you could tell — was a night he relished.

Dame Shirley Bassey, who dazzled Royal Albert Hall at the BAFTA Film Awards in March, was back to kick off the concert with “Diamonds are Forever” and “Goldfinger.” (The audience gave Bassey a standing ovation well before she’d even sung a single note.) Other vocalists included the movies’ original performing artists Lulu and Garbage, who sang “The Man With the Golden Gun” and “The World is Not Enough,” respectively, and were warmly received by fans.

Other standouts included BRIT School graduates and powerhouse singers Emma Lindars, who ably took on Adele’s hit song “Skyfall,” and Ella Eyre, who smashed both “Licence to Kill” and “Nobody Does it Better.” Deborah Anne Dyer, better known as Skin, also put her own riff on Paul McCartney’s “Live and Let Die” with thrilling results. Performers were accompanied by the spectacular Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra conducted by Nicholas Dodd, which had many in raptures over a three-minute rendition of “Come In 007” from “The World Is Not Enough.”

It’s puzzling why Billie Eilish’s “No Time to Die” title track or even Sam Smith’s “Writing’s On the Wall” from “Spectre” were omitted, but one can only assume that Arnold and his team were keen to pay homage to the 60-year-old franchise’s older films, such as “Thunderball” and “The Spy Who Loved Me” (both of which received moving orchestral pieces) in addition to the more pop-heavy entries of the last decade.

The evening also paid tribute to the late John Barry, who arranged the original Bond theme tune for the first movie and wrote for 11 of the films. Don Black, a lyricist for several Bond pics and a close friend of Barry’s, regaled the audience with memories of the debonair British composer, who once described writing “The Living Daylights” for the titular movie with Norway’s A-ha to “playing table tennis with four balls.”

 

OPEC+ - Led By Russia - Smacks The Taste Out Of Brandon's Mouth

cnbc  |  A group of some of the world’s most powerful oil producers on Wednesday agreed to impose deep output cuts, seeking to spur a recovery in crude prices despite calls from the U.S. to pump more to help the global economy.

OPEC and non-OPEC allies, a group often referred to as OPEC+, decided at their first face-to-face gathering in Vienna since 2020 to reduce production by 2 million barrels per day from November.

Energy market participants had expected OPEC+, which includes Saudi Arabia and Russia, to impose output cuts of somewhere between 500,000 barrels and 2 million barrels.

The move represents a major reversal in production policy for the alliance, which slashed output by a record 10 million barrels per day in early 2020 when demand plummeted due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The oil cartel has since gradually unwound those record cuts, albeit with several OPEC+ countries struggling to fulfill their quotas.

Oil prices have fallen to roughly $80 a barrel from more than $120 in early June amid growing fears about the prospect of a global economic recession.

The production cut for November is an attempt to reverse this slide, despite repeated pressure from U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration for the group to pump more to lower fuel prices ahead of midterm elections next month.

White House ‘disappointed’

The White House said in a statement that Biden was “disappointed by the shortsighted decision by OPEC+ to cut production quotas while the global economy is dealing with the continued negative impact of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”

It said that Biden had directed the Department of Energy to release another 10 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve next month.

“In light of today’s action, the Biden Administration will also consult with Congress on additional tools and authorities to reduce OPEC’s control over energy prices,” the White House said.

The statement added that the OPEC+ announcement served as “a reminder of why it is so critical that the United States reduce its reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels.”

To be sure, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, is the chief driver of the climate emergency.

 

 

Why Did Russian Forces Retreat In Kharkiv And Kherson?

MoA  |  Neither the explanation of too few men, nor the explanation of too few MLRS systems or ammunition which may explain the Kharkov success hold up for the Kherson region.

During the summer Russian troops were pulled from the Kharkov region and send to the south to defend the Kherson regions. There are lots of Russian units in the area including many artillery systems. And while the Ukrainians have damaged some bridges that cross the Dnieper the Russian forces have enough ferry equipment to keep up the supplies. Most of the previous Ukrainian attacks were defeated rather easily.

I thus find it hard to explain the current situation.

My current 'feel' is that the Russian forces have orders from high above to conserve forces and to let go of land and retreat when the pressure becomes big enough and severe Russian casualty numbers are likely.

Why were such orders given? What are the plans behind them?

I don't really know.But I am sure will find out when Russia opens the new phase of the war.

The weather has become quite bad in Ukraine with rain making the passing over fields with tanks etc nearly impossible. That is why the attack in the south was pushed along a road. In two month the ground in Ukraine will likely be frozen.

The Russian military leadership seems to believe that the Ukrainian operations will cease soon and that the mobilized reinforcements that are starting to come online will be able to decisively change the picture as soon as the winter comes.

Another potential reason behind the order to conserve forces and to not hold onto territory at any price may be political. The Russian public was starting to get a bit tired of the war but after the losses in the Kharkov region the TV pundits pushed for winning the war. That allowed Russia's president to launch the mobilization of reservists. The further losses since may be designed to allow for more political measures.

The law that will allow for the four regions to return to Russia after a hundred years of being part of Ukraine today passed the upper house of Russia's parliament:

According to the documents, the DPR and the LPR will retain their status as republics after joining Russia and Russian will be their official language. The Kherson and Zaporozhye regions will also join Russia as constituent entities and will continue to be called "regions." The borders of the republics and regions will be the same as those that "existed on the day of their creation and accession into Russia." International accords specify that their borders with other countries will be regarded as Russia’s state borders. At the same time, under the constitutional laws, the DPR and the LPR are joining Russia under the 2014 borders enshrined in their constitutions.

President Putin will now have to sign the new law to enact it. The heads of the DPR and LPR have already signed laws ratifying treaties on joining Russia.

With the laws enacted the Special Military Operation will become a war to prevent attacks on Russian grounds and to retake the parts of Russia that are currently under Ukrainian occupation.

I expect that the gloves which Russia was still wearing during recent operations will come off.

According To Unnamed Sources - Since 2014- Russia Has Spent $300Million To Influence Elections

unz  |  Russian President Vladimir Putin has certainly been a naughty boy! The always unreliable and unofficial government-originating disinformation source The Hill is reporting that Moscow has spent the equivalent of $300,000,000 in an effort to “influence” world politics in its favor. The story relies on and follows a New York Times special report which again seeks to revive the claim that the Kremlin has been interfering effectively in American elections. Is it a coincidence that all the Russian bashing is surfacing right now before US elections at a time when the President Joe Biden Administration is agonizing over what it describes as sometimes “foreign supported” domestic extremists? I don’t think so.

The Hill report establishes the framework, claiming that “Russia has provided at least $300 million to political parties and political leaders since 2014 in a covert attempt to influence foreign politics, the US State Department alleges. Multiple news outlets reported that a cable released by the State Department reveals that Russia has likely spent at least hundreds of millions more on parties and officials who are sympathetic to Russia… According to the Associated Press… Russia used front organizations to send money to preferred causes or politicians. The organizations include think tanks in Europe and state-owned entities in Central America, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. State Department spokesman Ned Price said in a press briefing on Tuesday that Russia’s election meddling is an ‘assault on sovereignty… It is an effort to chip away at the ability of people around the world to choose the government that they see best fit to represent them, to represent their interests, to represent their values.’”

And why is Russia behaving as it allegedly does? According to another State Department source who spoke to The Hill the Joe Biden Administration’s concern is not regarding any single country but the entire world as “we continue to face challenges against democratic societies.” Oddly enough, that Russia should be disinclined to waste its money and other resources on such a quixotic objective never appears to have occurred to the Department of State or to the editors at The Hill.

Typically, the State Department has shared information with select media but has refused to publicly release any parts of the cable which allegedly provide the intelligence-based evidence supporting the claims of Russian meddling. The Hill, perhaps inadvertently, reveals what the whole story really is about when it concludes its piece with “Intelligence assessments have determined that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in spreading disinformation online that was designed to help then-candidate Donald Trump over his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Russia also tried to help Trump in his reelection battle against President Biden in 2020.” So yes, it’s all about Moscow helping Trump against the Democratic candidates. Interestingly, however, most non-Democratic Party aligned sources have come to agree that it was the Democrats who were trying to damage Trump in 2016 through use of a fabricated dossier that sought to impugn his character and portray him as a Russian stooge. Far worse, they also used the national security apparatus to “get Trump.”

There Are No Uncertainties Concerning The Outcome Of The War On The Ground

Reality is that a tiny allied force of perhaps 200,000 (personnel from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Chechnya and Russia) with only the Russians being particularly well equipped, has inflicted acknowledged losses of over 100,000 on a NATO equivalent force of between 500 and 600 thousand, wiped out the military stockpiles not only of the Ukraine, but of NATO, and has captured and is holding about a third of Ukraine.

By adding Russian troops relieved from other posts by the mobilization, along with current equipment, Russia will be better positioned to limit Ukrainian incursions into already demilitarized areas and perform their important denazification and demilitarization missions without the concern of leaving previously liberated areas undefended against reincursion.

Liman had a population of 25,000. Smaller than many villages in the USA. Thanks to flight and evacuation it now has a population of around a tenth of that, and is being defended by the Krasnolimansky garrison of a few hundred who are succeeding in causing thousands or tens of thousands of reserves and combat forces from other areas to be transferred in to the region of Liman only to die in force. Liman is important to the Ukrainians only because its small garrison suggested that it could be overrun and it's politician claimed it would be captured. 

There is no reason to imagine that it is important to the allies or serves any strategic purpose. Look at a map. This is why, while undoubtedly grateful for the garrison's efforts, and their completely disproportionate impact on Ukrainian forces, the Russians have almost certainly ordered the garrison to withdraw (and perhaps evacuate remaining civilians who want to leave) if threatened with being overrun, after which any surviving Ukrainians can occupy the ruins - and Kiev can claim an enormous victory. It certainly not the first time, and probably will not be the last..."

PS The ascension of the liberated regions of Ukraine will only occur with ratification by all the government bodies, so, while it is practically inevitable, it will only be after that, probably in two to six weeks when, if the Ukraine has not already surrendered or at least withdrawn, Russia will deploy additional resources to the Ukraine. Until then it is likely that the Allies will simply continue to assist the Ukrainians in demilitarizing themselves through attrition by artillery.

A little more reality for you to consider:

1) This is the first war in the history of mankind where both sides have access to excellent satellite recon. Forget drones. They can be jammed, bidirectionally. Piloting commands can be jammed, imagery transmitted back can be jammed. Only the autonomous one-way drone going to a specific latitude/longitude mean anything, and they are usually not recon. They are suicide type.

2) Satellites come in types. At geosynchronous altitude of 23,000 miles you don't get much imagery. Recon satellites are lower in altitude and Keplerian element sets define their orbit, typically overhead at some locale for at most 15 minutes. They traverse the sky. They don't hang overhead. That is what geosynch does and those are for communications and even sometimes radar or eavesdropping, seldom if ever imagery with decent resolutions of square meters per pixel. So, those low altitude (call it 500 miles) passes are entirely predictable. You can inform troops to hide, or be sure to move afterwards.

3) 1 and 2 above means something important. There are no surprises. You cannot mass equipment or troops without being seen. The spacecraft are typically multi-spectral but even with that, it's a cloudy planet. The great pictures you see are one of 100s taken before clear sky was present. Also, those 15 minute passes . . . usually groups of 3. The first is 8 minutes maybe, then 15, then another 8, and then 12 hours pass before the next group of three. These spacecraft are usually polar type orbits with the planet rotating under them. That it why you don't have to maneuver. The desired location for imaging will be seen each day two times per day, though one group of three is usually dark. Babbling a bit but you wackos need to know this. THERE ARE NO SURPRISES.

4) The senior officers of both sides went to the same schools, in Russia. The past 8 years since 2014 some junior officers likely have gotten US and UK training, but the generals who took 25 years to reach their rank, they went to the MTI annexes of Russian civilian universities. This is just like US ROTC, where most officers come from. Academies do supply officers, and Russia has them, too, but most officers are from ROTC or these Military Training Institutes attached to civilian universities. Thus, the Russian and Ukrainian generals were classmates. They may have even kept in touch over the decades. They all learned the same tactics from Stalingrad. They all have the same satellite imagery. They all know the eventual outcome of what is going on.

5) This will also likely be the mechanism for the eventual military coup, that to some extent is the only possible outcome. No one will trust anyone in any agreements that might be signed, so a coup is almost certainly the only way it ends. The US and UK certainly are aware of this and have taken steps to keep Ukraine military senior personnel out of the relevant Kiev buildings, but . . . it doesn't matter. It's the only conceivable eventual end.

 

It Can Always Get Worse..., Now John Brennan's Ugly Mug Is Back On TeeVee Telling Lies...,

newyorker  |  When we first spoke, in early September, Goemans predicted a protracted conflict. None of the three main variables of war-termination theory—information, credible commitment, and domestic politics—had been resolved. Both sides still believed that they could win, and their distrust for each other was deepening by the day. As for domestic politics, Putin was exactly the sort of leader that Goemans had warned about. Despite his significant repressive apparatus, he did not have total control of the country. He kept calling the war a “special military operation” and delaying a mass mobilization, so as not to have to face domestic unrest. If he started losing, Goemans predicted, he would simply escalate.

And then, in the weeks after Goemans and I first spoke, events accelerated rapidly. Ukraine launched a remarkably successful counter-offensive, retaking large swaths of territory in the Kharkiv region and threatening to retake the occupied city of Kherson. Putin, as predicted, struck back, declaring a “partial mobilization” of troops and staging hasty “referendums” on joining the Russian Federation in the occupied territories. The partial mobilization was carried out in a chaotic fashion, and, as at the beginning of the war, caused tens of thousands of people to flee Russia. There were sporadic protests across the nation, and these threatened to grow in size. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces continued to advance in the east of their country.

In a terrifying blog post, Goemans’s former student Branislav Slantchev laid out a few potential scenarios. He believes that the Russian front in the Donbas is still in danger of imminent collapse. If this were to happen, Putin would need to escalate even further. This could take the form of more attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, but, if the goal is to stop Ukrainian advances, a likelier option would be a small tactical nuclear strike. Slantchev suggests that it would be under one kiloton—that is, about fifteen times smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It would nonetheless be devastating, and would almost certainly lead to an intense reaction from the West. Slantchev does not think that NATO would respond with nuclear strikes of its own, but it could, for example, destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet. This could lead to yet another round of escalation. In such a situation, the West may be tempted, finally, to retreat. Slantchev urged them not to. “This is it now,” he wrote. “This is for all the marbles.”

“Branislav is very worried,” Goemans told me, “and he is not a scaredy-cat.” Goemans was also worried, though his hypothetical time line was more extended. He believes that the new Russian reinforcements, however ill-trained and ill-equipped, and the onset of an early winter will pause the Ukrainian campaign and save the Russians, for the moment. “People think it’s going to be over quickly, but, unfortunately, war doesn’t work like that,” he said. But he also believes that Ukraine will resume its offensive in the spring, at which point the same dynamic and the same dangers will be back in play. “For a war to end,” Goemans said, “the minimum demands of at least one of the sides must change.” This is the first rule of war termination. And we have not yet reached a point where war aims have changed enough for a peace deal to be possible.

The theorists’ predictions for what would happen next depended, in part, on how they evaluated the variables. Would the Russian front in the Donbas really collapse, and, if so, how soon? If it did collapse, how much of the information about it would the Kremlin be able to control? These things were unpredictable, but one had to make predictions. Dan Reiter, for example, was slightly more sanguine than Goemans about Putin’s ability to sell a partial victory to the Russian people, because of his mastery of the Russian media. To Reiter, Putin was enough of a dictator that he would be able to back off.

Despite being the preëminent theorist of credible commitment, Reiter believes that the war could end short of an absolute outcome, such as the destruction of the Russian Federation. “You really don’t like to leave in place a country that is going to offer some kind of lingering threat,” he said. “However, sometimes that’s just the world you have to live in, because it’s just too costly to actually remove the threat completely.” He saw a future in which Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire and then gradually turned itself into a “military hedgehog,” a prickly country that no one would want to invade. “Medium-sized states can protect themselves even from very dangerous adversaries,” Reiter said. “Ukraine can make itself more defensible into the future, but it will look a lot different as a country and as a society than it did before the invasion.” It would look more like Israel, with high taxes, military spending, and lengthy mandatory military service. “But Ukraine is defensible,” Reiter said. “They’ve proven that.”

Goemans was feeling more worried. Once again, his thoughts took him to the First World War. In 1917, Germany, faced with no hope of victory, decided to gamble for resurrection. It unleashed its secret weapon, the U-boat, to conduct unlimited operations on the high seas. The risk of the strategy was that it would bring the United States into the war; the hope was that it would choke off Great Britain and lead to victory. This was a “high variance” strategy, in Goemans’s words, meaning that it could lead to a great reward or a great calamity. In the event, it did lead to the U.S. entering the war, and the defeat of Germany, and the Kaiser’s removal from power.

In this situation, the secret weapon is nuclear. And its use carries with it the risk, again, of even greater involvement in the war by the U.S. But it could also, at least temporarily, halt the advance of the Ukrainian Army. If used effectively, it could even bring about a victory. “People get very excited about the front collapsing,” Goemans said. “But for me it’s, like, ‘Ah-h-h!’ ” At that point, Putin would really be trapped.

For the moment, Goemans still believes that the nuclear option is unlikely. And he believes that Ukraine will win the war. But that will also take a long time, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.

Is Serial Failing Turd-Burgler David Petraeus Being Polished To Run For Office Or Sum'n?

guardian  |  The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.

Petraeus said that he had not spoken to national security adviser Jake Sullivan on the likely US response to nuclear escalation from Russia, which administration officials have said has been repeatedly communicated to Moscow.

He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

The warning comes days after Putin expressed views that many have interpreted as a threat of a larger war between Russia and the west.

Asked if the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine would bring America and Nato into the war, Petraeus said that it would not be a situation triggering the alliance’s Article 5, which calls for a collective defense. That is because Ukraine is not part of Nato – nonetheless, a “US and Nato response” would be in order, Petraeus said.

Petraeus acknowledged that the likelihood that radiation would extend to Nato countries under the Article 5 umbrella could perhaps be construed as an attack on a Nato member.

“Perhaps you can make that case,” he said. “The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response – it cannot go unanswered.”

Yet, Petraeus added, “You don’t want to, again, get into a nuclear escalation here. But you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way.”

Nonetheless, with pressure mounting on Putin after Ukrainian gains in the east of the country under last week’s annexation declaration and resistance to mobilization efforts within Russia mounting, Petraeus said Moscow’s leader was “desperate”.

“The battlefield reality he faces is, I think, irreversible,” he said. “No amount of shambolic mobilization, which is the only way to describe it; no amount of annexation; no amount of even veiled nuclear threats can actually get him out of this particular situation.

“At some point there’s going to have to be recognition of that. At some point there’s going to have to be some kind of beginning of negotiations, as [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy has said, will be the ultimate end.”

Thinking About Putin's Speech - THIS Right'Chere....,

Been thinking about Putin’s speech after having read it earlier. I swear that in one or two parts, he said something that gives context to this war. The outlines of the plan are long visible. 

1. Force Russia to take action to save the people of the Donbass
2. Have the entire west hit them with massive sanctions unprecedented in history
3. Seize all their off-shore wealth
4. Cause the Russian economy to implode
5. Have the locals topple Putin for Navalny or some other traitorous compradore
6. Move in and privatize & de-industrialize everything
7. Break up Russia into smaller countries
8. Exploited these and turn them against one another like Iraq. 

None of this is secret now but these were the broad outlines. But why? I had assumed that given a choice of Russia and China, that Russia would have seemed the easier target which when successful, would leave China ripe for the taking. After that, the rest of the world will have to fall in line for the west. 

But in his speech, Putin said this:‘And here it is important to recall that the West bailed itself out of its early 20th century challenges with World War I. Profits from World War II helped the United States finally overcome the Great Depression and become the largest economy in the world, and to impose on the planet the power of the dollar as a global reserve currency. And the 1980s crisis – things came to a head in the 1980s again – the West emerged from it unscathed largely by appropriating the inheritance and resources of the collapsed and defunct Soviet Union. That’s a fact.’

Putting it together, what if this is all of what this is all about?

Think of the 2008 crash which is supposed to have only cost $2 trillion (and the rest!). Think of the unholy amounts of Quantitative Easing that has been done since then to make the banks whole and profitable, to keep the FIRE sector safe. And then think of the massive amount of money that has been printed since the pandemic started. 

It is a veritable ocean of debt!

It cannot stay that way. In fact it is getting worse. It is not sustainable. 

So if Nuland and the Neocons could cause Russia to fall, wouldn’t all the untold wealth (~$77 Trillion) of that country not serve rather handsomely toward the goal of making some of this mountain of debt go away? Is all of WW-III about making western debt go away? A lot of already wealthy people would become even wealthier. This great pirate adventure would advance a lot of careers. 

No tin foil hat required tomake this hang together.

Refrain From Evil - Who God Bless - Let No Man Curse...,

gilbertdoctorow  |  The United States and Collective West are in open conflict with Russia for its insubordination, for its insistence on being itself and not following a diktat from anyone. The Collective West is intent on Russia’s destruction, its break-up into smaller units easier to control and colonize. The spoliation of Russia by the West at the time the country was flat on its back in the 1990s amounted to 1 trillion dollars.

Putin characterized the information war and lies propagated by the West about Russia as worthy of Goebbels, following the principle that the more outrageous is the lie, the more it is repeated, the greater the likelihood it will be believed and accepted.

The speech had very little content drawing on current events, aside from the referendums in the respective territories which have now become ‘subjects of the Russian Federation.’  He did mention the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines in one sentence, as the work of the ‘Anglo-Saxons,’ which in the context we may take to mean the United Kingdom. It will be interesting to see in the coming days whether Russian diplomats put forward this allegation in international forums like the United Nations.

As for the speaker, he was in top form. His delivery was self-assured and smooth. He looked radiant and in good health.

Judging by the faces of those who were repeatedly captured by the cameramen, the mood of the audience was predominantly, almost exclusively somber, similar to when Putin delivered his announcement on recognition of the sovereignty of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics in the days leading up to the 24 February launch of the ‘special military operation.’ I call out in particular Prime Minister Mishustin, chief of the presidential administration Kiriyenko, speaker of the Federation Council Matviyenko, Speaker of the State Duma Volodin, former president and head of the Security Council Medvedev, head of the Just Russia party Mironov, head of Foreign Intelligence Naryshkin, head of the foreign affairs committee of the Federation Council Kosachev, minister of foreign affairs Lavrov.  The weight and responsibility before history for the fate of the country at this critical time could be read on all these faces.

Curiously, the party leader of the Communists, Zyuganov, was not picked out by the cameras; presumably, he would have been in a more celebratory mood. And the only major Russian politician who surely would have smiled broadly, Zhirinovsky, has been dead now for six months. Oh, yes, there was on the dais one man who was clearly in very good spirits: the leader of the Donetsk Republic, Pushilin.

Where does the campaign in Ukraine go from here?  There was absolutely nothing in Putin’s speech to answer that question. The only mention of Kiev in this connection was his insistence that Russia stands ready to enter into negotiations on condition that the status of the four new ‘subjects’ of the Russian Federation not be discussed, since their fate was solved now once and for all.

For the world at large, Vladimir Putin has set out a broad and vastly damaging condemnation of the Collective West which no one can ignore. He has thrown down his gauntlet. 

From the beginning of the ‘special military operation’ there has been speculation among expert observers of all political stripes that Russia would never have dared to invade Ukraine had he not had the backing of China’s president Xi.  It was assumed by others that the stress of the war and of the sanctions imposed by the West has made Russia a junior partner of China, with all the loss of independence that implies.  However, I would maintain that with this speech the Russians have both the Chinese and the Indians by the tail, not the other way around.  There is no way that either of these great powers can walk away from Russia without losing all credibility in the Global South as champions of a multipolar world and challengers to the rapacious collective West.

Victoria Nuland Wasn't Kidding When She Said "Fuck The EU!"

globaltimes  |  Europe's energy issues are growing even bigger. The recent sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines has exposed how fragile European energy infrastructure security is. But even as the energy crisis deepens, Europe is still following Washington's hard line against Russia, disregarding the impact such a policy may have on itself.

On Wednesday, in response to the results of referenda on "joining Russia" in four Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen claimed that the European Union (EU) was proposing the eighth round of sanctions against Russia, including a price cap on Russian oil. This continues to jeopardize the hope for Europe to resolve its current energy problems.

It is an absolute tragedy for Europe that its dependence on Washington has grown to such an extent that it has to dance to US' tune regarding its Russian policy. EU countries have escalated their sanctions against Russia step by step. In the end, the EU and Russia will both suffer, but the needs of the US will be satisfied.

Europe's strategic autonomy and control over its economy have been substantially crippled by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and US' manipulation. Europe has fallen into confusion after losing its strategic autonomy, which is leading to the emergence of certain irrationality. The imprudent sanction decisions made by EU officials harm Europe itself, because some people and businesses have to leave the continent in the face of worsening crises.

When the military conflict between Moscow and Kiev broke out, many Europeans believed that it's them plus Americans against the Russians. But reality has proven them wrong: Europe is also a piece of meat on Washington's chopping block.

Europe's sufferings are worth thinking about by countries all over the world, especially some of the US allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region: When they blindly follow the US to consolidate its dominance in the world, who on earth will actually benefit?

These countries also need to see that while the European economy falls deeper into recession, Washington continues leeching onto it to rake it in from the disasters Europe is suffering from.

Mar-A-Lago: A Planned Transition From Rule Of Law Democracy To Fiat Oligarchy

“The gap between what the administration is claiming as their foreign policy objectives, and what it is actually willing to do, is a serious problem for American security, for Russia and beyond,” writes @KoriSchake. https://t.co/SX32lJKNgM

— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) September 26, 2022

Desperate ruling classes are now ideologically, economically, and institutionally primed to undergo this phase-shift. Public reaction will now only accelerate a process that has been going on for some time. Anyone naive enough to believe their person or monies safe in the United States has yet to realize that they dwell in the very eye of this storm.

The U.S. has gotten into the habit of abusing the rights of foreigners outside the rule of law e.g. , Guantanamo Bay for alleged terrorists, sanctions against citizens of other countries, bombing those countries - and so forth. Cutting and pasting these habits for use against U.S. citizens is a simple step. We have all witnessed it big time being used against anyone who steps out of line with the current “narrative du jour”.

NeoCons are the point of the spear. They are _not_ the spear itself.  Do you seriously believe that the NeoCons – all by themselves – could mount an effort which destroyed the middle-east,  attempted the subversion of China - and now the systematic dismemberment of Russia … all without a plan?

Without a broader team?

Not likely.

It’s a few thousand key people forcing some billions to their will.

It took decades to get all this work done, in the face of the other 7 billion people’s rage and opposition.

A few thousand people have planned for and managed to hang on to a perfectly untenable position with sheer nerve, audacity, and the malevolence of modern-day Divine Right of Kings.

Look what they have been willing to kill and destroy to hold on to their prerogatives!!!

It’s never a good idea to underestimate your adversary, and this talk of “incompetence” and “stupidity” is exhibit A of blithe self-delusion.

Let’s review a few facts:

a. They control the media. Lockstep. Same in the EU. Controlled - Lock - Stock - Barrel.
b. They control all the politicians. All across the Anglo-Zionist hegemony - Locked-down.
c. They control the money supply, and the flow of money and resources in order to keep the minions on their side.

You don’t get that level of control – all, and I mean every single key point of control – without a plan.

“The European energy war..one of the biggest economic policy errors in history”?!?!

Nah...,

That’s not an economic policy blunder, it’s a deliberate foreign policy decision dealing with energy.

Recognition Of Plebiscite Regions As Part Of The Russian Federation Is A Matter Of International Law

 

In regard to the international recognition of the incorporation of the plebiscite - three issues are relevant.

1. Russia is a federation of states and incorporation is amenable under the Russian Federation constitution.
   
2. Annexation of territory since WWII is prohibited absolutely under international law. Although not apparently under the law of the United States as in United States v. Huckabee (1872). The Russian Federation constituted its action in Ukraine as a 'Special Military Operation' and did not declare war on Ukraine precisely for this reason under international law and for the political objective of incorporating the ethnic Russian oblasts democratically within the Russian Federation. Putin is NOT Hitler and the Russian Federation is NOT Nazi Germany under international law (contra the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland by Nazi Germany by military conquest).
3. The recognition under international law of the plebiscite oblasts as constituent parts of the Russian Federation can and will proceed under the principle of cession where Ukraine either by treaty or waiver over a period of time gives up its sovereignty claims to the oblasts. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States provides that a stateshould possess a defined territory. So it will be a question of time or treaty.

The legal recognition of the plebiscite oblasts under international law will be effected over time if the fascists in Kiev refuse to recognize the de facto loss of territory by the international law principle of prescription. Prescription is activated by occupation, and refers to the acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection from other states.

If the strutting little penis piano player in Kiev maintains his defiance of reality, time and the facts of occupation - along with the NON-OBJECTION of states - will effect the legality under international law. 

The brilliant action of the Russian Federation and Putin will be vindicated under international law. 

With the exercise of the democratic will of the good and brave people of the ethnic Russian oblasts - it is all over.